Not a member? Register now!
Announcements
Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (10/13/14 - 10/19/14).
Forum News: The nomination phase of the Community Awards 2014 is live! Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
New Reply
Page 42 of 72 FirstFirst ... 32 40 41 42 43 44 52 ... LastLast
Results 616 to 630 of 1068

Thread: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

  1. #616
    Registered User 英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member shaheer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Country
    Germany
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    i seriously think this is getting out of hands, i mean for real, i was pert enough to answer according to my knowledge limits till some time ago but its getting useless here.
    for one i doubt atheism or agnosticism is a religion and mostly what you guys are posting are opinions which the prior discussion points out you guys dont want to change. So its thread of religious QA you guys should name it sth abt falsifying the religion thread or sth. I mean so far i havent come across any question about islam so i seriously feel that its not serving the purpose at all.

  2. #617
    MH Senpai 英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member Roflkopt3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Country
    Germany
    Age
    23
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by shaheer View Post
    i seriously think this is getting out of hands, i mean for real, i was pert enough to answer according to my knowledge limits till some time ago but its getting useless here.
    for one i doubt atheism or agnosticism is a religion and mostly what you guys are posting are opinions which the prior discussion points out you guys dont want to change. So its thread of religious QA you guys should name it sth abt falsifying the religion thread or sth. I mean so far i havent come across any question about islam so i seriously feel that its not serving the purpose at all.
    Religious discussion always includes discussion about religion, and discussion about religion involves the question "religion yes or no". Atheism is the absence of religion, and that can be reasoned as well as why people do believe in religion.

  3. #618
    Hound of Shadow 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member benelori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Country
    Romania
    Age
    25
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,761
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by shaheer View Post
    i seriously think this is getting out of hands, i mean for real, i was pert enough to answer according to my knowledge limits till some time ago but its getting useless here.
    for one i doubt atheism or agnosticism is a religion and mostly what you guys are posting are opinions which the prior discussion points out you guys dont want to change. So its thread of religious QA you guys should name it sth abt falsifying the religion thread or sth. I mean so far i havent come across any question about islam so i seriously feel that its not serving the purpose at all.
    This is not just a QA thread you know...it's about religious discussions...which kinda involves everything from faith, to dogmas, interpretations etc...
    Questions about islam...well I'm sorry there aren't many, but if I'm interested in Islam, then I will just grab a book and read about it, sorry...

  4. #619
    Registered User 上級員 / Jyoukuuin / Sr. Member faintsmile1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Igirisu
    Country
    Casterly Rock
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Culture is an evolutionary strategy, and values must be judged by the consequences of the kind of behaviours they encourage.

    It doesn't matter wether the belief is religious or secular, and indeed, students of the history of religion often speak of the religious nature of secular thought. Nor is there a difference between religious and secular thinking at the neurophysiological level. I posted this to someone elses blog a while ago but the blog owner didn't find it relevant enough to post. It contains some material that might be relevant here.

    1.
    I think its worth asking what religious and secular ethics even mean in the first place, when students of religion cannot even define the religious and the secular as different categories that can be usefully applied across all cultures. (In a similar way, students of comparative philosophy have similar hermaneutic problems when they try to apply labels of culture-specific origin such as epistemology to other societies.) Secondly there exists the bigger problem that students of comparative religion such as Mircea Eliade have demonstrated the presence of mythological and 'religious' thinking within mainstream 'secular' thought such as Marxism, American patriotism and also Neitzsche's ideal of the Superman which has been interpreted as a justification of present action on its not-yet-present behalf. Indeed, it has also been said that all of modern secular politics represents socioeconomic messianism of some kind of another.

    In keeping with the observations that there is no objective difference between the religious and the secular, is that there exist no specific parts of the brain that have an exclusively 'religious' or 'secular' functioning. Indeed, there is evidence that the differences in brain structure that separate liberals from conservatives in an American context are of more importance than those separating religious and secular thought, although Conservatives are more likely to be religious.

