(Article) The Sad State of Religion

[TheVrolok]

Bullshit. He plainly said *these* things are good so I'll give religion credit for those, but with *these other things* (which were bad but also done in the name of religion) I'll baselessly assert that the perpetrators weren't "True™ Believers" so religion can't be blamed.

I understand your logical argument, and I don't entirely disagree, but I can understand the position from which the other poster is coming. If, I, an agnostic/atheist were to pick up a Bible, grab 5 of my friends, and head off slaughtering people while shouting scripture, would that be a violent rampage of religion, or simply something done in the name of religion? I do not at all disagree that many bad things have come of improperly followed religion (As DrP pointed out), but it's just not that simple. Take the violence being carried out in Afghanistan/Iraq in the name of Freedom, Democracy, et al. Does this violence mean that Freedom/Democracy are belief systems which inherently bring about bad things? Of course not. There have been many beliefs that have driven people to violence, but it doesn't mean that beliefs themselves are to blame.

 

[TheVrolok]

I'm failing to see how any of the supplied context significantly alters the meaning of the selected statement which was quoted.

Well, in the original quotation the Pope is describing the way in which Western culture views itself. In the altered quotation, the Pope is describing the way in which he sees it. That is a slight, but pretty foundational difference.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I understand your logical argument, and I don't entirely disagree, but I can understand the position from which the other poster is coming. If, I, an agnostic/atheist were to pick up a Bible, grab 5 of my friends, and head off slaughtering people while shouting scripture, would that be a violent rampage of religion, or simply something done in the name of religion? I do not at all disagree that many bad things have come of improperly followed religion (As DrP pointed out), but it's just not that simple. Take the violence being carried out in Afghanistan/Iraq in the name of Freedom, Democracy, et al. Does this violence mean that Freedom/Democracy are belief systems which inherently bring about bad things? Of course not. There have been many beliefs that have driven people to violence, but it doesn't mean that beliefs themselves are to blame.

And if a bunch of people erect a hospital and simply put a cross on the front, automatically religion gets credit for it? The point is that it cuts both ways, but Malak (and you?) would not or could not see that.

 

[TheVrolok]

And if a bunch of people erect a hospital and simply put a cross on the front, automatically religion gets credit for it? The point is that it cuts both ways, but Malak (and you?) would not or could not see that.

No, religion gets credit for hospitals because the first hospitals were religious temples and the first doctors/nurses were religious practitioners. It has nothing to do with point of view, it's recorded history. Obviously NOW hospitals are, by in large, secular organizations - but they began as religious centers in most cultures. That's just the root of medicine - when little about the natural world was understood, religion was created to explain/understand and medicine was, at first, an extension of religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, in the original quotation the Pope is describing the way in which Western culture views itself. In the altered quotation, the Pope is describing the way in which he sees it. That is a slight, but pretty foundational difference.

I don't get that meaning from the original citation at all. The author of the article clearly wasn't attempting to demonstrate that no such evidence exists, so it is unreasonable to presume that the author intended his audience to conclude as much from the words he cited from the Pope.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

...and there was much rejoicing...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, religion gets credit for hospitals because the first hospitals were religious temples and the first doctors/nurses were religious practitioners. It has nothing to do with point of view, it's recorded history. Obviously NOW hospitals are, by in large, secular organizations - but they began as religious centers in most cultures. That's just the root of medicine - when little about the natural world was understood, religion was created to explain/understand and medicine was, at first, an extension of religion.

That's all well and good, but it is at best tangential to my point, and at worst totally irrelevant. You're still just saying that SOME really OLD hospitals were religious, so religion gets credit, but you're still just going to ignore all the religious wars for no good reason except that it's uncomfortable otherwise.

Do you know what a No True Scotsman fallacy is?

 

[TheVrolok]

That's all well and good, but it is at best tangential to my point, and at worst totally irrelevant. You're still just saying that SOME really OLD hospitals were religious, so religion gets credit, but you're still just going to ignore all the religious wars for no good reason except that it's uncomfortable otherwise.

Do you know what a No True Scotsman fallacy is?

It's not saying SOME really OLD hospitals. The fact is, the first hospitals were religious centers. Period. Hospitals were first created because of religion, I don't see why you're even arguing that? It's history. As far as the religious wars, I've addressed them. Religion IN AND OF ITSELF is not at the heart of those wars; as described religion preaches peace and non-violence (for the most part, I'd really rather not get into a discussion about Sharia law here because we, for the most part, are discussing Christianity or so it seems). If you want to attribute the violence caused in religious wars to religion, then I suppose you must attribute the violence currently caused in Iraq to freedom. Again, I understand what you're saying, and I think it's a valid argument to say that immense amounts of violence has been carried out in the name/guise of religion .. but really, what does it come down to? My <religion/country/dick> is bigger/better than yours.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Link

As much as I participate in ATOT religion threads, I rarely, if ever start one. I read this article and thought I'd post it to the forum. I was actually pretty surprised at some of the numbers it cited. On the religion forums I visit the evangelicals have often touted their ascending population. Particularly interesting was the way non-Christians ranked Evangelicals. :awe:

There is usually a surge of activity right before the final death throes.

