Religion is stupid

But why would a God or Gods NEED glory for his creation doing good? Is the God of the Christian religion an egomaniac? Does he need constant praise and thankfulness from ALL of his creations? Why? Don't you think that a God or Gods would be thankful that their creations were treating each other with respect and compassion, more than he would be thankful for them saying thank you to him/her afterward? It's just not logical to me at all, I can't wrap my head around a God or Gods requiring that much attention for themselves when it could be used helping their fellow man. Why would a God or Gods choose to spend eternity with a a brown-nosing kiss-ass, instead of someone who was just doing good for goodness sake? What kind of God would that be if he/she did?

I actually have thought at length about it, but it always leads me to the same questions. And I still can't resolve it.

But this is one of my problems with religion, I just can't resolve it and they all seem so contradictory not only to themselves, but to other religions as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would you donate one of your kidneys to save the life of a murderer that killed an innocent person that you loved and loved you back, a very dear person to your heart, that was not punished by our judicial system? Doctors have warned you that you might not be able to work after this, and may not be able to financially support your family, let alone survive the operation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know, I can't even fathom it because it's not really reality based. It's so far fetched that I can't really come to a valid decision on it. There are simply too many possibilities to really form a decision.

But I do operate on a the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one philosophy because I would make the choice that would bring about the least amount of suffering. I also would know that I am not the only match that this person might have and he may find another match the next hour. Given that I am the only monetary support my children have, the needs of the many (my family) would outweigh the needs of the one(one man). But, his crime would not be a factor in that decision because I could never know for sure that he was the one who killed my loved one, since he's never been convicted of the crime... And I also have a problem with people sacrificing their own life for the life of another. Too many factors.

There are just too many variables in your hypothetical to come to a accurate decision either way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You would allow this man to die instead of offering your children up for adoption? Medical opinion states he will die without your donation. Your chances are much better at survival (having the operation). You may have to be on dialysis for the rest of your life.

 

What point are you trying to get to? Because your hypothetical sucks and has way too many factors still.

Am I supposed to sacrifice my life for the life of another one for one?

Still, the needs of the many (my children losing their mother and me losing my life, my parents losing a daughter because I support them as well) outweigh the needs of the one. Weighing the suffering on either side, my side would still have a heavier toll. I can not be responsible for all people, I can only make choices that cause the least amount of suffering.

And what does this have to do with religion at all?

I'm pretty sure you are way off topic. Theism vs. Atheism posts are around the corner to the left.

 

In a hypothetical world, this scenario happens, the man is saved and without a criminal record he dedicates his life to service to others. Come to find out he was horribly abused from day one of his life, but through the benevolence of your acts he rises above his circumstances. He becomes a powerful politician and through his leadership creates laws and an environment in this country that virtually cuts domestic abuse in this country in half.

Because man is burdened with the illusion of control and judgment, religion is not stupid to me.

 

What does any of that have to do with religion?

 

What part of it doesn't?

 

The entire hypothetical scenario.

 

There is nothing mentioned about religion there. How would religion guide my decision there one way or another? Don't be obtuse, spell it out for me how YOUR religion would have made me make a better decision so that I can actually deabte something instead of creating a fantasy world in which you are always right no matter how I answer.

 

Well, and that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The thread does not ask about my religion, it is inconsequential. In my scenario you do a benevolent act towards another and the needs of the many are fulfilled by one's sacrifice. Why does this not agree with your moral code?

 

What if the murderer was actually your son, and he was defending himself against, err..., a bad person? Would that change your decision? I believe religion teaches that doing the right thing is the right thing no matter what your personal needs are.

 

The thread title should give you some clue that the topic of discussion is the stupidity or otherwise of RELIGION.

You're assuming that it doesn't agree with my moral code - which shows that you at least know the word.
The entire scenario is a MORAL decision - which is why I stated that it has nothing at all to do with religion.

 

Create as many facile hypotheticals as you wish - they have nothing to do with the thread subject.

 

It is the highest state of all the stupidities. To achieve oneness with stupidity it is only necessary to give up your logic & reason. This can be accomplished with faithful acceptance of religious doctrine.

 

please state your definition of religion so I can consider how to answer you.

 

Not my definition but the dictionary definition.

 

The definition you provided mentions: principles, values and beliefs.
what definition do you have for morals? I am not being smart, I am actually surprised that your definition did not include the word "moral"

 

It does mention beliefs, values and morals - but you missed the qualifier.