    2.
    As for the rationality of atheistic or secular morality, we should be careful to remember that moral values are not components of phenomena themselves, but are merely products of the observers own cognition and therefore exist only in perception. Moral judgments therefore constitute mistaken attempts to describe the nature of phenomena, and there can be no moral knowledge because the word 'knowledge' implies an understanding of the actual nature of phenomena, rather than unsubstantiated perceptions of them. But in spite of the irrefutable logic of error theory, most atheists and other self proclaimed 'rationalists' are not meta-ethical nihilists. It is like people will refute illogic they don't like and then keep clinging to the rest.

    This observation actually relates to my first observation, because of course in Western bioethics there is an obsession with 'conciousness' and 'personhood' that can trace its origins to the Christian and especially Protestant ideal of the individual soul, so that the ideal of finding a point in human ontology when a fetus becomes a 'human being' based upon awareness is nothing more than a secular revaluation of the rationally refuted concept of quickening. Likewise most secularists are moral universalists, who support Enlightenment concepts such as human rights and merely disagree between themselves about the proper way to achieve a goal of universal suffrage, but this moral universalism is a part of their culture-specific Christian heritage.

    3.
    New Atheists like to claim that religion is a costly spandrel or a mind-virus (although they have to justify this position by resorting to selection bias). And politicised secularists actually make one-sided, moralistic arguments against the historical 'crimes' of religion so frequently, that their ridiculous claims that religion is purely costly and harmful (despite being so successful for centuries!) are obviously an example of the 'ought-is' or moralistic logical fallacy.

    But it is through morals that religion (and other ideologies) control people. What if the capacity for moral judgement itself is a useless and costly spandrel? Many of the 'crimes' that were perpetrated by organised religions or that were justified using religious arguments, were ultimately in the genetic self-interest of the perpetrator.

    We should remember that according to Satoshi Kanazawa, the secular left are more likely than the religious right to argue using the moralistic fallacy, as can be seen by their reliance upon accusations involving -isms and -phobias, as well as the leftist nature of the 'sociobiology wars' etc.

    4.
    We should also remember that to appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy, just as is appeal to tradition. And the widespread secular support for policies such as pro-choice and gay marriage is obviously based on the appeal of novelty, given how few of the average policy-supporters actually understand the issues in question. Far from being proof of secular rationality, the fact that certain political positions are so popular among secularists who haven't considered the issues actually confirms that the average secularist is a herd animal, who is either incapable of making his own decisions about social issues or is too spineless to go against the herd so he still follows it anyway, even if it takes him off the side of a cliff. In other words, secularists are vulnerable to the same forms of social control as the religious are.

    Although secular ethics are almost always universalist, I notice that secular types prefer to ignore inconvenient universals, such as the universality of some kind of family values, that all cultures associate womanhood with childbirth and childrearing, or that heterosexual marriage is universal whilst homosexual marriage is not. Of course conservative ethics are frequently nonsensical, but so are moralistic, secular statements such as "marriage is about love, not the family!" and "women do not exist simply to have babies", once one takes into account the implications of sociobiology for humans, or of functionalism in anthropology.

    Despite the efforts of secular humanists to dismiss matters of sex as socially irrelevant, the fact is that all cultures possess taboos and laws about sexual behaviour that universally support the heterosexual family. In ancient Greece homosexuality was widely practiced, tolerated and according to correct social context, encouraged. Yet these men were still expected to have heterosexual families, and homosexual marriage was unheard of. I shouldn't need to point out the biological explanation why heterosexuality alone was favoured in Greek marriage customs, or why some cultures have completely condemned and persecuted homosexuals with no ill-effect to the survival of the group at large, although no cultures have ever persecuted heterosexuals in the same way. Of course matters of sexual behaviour are not socially irrelevant, and anyone who thinks that they are, is extremely ignorant of anthropology.

