Will we survive religion?

[BobCatholic]

No reason at all – and I never said that was how it should go.

But if I recall correctly, that’s what this thread is all about. We must push a doctrine of relativism on all religions - force them to accept relativism as truth, since none of them have the truth.

That’s why I asked that question. As there is no reason to accept relativism as truth (it is not even logical to do so!) if one is not a relativist, then why should the world religions do so? The answer is “they don’t”

So therefore, stick a fork in it. This thread’s done.

 

[Mirdath]

Suicide is good.

According to Wikipedia, this was mostly a form of blood libel against them and there is little evidence to support the belief that they practiced it for anything less than terminal illness or pain. Which isn’t in accordance with your beliefs anyway, but it hardly makes monsters of them.

Abandonment of the wife by the husband (and vice versa) is desirable.

Only sometimes, and only for those becoming members of the ‘inner circle’ or Perfecti. They already preached the beneficence of chastity even within marriage. Additionally the terminology used in the article is ‘separation’, not ‘abandonment’. Plenty of Catholic marriages go on in separation until an annulment is granted.

Concubinage is preferable to marriage.

They weren’t alone in thinking that either, but for different reasons. Marriage is a contract, and they were opposed to all contracts between humans for moral reasons.

Making children is bad.

If you believed that physical reality was inherently evil, would you want to bring more people into it to experience the shame and despair of existence?

Taking of oaths was forbidden. This means no promises, vows, or anything like that. So when they signed contracts, they just said “this is forbidden” and under their doctrine dissolved contracts at whim.

They did not give oaths in the first place.

Yup. This was all good for society.

I fail to see how it’s all bad, it’s just different from how you think it should be.

But if I recall correctly, that’s what this thread is all about. We must push a doctrine of relativism on all religions - force them to accept relativism as truth, since none of them have the truth.

No, we must accept that different people have different ideas about how the Truth is to be reached and respect those differences even if we do not agree with their views. It’s not relativism to do so, it’s granting them basic human dignity.

 

[BobCatholic]

They weren’t alone in thinking that either, but for different reasons. Marriage is a contract, and they were opposed to all contracts between humans for moral reasons.

Right.

So can one have a society without any agreements, contracts and vows?

Yes or no?

Let’s see. You want to go to the grocery store to get food. Unfortunately, the grocer wasn’t able to make a deal with his supplier who was in this sect that didn’t believe in contracts. So no food.

If you believed that physical reality was inherently evil, would you want to bring more people into it to experience the shame and despair of existence?

Well, you seem to defend Peter Singer’s dehumanization of infants, so I’m not surprised you have a problem

I fail to see how it’s all bad, it’s just different from how you think it should be.

I’m sure it would be bad when you can’t get food for your family because the grocer couldn’t make a contract with his supplier, or other things as well. If one cannot make a deal or even keep a promise, society breaks down.

Remember, we are very dependent on others keeping their promises. When you have a bunch of people who believe they don’t have to keep any promises, those who depended on those promises get hurt, and that is harmful.

No, we must accept that different people have different ideas about how the Truth is to be reached and respect those differences even if we do not agree with their views. It’s not relativism to do so, it’s granting them basic human dignity.

No, it is not granting them basic human dignity to say a lie is the truth. It is not basic human dignity to say “you are permitted to do evil”

The truth is the truth. What you are preaching is religious indifferentism, the philosophical and theological precursor to relativism.

 

[Mirdath]

So can one have a society without any agreements, contracts and vows?

Yes or no?

Let’s see. You want to go to the grocery store to get food. Unfortunately, the grocer wasn’t able to make a deal with his supplier who was in this sect that didn’t believe in contracts. So no food.

An ideal communist system would in fact develop so. However, that’s an ideal and it doesn’t work for very long in practice. Still, they seem to have been making a pretty good run of it. Nor is it explicity ‘evil’.

Well, you seem to defend Peter Singer’s dehumanization of infants, so I’m not surprised you have a problem

Irrelevant ad-hominem. They believed that the world was an evil place and that bringing more people into this evil would be sinful.

