A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

Well, that's all well and good. I see your happiness statement as sort of a blanket statement and I understand where you are coming from there. Now that I am on the other side I see things differently than you do. I can make a comparison between my happiness as a Christian and my happiness as an atheist. Know what? By and large there isn't much difference. Being religious had certain benefits regarding happiness and being atheist also has distinct benefits regarding happiness.
I have atheist friends and Christian friends and their happiness seems to have much more to do with other factors, as one might expect.
Also, the devil is in the details of the faith. When certain details fail to make sense, then more and more will unravel. If you are left with a general belief in god, then you are either deist or a general theist, but not Christian.

He wasn't saying atheists can't be happy or aren't happy, or even that religion is needed for happiness. Statistically, religious people are happier.

 

[moonbogg]

He wasn't saying atheists can't be happy or aren't happy, or even that religion is needed for happiness. Statistically, religious people are happier.

That can be true and not concern me. My concern regarding this topic is truth. I can invent a belief system that, if believed, could result in an increase in happiness, but that wouldn't make the belief true.
People use the utility of religion as an argument for the truth of religion and the two are not connected. If I had to choose, I'd rather be less happy and not know if there is a god, than to be happy with the glee of a fool believing in falsehoods.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well atheists like to say "religion caused the crusades and causes more harm than good" but I don't agree.

I really don't think they got more wrong than they got right. If they were wrong for so many thousands of years we'd be much worse off than we are right now. You're just nitpicking. I don't know why. I'm talking about fundamental pillars of society. Marriage, morals, caring for the sick, etc. I don't sweat the inconsistencies and just take away the main message.

How do you know we're not worse off? Maybe we'd be living for 200 years and all have jet packs if christians didn't censor science for hundreds of years because the bible was clearly wrong and they couldn't come to terms with it.

He wasn't saying atheists can't be happy or aren't happy, or even that religion is needed for happiness. Statistically, religious people are happier.

Cool stat. How does that make your supernatural god real? It is just an opiate for the masses.

 

[Retro Rob]

That can be true and not concern me. My concern regarding this topic is truth. I can invent a belief system that, if believed, could result in an increase in happiness, but that wouldn't make the belief true.
People use the utility of religion as an argument for the truth of religion and the two are not connected. If I had to choose, I'd rather be less happy and not know if there is a god, than to be happy with the glee of a fool believing in falsehoods.

Never said that makes religion true, because you're right, that doesn't. If I had to choose, I'd prefer to be happy and know there is a God. I believe I have both.

But you can most certainly live a full and happy life without religion. People do it all the time. Happiness, however, is tied to a person's outlook and not their current situation.

As long as you have a good outlook, you'll be happy.

 

[Retro Rob]

Cool stat. How does that make your supernatural god real? It is just an opiate for the masses.

I don't recall saying it makes God real. It doesn't, never will either. People can be happy believing in the FSM, doesn't make it real.

 

[moonbogg]

I don't recall saying it makes God real. It doesn't, never will either. People can be happy believing in the FSM, doesn't make it real.

Why was the happiness point brought up then? I didn't bring it up.

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't recall saying it makes God real. It doesn't, never will either. People can be happy believing in the FSM, doesn't make it real.

They can be happy as well. But would you want people who believe in the FSM (which we know is obviously not real) pushing their morals and affecting legislation based on what they believe the FSM wants them to do? Or would you rather a live and let live country where what you believe is not pushed onto other people via legislation?

That is what i want. Im fine with religious people as long as they leave it at the door. If you dont like abortion..fine..dont have one, but dont tell others its bad if they dont believe that, especially trying to change laws to force them not to. Stuff like that is what pisses people off.

 

[Retro Rob]

They can be happy as well. But would you want people who believe in the FSM (which we know is obviously not real) pushing their morals and affecting legislation based on what they believe the FSM wants them to do? Or would you rather a live and let live country where what you believe is not pushed onto other people via legislation?

That is what i want. Im fine with religious people as long as they leave it at the door. If you dont like abortion..fine..dont have one, but dont tell others its bad if they dont believe that, especially trying to change laws to force them not to. Stuff like that is what pisses people off.

True, and I agree religion cannot be legislated. But we need to be honest -- asking religious people to "leave it at the door" is like asking people to leave their upbringing "at the door"....religion not only shapes how people view the world, but it shapes who the person is -- it's not something you can turn on and off like a radio.

People oppose abortion, homosexuality etc on religious grounds a lot of the time, and it's unrealistic to ask them to make decisions apart from that.

 

[soulcougher73]

People oppose abortion, homosexuality etc on religious grounds a lot of the time, and it's unrealistic to ask them to make decisions apart from that.

I dont think it is. Just because you religion is against those things doesnt mean you should try to impose your beliefs onto other people. If you dont like abortion...dont have one. If you dont like homosexuality..dont be gay.