 

[Ns1]

n/m, pointless

 

[DangerAardvark]

All this, yet Evangelicals have an iron grip on the testicles of one of the two major political parties in this country. No wonder independent voters are growing at record rates.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

All this, yet Evangelicals have an iron grip on the testicles of one of the two major political parties in this country. No wonder independent voters are growing at record rates.

I assume you mean the Republican party. If that were true, why did the Republicans nominate McCain? To the best of my knowledge, he's not an evangelical.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's not saying SOME really OLD hospitals. The fact is, the first hospitals were religious centers. Period. Hospitals were first created because of religion, I don't see why you're even arguing that? It's history.

Please, show me where I have disputed this fact. That you think that this is a point in contention only demonstrates how ineptly you have apprehended my argument.

As far as the religious wars, I've addressed them. Religion IN AND OF ITSELF is not at the heart of those wars;

Right. 🙄 And no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

as described religion preaches peace and non-violence (for the most part, I'd really rather not get into a discussion about Sharia law here because we, for the most part, are discussing Christianity or so it seems). If you want to attribute the violence caused in religious wars to religion, then I suppose you must attribute the violence currently caused in Iraq to freedom.

You're going to have to unpack that analogy, genius, because I'm just not seeing it.

Again, I understand what you're saying,

No, I really don't think you do.

and I think it's a valid argument to say that immense amounts of violence has been carried out in the name/guise of religion .. but really, what does it come down to? My <religion/country/dick> is bigger/better than yours.

Religious people build hospitals. Religious people conducted wars. In the first instance we can say that their religion is creditable, but in the 2nd we won't... because... why? Because of the way YOU interpret a particular religion? No TRUE believer would carry out a war? What do you want to bet that a great many of the same religious people developing hospitals were also the same religious people carrying out the wars? How do you not see this plain double standard you have?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Cerpin Taxt:

Every person, religious or non-religious, is flawed in some way or another. I don't theink that any reasonable person would dispute that.

What exactly is your point?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt:

Every person, religious or non-religious, is flawed in some way or another.

By what standard? Upon what basis can you claim that standard as an objective measure?

I don't theink that any reasonable person would dispute that.

Buddy, I'm just getting warmed up.

What exactly is your point?

On which subject? The point of my most recent post should be obvious. Religions do good things and religions do bad things. Some people want to dismiss the bad things without good reason, exhibiting a plain double-standard, which in the end is dishonest.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

By what standard? Upon what basis can you claim that standard as an objective measure?

Buddy, I'm just getting warmed up.

On which subject? The point of my most recent post should be obvious. Religions do good things and religions do bad things. Some people want to dismiss the bad things without good reason, exhibiting a plain double-standard, which in the end is dishonest.

Okay, I'm not sure "religions" do bad things, but people that have religious views certainly do. That's not really any great surprise.

 

[Sea Moose]

Good Riddance

While this may be bad news to the power hungry church, it is good news for humanity.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Good Riddance

While this may be bad news to the power hungry church, it is good news for humanity.

I'm missing the point of this. After the reformation, technological advancement spiked.

As Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, once put it: "There are two books laid before us to study; to prevent us falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Okay, I'm not sure "religions" do bad things, but people that have religious views certainly do. That's not really any great surprise.

If "religions" don't do bad things, only people that have religious views do, then "religions" don't do good things, either. Only people that have religious views do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, that's my point.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

If "religions" don't do bad things, only people that have religious views do, then "religions" don't do good things, either. Only people that have religious views do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, that's my point.

Religions don't do anything, people do. Religious people do good/bad things, non-religious people do good/bad things.

Hoepfully, peoples religious views lead them to do more good things than they ordinarily would.

 

[sandorski]

Religions don't do anything, people do. Religious people do good/bad things, non-religious people do good/bad things.

Hoepfully, peoples religious views lead them to do more good things than they ordinarily would.

Which just proves the ultimate uselessness of Religion. People will do what People will do regardless.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Religions don't do anything, people do. Religious people do good/bad things, non-religious people do good/bad things.

Hoepfully, peoples religious views lead them to do more good things than they ordinarily would.

I prefer this quote:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Religions don't do anything, people do. Religious people do good/bad things, non-religious people do good/bad things.

Guns don't kill people, people do!

Hoepfully, peoples religious views lead them to do more good things than they ordinarily would.

Frankly, if you're doing something good just because someone told you to, you have a long, long way to go.

 

[Sea Moose]

Guns don't kill people, people do!

Wish they would control religion like they do guns

 

[TheVrolok]

Religious people build hospitals. Religious people conducted wars. In the first instance we can say that their religion is creditable, but in the 2nd we won't... because... why? Because of the way YOU interpret a particular religion? No TRUE believer would carry out a war? What do you want to bet that a great many of the same religious people developing hospitals were also the same religious people carrying out the wars? How do you not see this plain double standard you have?

Because religion taught to take care of one another, to help the sick - thus, hospitals. Religion did not teach to build an army and go murder many innocent people. When I speak of religion I mean what about would consider "the word." There are bad things religion has also taught (all kinds of intolerance), but holy wars is a bad point of contention.