I’m sure it would be bad when you can’t get food for your family because the grocer couldn’t make a contract with his supplier, or other things as well. If one cannot make a deal or even keep a promise, society breaks down.

Remember, we are very dependent on others keeping their promises. When you have a bunch of people who believe they don’t have to keep any promises, those who depended on those promises get hurt, and that is harmful.

With the Cathars you had a bunch of people who made no promises in the first place. No promises made, none broken. And they were by most accounts charitable and holy people.

No, it is not granting them basic human dignity to say a lie is the truth. It is not basic human dignity to say “you are permitted to do evil”

Will you please read what I’ve said without spinning it to suit your desires? I said nothing about permission to do evil. I said merely to respect their different ideas, not to agree with them. They too are striving for truth in their own way, and while the means may be less than unimpeachable, it is to a good end. Keep in mind that from a certain point of view you Catholics commit ritual cannibalism every week! Respect their striving for the truth; you don’t have to agree with them at all to do that.

The truth is the truth. What you are preaching is religious indifferentism, the philosophical and theological precursor to relativism.

I believe society in general should practice absolute indifferentism – and as a non-theist, I kind of have to myself. People have a right to believe what they want to as long as it does not infringe on others’ rights. I can believe the moon is made out of cheese if I want to, or that the world is flat, and I would be perfectly within my rights to shout it loud and clear. I could even believe that babies are made of silly putty – but that doesn’t mean I can toss them off skyscrapers to see them bounce.

 

[nby]

That is not a valid argument to support the theory that we are infinite beings. I am assuming that by “boundary of our understanding” you are talking about our knowledge of how the universe works. The fact that we, as finite beings, have continued to increase this knowledge, does not mean we are infinite. Einstein has not increased his knowledge of how the universe works for several years now. Neither has Peter, Paul or Mary (both the originals and the folk group, one set because they are dead and the other set because they have chosen not look beyond the 60s).

I don’t know of any Christian, Jewish or Islamic teaching that says our bodies are infinite by nature. It is possible for the finite to sense the infinite but not to understand/comprehend it. I believe this is what some refer to as the ineffable mystery of God. As a finite being I can comprehend that there is something greater than my total understanding of everything. But I cannot comprhend what that something is. Not perfectly anyway. To paraphrase someone, if I could completely understand or comprehend God, I would be God.

I was not referring to the increasing amount of discoveries we have made but rather the rate at which we have been making discoveries. That rate has been increasing. Therefore, my argument is valid.

But who’s talking about perfect understanding? Even if we are infinite it would still take us to eternity until we understand God perfectly. However, is a perfect understanding required in order to understand someone or something? We don’t perfectly understand ourselves never mind trying to perfectly understand God. But this doesn’t mean that we don’t understand ourselves.

 

[nby]

That it doesn’t work as a deterrent to people who are blinded by faith is the reason it answers your question in the negative. Sorry if I wasn’t being too clear – I’d meant that the threat of nuclear armageddon is what kept the Cold War (mostly) cold, and that in this situation common sense would not prevail.

Blinded by faith? If you want to put it that way then we are all blinded by faith. Take for example your faith in matter. I am not an expert but I do know a few facts about matter. First of all, all the matter that you see is in fact 99.9% empty space. Only 0.1% of matter is actually matter in the form of atoms. Now, if we further zoom into matter, we begin to see that the atoms themselves are also 99.9% empty space, and only 0.1% of the atom is actually matter. It looks like the further we zoom into matter, the less we find of it.

What makes you think there is any matter in “matter”? Faith?

 

[nby]

Blinded by faith? If you want to put it that way then we are all blinded by faith. Take for example your faith in matter. I am not an expert but I do know a few facts about matter. First of all, all the matter that you see is in fact 99.9% empty space. Only 0.1% of matter is actually matter in the form of atoms. Now, if we further zoom into matter, we begin to see that the atoms themselves are also 99.9% empty space, and only 0.1% of the atom is actually matter. It looks like the further we zoom into matter, the less we find of it.

What makes you think there is any matter in “matter”? Faith?

