🇳🇱
@freemo religion seems to only serve as a dynamic collection of excuses.
@cobratbq I think religion has real value and wisdom. And just like any wise useful principles they are completely ignored by their followers and instead used selectively to justify idiocy.
@freemo I tried to find usefulness, but I just don't see it. Can you give me an example that religion contributes (positively) that cannot originate from a good person with a capacity for thought? (I.e. where religion is a significant factor.)
To clarify: I know someone who is seriously religious, but he is also smart. The sensible moments for religion can easily be explained by this person's intelligence.
Can you tell me an idea that comes from a good person who is an atheist that could not come from a religiously minded person?
Your premise is flawed. I said religions have wisdom, I never said religions have wisdom that is exclusive to religion and unable to be formed by other routes.
Does poetry stop having value just because people can take away different things? Is it any less capable of delivering beauty?
@freemo this is a red herring. People are judged, attacked, murdered based off religion. Religion itself pretends to prescribe how to live your life and what your morals should be. Yet we rely on individuals overriding prescription, especially on morals. ("Selectively override", if you subscribe to said religion.)
A quote like "I respect you too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs." already says something about surpassing usefulness. It doesn't work if the beliefs are right but minimal.
@cobratbq people have judged, attacked, and murdered based off whatever shitty excuses they could come up with. Religion is no more special than any other ideal when it comes to murder.
@freemo sure, actually there's two sides to this: one is how religion also contributes to wars with some of the "wisdom" present within, moreso than for example poetry. Two, is that we now discuss a negative motivated by religion itself, yet we don't have the positive contributions that are present among followers.
Regardless, my intuition tells me we digressed quite far from the original topic. Also, I don't know shit about poetry.
religion doesnt contribute to wars from the "wisdom" imo... tht requires a human interpritation, and not from the religion. Just as the good comes from human interpritation... Religion, as any source of wisdom, is a tool. That tool and wise words can be twisted to any means youd like.
Its like poetry, one can say it inspires love, and romance, and compassion and all sorts of good things. But one can interprit those same words to mean bad things too.
Back to the original post: the actual argument most intellectually consistent religious folks make is that atheists cannot *justify* their morality. **Not** that they cannot act in a moral way without God/the threat of hell/something else.
In fact, if we take the Christian ethos, the crux is that nobody can merit salvation (including Christians) hence "being a good person" by human standards is insufficient to merit divine intercession on our behalf. Hence why salvation is called grace, or unmerited favor, and is a free gift that need only be accepted. Additionally, most people don't argue that atheists are incapable of behaving in a moral way by human standards, as we believe that God's moral law is written on the hearts/minds of everyone (the conscience) and serves as the way by which we can know right from wrong, thus, can obey or violate the moral law by making decisions based on our innate knowledge of it.
Additionally, (again, from the Christian perspective), it is not that we attempt to "be good people to avoid hell", it is that we understand that we *deserve* hell (as all have fallen short of the glory of God), and that because of Christ's sacrifice for us that we love Him, and it is our love for Him that drives us to keep his commandments. This is actually a critical distinction, particularly in my own life and faith, and within the Bible as well.
Finally, the justification point: either morality is objective or it is not.
If it is objective, it does not change over time: that is "thou shalt not murder" is universal for all people of all times, regardless of culture or other complicating factors. Then the question becomes, "what is the source of this immaterial, unchanging source of moral truth"? This, in many people's view, points to God since many people have such a strong sense of the moral and immoral.
If morality is subjective, it is necessarily unjustifiable, as the changing whims of society, the ruling class, etc can then dictate what is and is not moral at any given time. Definitions of murder can vary, for example. Thus, the atheist is faced with the conundrum of being unable to condemn or affirm any given behavior as moral or immoral, only that they think it's moral or immoral (or really it boils down to: I like that vs I don't like that). This follows, because if we're being logically consistent in a morally subjective universe, the conclusion is that there is no morality from which we can reference, thus everyone can behave as they want.
Of course, there are arguments for group-constructed/consensus morality, but these are fundamentally subjective as well, as they will vary as the group does.
Oh, weird, lemme send you this video, this is how I've usually heard the argument. You can also include William Lane Craig, Red Pen Logic, and a bunch of other theologians.
@freemo hmmm.. I get what/why you're countering, but I'm not sure if we agree on what I'm asking.
Religion should serve as a guiding factor (at the least) right? But if everyone takes away something different, i.e. there is no commonly acknowledged/supported wisdom, then it's even weaker than a ("V-for-Vendetta"-esque) idea. For example, the idea of "the 99% vs the 1%" performs better at this point.