But leave others who do want those things the freedom to do so. I mean how would you feel if the rolls were flipped and hetrosexuals couldnt get married in the eyes of the law with same representation as gays? You being a hetro would be pretty pissed and want them to stop imposing their views upon you..or at least i would hope you would.

 

[Retro Rob]

I dont think it is. Just because you religion is against those things doesnt mean you should try to impose your beliefs onto other people. If you dont like abortion...dont have one. If you dont like homosexuality..dont be gay.

If a person is in a position of authority, you will have facets of his personality reflected in Governance. It happens all the time. In fact, more liberal lawmakers are eager to pass SSM laws because they have no personal objections to it. If people removed their personal views from law, we'd make no head-way as a country.

I think you're making an unreasonable request. You want a person to divorce his moral compass of right and wrong from lawmaking. That will simply NOT happen.

But leave others who do want those things the freedom to do so

You seem to want it both ways. You want people to "leave it at the door" when they oppose same-sex marriage, abortion, etc because that's what you endorse, but would you want a person to divorce his personal views if he was fully accepting of SSM and abortion?

I doubt it.

I mean how would you feel if the rolls were flipped and hetrosexuals couldnt get married in the eyes of the law with same representation as gays? You being a hetro would be pretty pissed and want them to stop imposing their views upon you..or at least i would hope you would.

Of course I would, but I understand that personal views shape lawmaking to a large degree. I simply wouldn't vote for people who are against hetero marriage because I am well-aware that they likely won't make laws in my favor.

 

[jhbball]

True, and I agree religion cannot be legislated. But we need to be honest -- asking religious people to "leave it at the door" is like asking people to leave their upbringing "at the door"....religion not only shapes how people view the world, but it shapes who the person is -- it's not something you can turn on and off like a radio.

People oppose abortion, homosexuality etc on religious grounds a lot of the time, and it's unrealistic to ask them to make decisions apart from that.

Why not just allow god to 'judge' these individuals. Isn't that his job?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think you're making an unreasonable request. You want a person to divorce his moral compass of right and wrong from lawmaking. That will simply NOT happen.

Do you think idolatry should be illegal?

 

[dphantom]

Do you think idolatry should be illegal?

While idolatry is wrong, I see no compelling reason for the State to intervene. The person engaging in idolatry harms no one but themself.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

While idolatry is wrong, I see no compelling reason for the State to intervene.

Well, that can't be true. According to Rob, it "simply will NOT happen" that a person could divorce his moral views from his views on public policy.

The person engaging in idolatry harms no one but themself.

But what if my children see persons engaging in idolatry on television, in public, or at school? Why should I have to put up with all those idolaters shoving their idolatry down my throat?

 

[dphantom]

Well, that can't be true. According to Rob, it "simply will NOT happen" that a person could divorce his moral views from his views on public policy.


But what if my children see persons engaging in idolatry on television, in public, or at school? Why should I have to put up with all those idolaters shoving their idolatry down my throat?

I can't speak for Rob.

For the second part, why should it matter. I see people do things I don't like everyday that "harms" me.

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you think idolatry should be illegal?

I think idolatry is wrong, but I feel no need to make it illegal. If the issue of whether or not idoatry should be legislated ever came up, you'd have legislation to ban it being pushed by those who personally think it's wrong.

Secondly, I was speaking about issues that hit a deep personal cord with religious lawmakers -- abortion and same-sex marriage.

Thirdly, your view of right and wrong regulates your entire lifestyle and influences decisions you make. This will natrually carry over, generally speaking, to how you create laws and legislate behavior.

Of course, some things that lay in "grey areas" can be decided upon apart from what one feels is right or wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think idolatry is wrong, but I feel no need to make it illegal. If the issue of whether or not idoatry should be legislated ever came up, you'd have legislation to ban it being pushed by those who personally think it's wrong.

So then you're able to divorce your moral compass from your beliefs about suitable legislation.

Secondly, I was speaking about issues that hit a deep personal cord with religious lawmakers -- abortion and same-sex marriage.

What difference does that make? Is SSM more wrong than idolatry?

Thirdly, your view of right and wrong regulates your entire lifestyle and influences decisions you make. This will natrually carry over, generally speaking, to how you create laws and legislate behavior.

Of course, some things that lay in "grey areas" can be decided upon apart from what one feels is right or wrong.

So when you said "it simply will NOT happen" were you not telling the truth or were you just wrong?

 

[Retro Rob]

So then you're able to divorce you're moral compass from your beliefs about suitable legislation.

I didn't say one couldn't, I said it won't happen as regards SSM and abortion, if I wasn't clear.

But it doesn't suprise me that you are, as usual, taking this to an irrational extreme to appear right.

What difference does that make? Is SSM more wrong than idolatry?

Depends on who you ask. To me as far as my religious beleifs are concerned, one isn't more "wrong" than the other.

Pay attention, Cerpin...no one's talking about idolatry, if you don't realize that.

