What does religion do for mankind that the statement "Be kind" doesn't do better?

If you are looking for a religious equivalent to viagra that would explain why you are drawing up blanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A religious equivalent to Viagra would be a demonstrable prescription for getting it up in regards to actual communication with gods.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So any historical or prescriptive references, you dismiss?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The have to be presented and judged by a rational standard. Which ones did you have in mind?

 

It actually fails on a different level.
Jeeves said that you "either connect with God or you don't".
The connection itself is not a scale any more than the degree to which a light is on is a scale: it is either on or off.
The quality of that connection, sure, that might have degrees, like the brightness of the bulb, but you either have a connection or you don't, the light is either on or it is not.
Thus the analogy fails, as he is referring to the quality of any connection, not whether or not there is a connection.

That said, if one takes the reality or otherwise of God's existence out of the equation, such that "connection to God" is merely a subjective interpretation (accurately described or otherwise) then I can see how religion can help one develop that feeling, irrespective of whether it is accurately described as a "connection to God" or not.

 

You know perfectly well it doesn't work that way Musika.
I can't claim leprechauns objectively exist and then put the onus on you to prove it's a delusion.
The onus lies on me to first demonstrate objectively that I'm not just imagining things.

Likewise, this:

 

Well, you just systematically rejected the notion that humanity has ever connected with God .... so if you are systematically rejecting many thousands of years of philosophy and history, the q arises on what authority are you doing so.
IOW you are not talking of a piecemeal rejection of such things, but a wholesale rejection of them. So one would think that, in the mind of such a person, they would have vslid ideas for doing so. Hence my inquiry.

 

Well, since atheists seem to be habitually concerned about leprechauns, one could begin by looking for those persons who seriously advocate their existence, and see what they have to say.

 

Since there are plenty of leprechaun-believers amongst us, not only IRL, but right here in this forum, I'd say that's exactly what we've been doing.

In fact, there's surely a thread called "Evidence of the existence of leprechauns" wherein advocaters are invited to wax freely on it.

But what do we get?

"You're not asking the question right."

 

It adds "don't change the law without necessity". In religion, the law comes from God, and it is not the right of human beings to change it. This makes religious law quite fixed, and extremely hard to change. Change via reinterpretation happens, of course, but this is a quite difficult way and does not give much freedom.

Democracy has, instead, the full power to design whatever laws it likes, and the result is usually horrible. The horror starts with the pure amount of things which are regulated by law by the state.

So, even if archaic, religious law regulates much less than modern democratic law, and it is, moreover, static, the danger related with every session of a democratic parliament that another robbery of the population starts is not present. So, beyond a certain degeneration of democratic law, religious law becomes less evil (despite its archaic elements) and gives people more freedom (simply because there is less regulation).

 

And yet you keep answering in meaningless ways.

I can give you a long list of differences between driving a car and eating a pineapple, so the comparison is not apt.

 

No I'm bored with you.

 

So God gives His law, which is hard to change unless you think you need to.
Ans the law "Be kind" would not fulfill this purpose.

And the law "Be kind" would not mitigate the horrors of the state.

So

Stoning people is obviously more durable than being kind to them.

 

I'm afraid I gotta go with Musika on this one.

While it may be "obvious" to you et al the similarities between God and crystal-rubbing, the similarities need to be stated explicitly by you. The onus is not on Musika to debunk your assertion - because you haven't made one that's debunkable.

It would be like the first step in court being to have the accused list all the ways he's not guilty. No, the accusation of guilt must be made explicitly - first - otherwise there's nothing for the accused to defend.

Looked at another way: the null hypothesis of medicine essentially states that there is no connection between two things until and unless a connection is made.

You gotta make the connection.

 

I have stated that both crystal-rubbing and God have no demonstrable effects. That claim can be countered by demonstrating the effects of one or the other

In this context, the null hypothesis would be that unless an effect is demonstrated, there is no effect. No effects from either is the connection.

 

Ah. I see your point.

"No effect" - like a black hole - has no hair.
i.e. One "no effect" is indeed identical to another "no effect". There are no "flavours", no subtleties.

Carry on.

 

The law "be kind" could in principle fulfill this purpose too, it is essentially the non-aggression principle of the libertarian movement.

But, different from the non-aggression principle, it can be much easier misinterpreted. It is so vague that it cannot be reasonably used as a law.

Indeed, it would not. Be kind and follow all the laws written by the state would be the interpretation given by the state.

"Being kind" does not specify anything about the law. Do you plan to be kind to a murderer? Not? The problem of what to do with a murderer exists, and has to be solved by each society, and "being kind" does not solve it. Religious law solves it.

 

We give him the full protection of the law.

 

I have never heard the doctrine of kindness from a libertarian. Kindness is a good deal more positive than non-aggression.
Just as the "brother's keeper" and "good Samaritan" principles articulated by Jesus was a good deal more positive than the 10 commandments.

But it's not being compared to this non-aggression principle you've just introduced. It's being compared to religious doctrine.

How is that second sentence a consequence of "Be kind" Obedience is not kindness. State laws are based far more extensively on religious traditions than they are on the principles of kindness. The state does not interpret law: the legislation enacts law and the judicial branch applies it. If each of those steps were guided by the principle of kindness, I don't see how the "horrors" would even enter in.
Come to think of, how does that second sentence relate to anything?

No: it is a guiding principle.

Of course.

Oddly enough, the kinder the society, the fewer murders it has.
Of course, the word "murder" itself is a legal term; many kinds of killings that don't fit under it. A kind legal system would treat every case as unique, consider all factors and choose the least destructive way to respond.

In a way. Kill the blasphemers. Kill the witches. Kill the adulterers. Kill the robbers. Kill the preachers of other religions. Kill the wives and sons of enemy soldiers. Enslave and rape their daughters. I don't know as I'd call it a better way.

 

And that's precisely the point.