    Another logical fallacy is the 'fallacists fallacy', which is the fallacy by which things are considered to be irrational because they have been rationalised. But humans always rationalise things, and all that matters is the usefulness of the rationalisation in promoting behaviour. As cultural beliefs are subject to natural selection, it is not the rationalisation itself but its outcomes that must be judged as rational, and religious taboos and preferences that are widely practiced across cultures and over centuries are therefore tried and tested as practical. In contrast to this vast body of accumulated practical experience, much of secular ethics comes accross as children throwing toys out of their pram.
    Last edited by faintsmile1992; December 24, 2011 at 03:13 AM.

  5. Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked this post
    Like 1 Member(s) likes this post
  6. #620
    Registered User 上級員 / Jyoukuuin / Sr. Member faintsmile1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Igirisu
    Country
    Casterly Rock
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Discuss this quote which demonstrates the nature of belief (here labelled as 'religion' because hesterton's Christian religion demands faith) as opposed to the nature of superstition, and reflects that religion can't be reduced to any one psychological impulse.

    "Sane peasants, healthy hunters, are all superstitious; they are superstitious because they are healthy and sane. They have a reasonable fear of the unknown; for superstition is only the creative side of agnosticism. The superstitious man sees quite plainly that the universe is a thing to be feared. The religious man maintains paradoxically that the universe is a thing to be trusted." - GK Chesterton

    ---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Roflkopt3r View Post
    That's why I prefer humanism about religious forms of it. It's based on respect to each other, non-violence, freedom of conscience and tolerance, so there is no risk of harming or despising each other out of weird ideologies.
    Stuff like marking all homosexuals as sinners for example is a clear seperation between the value of people and will lead to some kind of conflict sooner or later.
    Respect and tolerance ought *not* to be unconditional, because the personal conscience is just something that people make up as they go along, not something that ought to be treated as sacrosanct.

    Ultimately the people proclaiming ideologies that they claim are based upon respect and tolerance towards others as equals, are in reality motivated by feelings of resentment and by the self-interested Will to Power, just like everyone else.

    Secular humanism is just the sklavenmoral aspect of Christianity with a new, superficially rational mask, and is yet deeply irrational.
    Last edited by faintsmile1992; December 24, 2011 at 02:49 AM.

  7. #621
    Reviewer 有名人 / Yuumeijin / Celebrity segua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Country
    United States
    Age
    31
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by faintsmile1992 View Post
    Spoiler show
    I guess I would summarize this in people identifying with certain beliefs due to appeal and/or heritage rather than trying to fully understanding the beliefs i.e. origins, development and etc. All this is interesting as it began to point out how people try to define themselves in this heap of mumbo-jumbo as I would call it. This struggling seems to be caused by the efforts of a person trying to define or figure out who he is? But even through this struggling, we can't agree that the resulting human product might be beneficial or harmful to society.

    As far as culture is concern, I believe that a culture of a group of people didn't intend itself to be an evolutionary strategy but moreso the exhibited characteristics of a community as a whole. But, the importance of culture being strategic might come into play when there is an intentional goal such as world domination or survival. That is where self-identification at an individual level is crucial either to the success of a group of people or the demise of a group of people.


    Quote Originally Posted by dark lord View Post
    No, christianity is corrupt, I'll tell you why

    Song of songs in the bible endorses incest acts which is totally immoral.

    The bible gives people permission to kill non believers.

    There is no way this corrupt book could be the product of where morals came from in the first place.

    Some religions are totall nonesense and some of them don't give equal rights to humans.

    There is one last religion which rules by the absolute morality and law, and its called islam.
    Christians might be corrupt, but the Bible is not corrupt. You just don't understand it. And I find it strange that you should bash the Bible because I clearly recall the Quran/Mohammed stating that if a reader or believer (Moslem) does not understand, go back to the Scripture i.e. books of the Bible. Did not even Mohammed quote and reference to the Bible? I know he hated Jews and Christians for their hypocrisy, but Mohammed's take on the Books were different.