So when you said "it simply will NOT happen" were you not telling the truth or were you just wrong?

Who is divorcing their personal beliefs about SSM and abortion from SSM and abortion?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I didn't say one couldn't, I said it won't happen as regards SSM and abortion, if I wasn't clear.

No, that isn't what you said.

But it doesn't suprise me that you are, as usual, taking this to an irrational extreme to appear right.

Please do explain how it is "an irrational extreme" to take your words at face value. I'm very interested in that.

Depends on who you ask.

Well no, it would seem that according to you everybody agrees that SSM is so much more wrong than idolatry that they could not divorce their moral views from the former whereas they could the latter.

To me as far as my religious beleifs are concerned, one isn't more "wrong" than the other.

Then why should we believe you when you claim that nobody would divorce their moral views from their views on the legality of SSM when you can do it for idolatry and you even hold them on equal moral footing?

Pay attention, Cerpin...no one's talking about idolatry, if you don't realize that.

It should be pretty obvious to everyone that I'm talking about idolatry. It is perplexing that this has appeared to confuse you.

Who is divorcing their personal beliefs about SSM and abortion from SSM and abortion?

We are discussing the laws about SSM and abortion, not SSM and abortion. My rebuttal to your claims pertain to the former, so it seems you are asking am irrelevant question.

 

[soulcougher73]

Then why should we believe you when you claim that nobody would divorce their moral views from their views on the legality of SSM when you can do it for idolatry and you even hold them on equal moral footing?

Game, set, match. And the winner is Cerpin by a large margin. Good game!

 

[Retro Rob]

Then why should we believe you when you claim that nobody would divorce their moral views from their views on the legality of SSM when you can do it for idolatry and you even hold them on equal moral footing?

I don't think I ever said no one "could" divorce their moral/personal veiws, I said our personalites are in the laws we make to a large degree. If you want to argue against that, please do.

You can keep this red-herring going all you want for your personal gratification, but my original point was that asking religious people to leave what shapes their lifestyles, opinions, personal views "at the door" is akin to asking one to leave his uppringing "at the door".

Focus on that, though it seems difficult for you to do so.

 

[Retro Rob]

Game, set, match. And the winner is Cerpin by a large margin. Good game!

Of course, when he sets up an obvious strawman and knocks it down. I wasn't talking about "idolatry", nor arguing if someone *could* divorce his moral compass.

This isn't the first time he's done this.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't think I ever said no one "could" divorce their moral/personal veiws, I said our personalites are in the laws we make to a large degree. If you want to argue against that, please do.

Here's what you said:

I think you're making an unreasonable request. You want a person to divorce his moral compass of right and wrong from lawmaking. That will simply NOT happen.

You want us to believe that something you are very easily able to do with respect to idolatry -- something you hold on equal moral footing with SSM -- "will simply NOT happen" with respect to SSM and abortion. The fact that you can so easily divorce your moral views from your views on laws pertaining to idolatry seriously calls into question the legitimacy of your earlier claim that it "will simply NOT happen" when it comes to SSM and abortion.

It isn't a straw man, and it isn't a red herring. It is a plain contradiction to your claim.

You can keep this red-herring going all you want for your personal gratification, but my original point was that asking religious people to leave what shapes their lifestyles, opinions, personal views "at the door" is akin to asking one to leave his uppringing "at the door".

So what? If they can do it for idolatry, why can't they do it for SSM and abortion?

 

[Retro Rob]

You want us to believe that something you are very easily able to do with respect to idolatry -- something you hold on equal moral footing with SSM -- "will simply NOT happen" with respect to SSM and abortion. The fact that you can so easily divorce your moral views from your views on laws pertaining to idolatry seriously calls into question the legitimacy of your earlier claim that it "will simply NOT happen" when it comes to SSM and abortion.

*Can* is not *won't* Taxt.

It isn't a straw man, and it isn't a red herring. It is a plain contradiction to your claim.

It is a strawman, as I didn't say one CANNOT, but WILL NOT.

So what? If they can do it for idolatry, why can't they do it for SSM and abortion?

I didn't say can't.

This is why you're winning this argument, because you're knocking down your own strawman.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think idolatry is wrong, but I feel no need to make it illegal.

Thirdly, your view of right and wrong regulates your entire lifestyle and influences decisions you make. This will natrually carry over, generally speaking, to how you create laws and legislate behavior.

You make the argument that idolatry is wrong, in approximately the same degree as SSM, but you think one should be legal and the other not. At the same time you make the argument that your views that SSM should be illegal is based on the same religious morals that the view against idolatry is based on. Yet you still ended up with different conclusions on SSM and idolatry. It makes your arguments seem hypocritical. Would you explain how you reconcile the two?

Of course, some things that lay in "grey areas" can be decided upon apart from what one feels is right or wrong.

I doubt we can say that idolatry falls into a grey area. The bible is quite clear on the subject.