A correction:

The percentage of actual matter in “matter” is around 3%, not 0.1%. This real matter exists as atoms. But atoms are 99.9% empty space. No mistake there.

 

[pira114]

That’s an interesting argument. On what do you base it?

Not sure what you are asking. If you want to know why I wouldn’t call you Jewish anymore, it’s because you don’t seem to believe that Jewish teachings (or any religious teachings) are true.

If you want to know why I think the muslim culture in the middle east will be destroyed, it’s because they are a violent, backward people with their very foundations in war.

If you want to know why I don’t consider them civilized, in addition to the above, it’s because I don’t consider a culture that desires to conquer, destroy, or enslave all who don’t believe what they believe to be civilized.

But everyone is getting away from the main point to this thread. My answer would be that can we survive without it?

 

[Valke2]

Not sure what you are asking. If you want to know why I wouldn’t call you Jewish anymore, it’s because you don’t seem to believe that Jewish teachings (or any religious teachings) are true.

The Jewish teachings are true for me, as I understand them, as a Conservative Jew. YOu’ll just have to trust me (or discount me) when I tell you that I am still Jewish. Judaism teaches that one does not have to be a Jew in order to be righteous and have a share in the world to come. I don’t see how my beliefs as stated here are not in line with Judaism.

 

[Valke2]

Using the example of Islam again, it is clear that faith plays a major role in aiding Muslim violence. One need only ask why so many muslims are willing to turn themselves into bombs.

The answer is because the Koran makes this behavior into a religious opportunity to increase one’s spiritual wealth in the next world:

The believers who stay at home…are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those that stay at home. God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him… He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God… The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies (4:95-101).

This is the reason. A religious belief that one is doing God’s work. If you were somehow able to remove the belief in martydom and jihad, then the terrorist actions of these suicide bombers becomes unexplainable, as does the public rejoicing that follows all of these acts. As Sam Harris has said… "Yes, the Koran seems to say something that can be construed as a prohibition against suicide - “Do not destroy yourselves” - but it leaves many loopholes large enough to fly a 767 through:

"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of GOd; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him… THe true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan… Say: “Trifiling are the pleasures of this life. THe hereafter is better for those who would keep from evil.” 4:74-78

We don’t need to have another round of “Is it because they are interpeting Koran wrong.” That’s irrelevant to the thread. THis is HOW they are interpeting Koran, and the actions are clearly an expression of religious beliefs.

 

[Mirdath]

Blinded by faith? If you want to put it that way then we are all blinded by faith. Take for example your faith in matter. I am not an expert but I do know a few facts about matter. First of all, all the matter that you see is in fact 99.9% empty space. Only 0.1% of matter is actually matter in the form of atoms. Now, if we further zoom into matter, we begin to see that the atoms themselves are also 99.9% empty space, and only 0.1% of the atom is actually matter. It looks like the further we zoom into matter, the less we find of it.

What makes you think there is any matter in “matter”? Faith?

The particulate content of matter has nothing to do with religiously-inspired apocalypse.

 

[PauloFreire2]

Yes, but only if we are prepared to once again fight for ours. We won’t, if we fail to muster the will. Man’s ‘survival’ of religion will not be secured by way our abandonment of Christianity, in order to set some sort of ‘example’. Christianity is not unconditional pacifism.

 

[PauloFreire2]

To survive religion we must struggle harder to Christianize the world. God wants humanity unified under Christ. Any Christian who disagrees is misguided, IMO. How can we say there is no salvation outside of the Church, and yet not want to evangelize to spread the Church?

 

[BobCatholic]

An ideal communist system would in fact develop so. However, that’s an ideal and it doesn’t work for very long in practice. Still, they seem to have been making a pretty good run of it. Nor is it explicity ‘evil’.

The ideal communist system can never last. Private property is a requirement of one of the commandments (how can there be a prohibition of theft if people can’t own anything?)

They believed that the world was an evil place and that bringing more people into this evil would be sinful.

So they propagate the culture of death.

With the Cathars you had a bunch of people who made no promises in the first place. No promises made, none broken. And they were by most accounts charitable and holy people.

Right.