    Perhaps you also misunderstand the Quran too when you wrote about absolute morality and law. Perhaps you misunderstood the value that is in other religions. There is a universal teaching which is the Golden rule: do unto others what you would want done unto you. That is the basis of the law and teachings of most religions. You see, there has always been problems with absolute morality and law. They aren't fulfilling, people run into the dangers of becoming a hypocrite and pride and lastly, they were always abused by people. Since you are a person of the Book also, learn from the Jews and even Christians: don't let being a follow of God go to your head.

    The basis of the law and morality is love, and if you don't understand that, I'm afraid you missed it. It wasn't so much about the do's and don'ts. It was the application of the do's and don'ts in the context of love. If it's all about love, then it also should be about healthy and positive relationships. If it's about relationship, clearly God wants to establish a relationship with you. If you can't even get passed that, you missed the entire reason why God has been so merciful and is not God so very merciful?


    (Please read from right to left.)

  8. Like 1 Member(s) likes this post
  9. #622
    Registered User 上級員 / Jyoukuuin / Sr. Member faintsmile1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Igirisu
    Country
    Casterly Rock
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by segua View Post
    As far as culture is concern, I believe that a culture of a group of people didn't intend itself to be an evolutionary strategy but moreso the exhibited characteristics of a community as a whole. But, the importance of culture being strategic might come into play when there is an intentional goal such as world domination or survival. That is where self-identification at an individual level is crucial either to the success of a group of people or the demise of a group of people.
    Yes, Social Identity Theory has a biological basis.

    And if culture is an innate human universal it won't be a planned strategy, however it functions to promote the survival of the culture-bearers. Culture can be understood in the value neutral terms as the rest of human (and animal) behaviour.

  10. #623
    英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    My at home.
    Country
    Japan
    Age
    23
    Posts
    1,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by faintsmile1992 View Post
    Yes, Social Identity Theory has a biological basis.

    And if culture is an innate human universal it won't be a planned strategy, however it functions to promote the survival of the culture-bearers. Culture can be understood in the value neutral terms as the rest of human (and animal) behaviour.
    Culture is too wide and broad a concept to be reduced into a paragraph of 3 lines. Moreover, you should be careful not to trespass into the realm of heresy and conjectures for I doubt that a 19 or a even a 21 YO youth is capable of discerning cultural phenomena; we lack the intellectual qualifications to be discussing this in the first place. In addition to this, saying that Social Identity Theory has a biological basis is sort of a reduction, knowing that there is a whole fucking discipline for examining the intricacy of biological factors with social phenomena(Sociobiology).
    "[I]If you think I'm gonna sit here idly by and do nothing, then you're right, because that's what I do here.[/I]"

    Steven Hyde

  11. #624
    Registered User 上級員 / Jyoukuuin / Sr. Member faintsmile1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Igirisu
    Country
    Casterly Rock
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dark lord View Post
    Culture is too wide and broad a concept to be reduced into a paragraph of 3 lines.
    Its possible to define culture in a few lines, though I wasn't attempting to.

    cul·ture (klchr)
    n.
    1.
    a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
    b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
    c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
    d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.


    The first two definitions of culture can be studied as aspects of the fourth, which can be understood (as all animal behaviour can) in Darwinian terms, and its study can be compartmentalized according to the third definition.

    Quote Quote:
    Moreover, you should be careful not to trespass into the realm of heresy and conjectures for I doubt that a 19 or a even a 21 YO youth is capable of discerning cultural phenomena; we lack the intellectual qualifications to be discussing this in the first place.
    What've I said that's heresies and conjectures?

    Quote Quote:
    In addition to this, saying that Social Identity Theory has a biological basis is sort of a reduction, knowing that there is a whole fucking discipline for examining the intricacy of biological factors with social phenomena(Sociobiology).
    There's nothing wrong with reductionism, and there's a lot of evidence that SIT is accurate. If it is, then it has a neurological basis to it.

  12. #625
    Harasho 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Country
    Abu Dhabi
    Posts
    27,424
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by faintsmile1992 View Post
    Discuss this quote which demonstrates the nature of belief (here labelled as 'religion' because hesterton's Christian religion demands faith) as opposed to the nature of superstition, and reflects that religion can't be reduced to any one psychological impulse.

    "Sane peasants, healthy hunters, are all superstitious; they are superstitious because they are healthy and sane. They have a reasonable fear of the unknown; for superstition is only the creative side of agnosticism. The superstitious man sees quite plainly that the universe is a thing to be feared. The religious man maintains paradoxically that the universe is a thing to be trusted." - GK Chesterton

    ---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 AM ----------



    Respect and tolerance ought *not* to be unconditional, because the personal conscience is just something that people make up as they go along, not something that ought to be treated as sacrosanct.

    Ultimately the people proclaiming ideologies that they claim are based upon respect and tolerance towards others as equals, are in reality motivated by feelings of resentment and by the self-interested Will to Power, just like everyone else.

    Secular humanism is just the sklavenmoral aspect of Christianity with a new, superficially rational mask, and is yet deeply irrational.
    Complete and utter bullshit. Respect and tolerance are unconditional for the simple reason that most of us don't give a flying fuck what other people do in private, so long as no one is hurt and new diseases are not introduced to the human species (I draw the line at fucking animals and corpses). Want to worship a different god than me? I don't give a fuck, that's your business, not mine. Want to fuck a member of the same gender? I don't give a fuck, that's your business, not mine. Speak a different language than me? I don't give a fuck, can't help where you were born. Want to vote for a different political party? I don't give a fuck, your opinion, not mine. So get the fuck out with that resentment and will to power bullshit. In reality tolerance is driven by minding your own fucking business.

    That Chesterton quote is a steaming pile of horseshit too. Superstition and religion are not even roughly analogous. They do not even fulfill the same mental role. At the risk of sounding agnostic, religion centers around belief that there is a higher purpose to the world indiscernible to the human mind and beyond day to day experience. It is an attempt to grapple with the many unknowns unknown. Faith is the operative quality a religion asks of it's followers. And faith is a truly beautiful quality to have as daily life demands faith, even if we do not know it. In most sense religion and science are analogous as each is an attempt to explain the world. And those who believe that science does not demand faith surely have not studied astrophysics. To compare a subject as complex and thought provoking as religion to something as mundane as not spilling salt or walking under a ladder is ridiculous. And ignorant. Whether one believes or not, religion is an incredibly intellectual pursuit. Religious study, including revisionist religion (a fascinating subject) makes for excellent mental exercise. I recommend everyone read the Tao Te Ching and really spend some time trying to decipher it. A single sentence contains more wisdom than a library filled with Chesterton quotes.
    Last edited by Kaiten; January 29, 2012 at 03:21 PM.

  13. Like 1 Member(s) likes this post
  14. #626
    Registered User 上級員 / Jyoukuuin / Sr. Member faintsmile1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Igirisu
    Country
    Casterly Rock
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiten View Post
    Complete and utter bullshit. Respect and tolerance are unconditional for the simple reason that most of us don't give a flying fuck what other people do in private, so long as no one is hurt and new diseases are not introduced to the human species (I draw the line at fucking animals and corpses).
    Its not unconditional if you draw the line then is it? You'd still like a line drawn somewhere even if zoophiles and necrophiles loose out. If you can be against such peoples private sex, then I can be against gay sex, etc. Beyond concerns about diseases (but they can just use a condom), its all a value judgement that would displeases others if its put into practice, and tolerance would simply hold back the judging person from acting morally.

    Quote Quote:
    Want to worship a different god than me? I don't give a fuck, that's your business, not mine. Want to fuck a member of the same gender? I don't give a fuck, that's your business, not mine. Speak a different language than me? I don't give a fuck, can't help where you were born. Want to vote for a different political party? I don't give a fuck, your opinion, not mine. So get the fuck out with that resentment and will to power bullshit. In reality tolerance is driven by minding your own fucking business.
    And why is that good in itself? In theological terms its the sin of sloth, in Nietzschean terms its nihilism.