No promises. No way to make business deals with them or no way to make sure they follow through with anything.

I believe society in general should practice absolute indifferentism

Well, no secular government practices indifferentism. Every secular government has a religion as their official state religion, even if it is atheism.

People have a right to believe what they want to as long as it does not infringe on others’ rights. .

But who declares who has rights or not?

An Islamonazi will claim he has the right to bomb innocent people. A KKK member will claim he has the right to lynch black people. A pro-abortion leftist will claim she has the right to slaughter the unborn. A culture of death “ethicist” claims he has the right to commit infanticide. None of these are acceptable and violate the rights of others, yet one of them (and maybe even two) are legal in the USA. Two of them are legal in Communist China. One of them is legal in Islamonazi dominated countries.

So where’s the standard? Secular society has none.

 

[Mirdath]

The ideal communist system can never last. Private property is a requirement of one of the commandments (how can there be a prohibition of theft if people can’t own anything?)

Taking communal food off the plates in front of people is still theft. You might do well to read up on the history of the early Church too – they sold all they had and practiced a communist lifestyle as well.

So they propagate the culture of death.

You mean ‘so they practice celibacy, which is not only moral but recommended by none other than St Paul himself’ ?

No promises. No way to make business deals with them or no way to make sure they follow through with anything.

And apparently they didn’t need those to get by.

Well, no secular government practices indifferentism. Every secular government has a religion as their official state religion, even if it is atheism.

At least technically, the United States does practice indifferentism.

But who declares who has rights or not?

So where’s the standard? Secular society has none.

Sure it does. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The men who wrote that statement did not all believe in the same form of God – some were Christians, some were Deists, some were Masons. They agreed that for the purposes of establishing an independent nation all people have rights. In the simplest form, therefore, any action someone undertakes which does not infringe upon those same rights of others is permissible. Any society which does not recognize those as basic human rights is, in my opinion, inherently flawed.

 

[Oneiron]

Let’s see their doctrines.

…
Making children is bad.
…

Yup. This was all good for society.

Is adoption really that bad?

 

[Oneiron]

To survive religion we must struggle harder to Christianize the world.

Why not just struggle harder to be more tolerant of other religions and to spread that message of love?

 

[BobCatholic]

Is adoption really that bad?

They don’t believe in adoption. If they did, they could make kids and adopt them out.

But they don’t even believe in making kids. They think that’s bad.

 

[BobCatholic]

You might do well to read up on the history of the early Church too – they sold all they had and practiced a communist lifestyle as well.

They practiced a communal lifestyle - based on voluntary self-sacrifice, not communist - which was forced sacrifice.

You mean ‘so they practice celibacy, which is not only moral but recommended by none other than St Paul himself’ ?

They didn’t practice celibacy. They believed concubinage was OK.

And apparently they didn’t need those to get by.

Society does.

At least technically, the United States does practice indifferentism.

Nope. The Church of Atheism is the official government religion.

Sure it does. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The men who wrote that statement did not all believe in the same form of God – some were Christians, some were Deists, some were Masons. They agreed that for the purposes of establishing an independent nation all people have rights. In the simplest form, therefore, any action someone undertakes which does not infringe upon those same rights of others is permissible. Any society which does not recognize those as basic human rights is, in my opinion, inherently flawed.

OK, let’s take a look closely, shall we?

So show me where abortion’s legality is in the constitution. That is based on an interpretation of the constitution - the authoritative interpretation of the constitution of the supreme court - which has reversed itself many times.
In fact, much of the law is based on an interpretation of the courts, who are all over the place! Some standard. This is relativism.

Abortion violates the 14th amendment (equal treatment under the law) by not allowing all humans to be treated equally (namely the unborn being denied their rights)

 

[Oneiron]

They don’t believe in adoption. If they did, they could make kids and adopt them out.

But they don’t even believe in making kids. They think that’s bad.

That’s celibacy, and once again the message is misconstrued when you read it. I never said they give kids up for adoption. But to keep their beliefs going, they’d have to adopt children instead of making their own. Is it really so bad to adopt a child that has nothing and who is living in a orphanage?