    Quote Quote:
    That Chesterton quote is a steaming pile of horseshit too. Superstition and religion are not even roughly analogous. They do not even fulfill the same mental role.
    Try reading the quote again, he's arguing that religion isn't the same thing as superstition.

    Quote Quote:
    And faith is a truly beautiful quality to have as daily life demands faith, even if we do not know it.
    How exactly does daily life demand faith?

  15. #627
    MH Senpai 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member M3J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    Vatican City State
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    33,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    The problem with this world, and religion, isn't that people think they're right, but idiots think they're right. With idiots, they'll attack your ideas and even you personally and claim their way is right and in most cases end up contradicting themselves.

    The major argument I see for Big Bang is this: it couldn't have just happened, something had to have created it. But then, what about god? I don't care how omniscient he is, he must have been created out of something if Big Bang needed to happen out of something. You cannot debunk Big Bang without debunking god because both cannot be explained as to how they came about without sounding illogical.

    One thing that kind of scares me is that religious people say they need faith to live and ask people like me how we can live when we don't believe in god. I don't need to be loved by a higherup who'll send me to hell for not blowing him, all I want to do is live my own way. I don't need someone else to tell me my purpose in life. Our purpose is as we make it, not what we think god makes it.

    Problem with tolerance is that people want others to see things their way. People want to think they're right, so they tend not to mind their own business and bully others into agreeing with them. As Kaiten so eloquently said, we can have tolerance if people mind their own "fucking" business, which majority won't do. Go up to a random stranger, ask him his religion, and then say you're an atheist if he's a theist. Chances are he'll say "why? god exists!" and might try to convince you to become religious or believe in god. Though, people sometimes might not mind their own business because they're truly curious as to how someone can live the way they do.
    Vote for koen for favorite senpai so koen is active again!

  16. Like 2 Member(s) likes this post
  17. #628
    Registered User 上級員 / Jyoukuuin / Sr. Member faintsmile1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Igirisu
    Country
    Casterly Rock
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    As a framework (not moral absolutes), religion is good for the individual and for the group, because it provides people with positive values and creates harmony by standards to live by. When people use faith as a crutch, however, its a sign of weakness. The benefits of religion are nothing to do with whether God exists, but the human behaviours it encourages.

  18. #629
    Corporate 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member blai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    {=IF(Overworked;Yes;No)} Yes
    Country
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,360
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Difference between religion and faith is immense. I have faith but I don't belong to a religious group as religion in my opinion restricts ones opinion in a field where imagination and belief is the foundation for ones faith.
    You're not paid to think;
    A mindless worker is a happy worker,
    so shut up and do your job.

  19. #630
    MH Senpai 伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member M3J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    Vatican City State
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    33,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by faintsmile1992 View Post
    As a framework (not moral absolutes), religion is good for the individual and for the group, because it provides people with positive values and creates harmony by standards to live by. When people use faith as a crutch, however, its a sign of weakness. The benefits of religion are nothing to do with whether God exists, but the human behaviours it encourages.
    Religion is only good as the person who practices it. Religions won't give people positive values if they don't want to practice any, and in some religions, there isn't always harmony. Like in Islam, there's honor killing. I dunno much, but I know that many women who "dishonor" their family get killed. I think in Hinduism, it supports widows lighting themselves on fire at their husband's funeral. There may be benefits to religion, but it's lost now because of god. People want to fight over god, for god, so it doesn't really encourage the best behavior. Some people will attack and murder others for their religious differences while others will resort to terrorism or terrorize on a personal level.

    Besides, isn't it culture that influences the human behavior? Though nowadays, it is hard to separate both as culture tends to be centered around religion.
    Vote for koen for favorite senpai so koen is active again!

  20. Like 1 Member(s) likes this post
New Reply
Page 42 of 72 FirstFirst ... 32 40 41 42 43 44 52 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts