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

[Musika]

Using an 'if' is one form of coyness. (If you think I'm doing that, say so.)

If I use the word "if", there is a good chance you have done it, hence my saying it.
Its usage is more aimed at indicating an effect arising from a cause. I could also use "because".

Since the 'if' premise is false, the rest of the statement matters not. Simple.

It's not.

Just look at your recent fall back on your assertions on who owns the responsibility of being sincere in a q & a format.

That is not my endeavor. My endeavor is to encourage rational, defensible discussion of objective things. I don't care which way it goes nearly as much as I care that it goes rationally.

Then you are not being as successful as you could be. Every time fallacies of argument and discussion are employed, whatever one tries to promote in the name of rational discussion is undermined. Note, this has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, its about methodology. While this is a sort of casual forum, so one can expect an element of ego jockeying from time to time, if the medium is overwhelmed by its relentless pursuit you inadvertently bring the subject of attitude to the discussion as the main focus.

It is not uncommon to see me defend some valid point made by a theist - just as it is not uncommon to see me challenge a poorly constructed atheist argument. (In fact, I challenged one right here in this thread - the crystal rubbing comparison - defending you, in fact. It wasn't until the argument was clarified that I was willing to grant it as valid.)

Now - I can't help the fact that there tends to an overlap between theist beliefs and irrational thinking* - at least here - by some of the more vocal contributors, but I certainly don't fault you for not seeing the nuance of my focus.

To sum: a topic can only advance through rational argument. By calling out irrationality, I am making way for advancement of the discussion.


*for the record, I don't think you're one of the irrational ones.

Ok, that's good to know.
Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

Every time fallacies of argument and discussion are employed, whatever one tries to promote in the name of rational discussion is undermined.

'Since you're a God-believer, you can't be taken seriously. Christians hate women. I don't want to live next door to a misogynist.'

That's what I'm promoting. Don't bother me with your ad hom or straw man fallacy nonsense. Just move ahead with the discussion please.


You might as well have said "Don't bother me about truth or lies, that's slowing down the discussion and I'm on a roll."

No Musika, you are wrong on this, and you know it.

 

[wegs]

Selflessness can't be the standard. Actions are more important anyway. Who is to say that religious actions don't make one feel good?

Should the standard be to do something that is kind but that makes you feel bad?

Of course "be kind" is subjective. Religion is nothing but subjective and yes it's also a "simple" concept but without being too cynical about it, would the world not be better off if more people focused on being kind (whatever that means to them) rather than on trying to decipher the Bible?

You can try to figure out who the bad guys are, the immoral, the evil or whatever or you can just spend more time trying to be kind. There is no downside to being kind and it's hard to prevaricate the message of kindness. With religion it's very easy to be anything but kind. It's easy to be judgmental, to start wars in the name of religion. It would be very hard to do all that in the name of kindness.

Yes, the world would be better off if everyone was kinder to one another. I don't know personally, any religious people who start wars, but who are rather very kind and generous souls. Same for some atheists that I know. But, I also know atheists and theists who are quite unkind. You're not hinting that you think religious people are incapable of being selflessly kind, are you? lol

 

[Seattle]

Yes, the world would be better off if everyone was kinder to one another. I don't know personally, any religious people who start wars, but who are rather very kind and generous souls. Same for some atheists that I know. But, I also know atheists and theists who are quite unkind. You're not hinting that you think religious people are incapable of being selflessly kind, are you? lol

No, of course not. I don't personally know the people who start wars either.

I'm just saying "being kind" is something everyone can do and it doesn't generally lead to intolerance.

The religious people I know in Seattle are mostly kind and tolerant. The religious people I know in North Carolina are a mixed bag.

 

[wegs]

If we’re honest, everyone shows kindness on any given day to someone. You or I may not see it, though. But, maybe we expect people to be kind to us and to others, at all times. The guy who cuts you off on the highway and nearly caused you to crash, seems unkind. But earlier that day, that same guy rescued a dog who was abandoned by his abusive neighbor. He didn’t turn a blind eye like all the other neighbors.

He was kind that day, just not to you. And we are all like that, on any given day. Works in progress.

 

[Seattle]

If we’re honest, everyone shows kindness on any given day to someone. You or I may not see it, though. But, maybe we expect people to be kind to us and to others, at all times. The guy who cuts you off on the highway and nearly caused you to crash, seems unkind. But earlier that day, that same guy rescued a dog who was abandoned by his abusive neighbor. He didn’t turn a blind eye like all the other neighbors.

He was kind that day, just not to you. And we are all like that, on any given day. Works in progress.

I wasn't really thinking of the concept of kindness as being kind to me and sure even Hitler probably cared about his dog.

I'm just thinking about all the people worried about building a wall, worrying about immigrants, "gays", someone who is "stealing our jobs", etc. As my mother always said when I was a child "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything".

If the focus is on being kind or just shutting up then you are either trying to help immigrants or at least doing no harm, for example.

 

[wegs]

I wasn't really thinking of the concept of kindness as being kind to me and sure even Hitler probably cared about his dog.

I'm just thinking about all the people worried about building a wall, worrying about immigrants, "gays", someone who is "stealing our jobs", etc. As my mother always said when I was a child "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything".

If the focus is on being kind or just shutting up then you are either trying to help immigrants or at least doing no harm, for example.

Gotcha, okay. I’m going to sleep but will ponder this and reply soon...

That’s weird you mentioned Hitler. I thought that too but didn’t want to post it lol

Does make you wonder why some people reserve their kindness for only those they deem worthy? That’s probably not kindness, at all.

 

[Seattle]

Gotcha, okay. I’m going to sleep but will ponder this and reply soon...

That’s weird you mentioned Hitler. I thought that too but didn’t want to post it lol

Does make you wonder why some people reserve their kindness for only those they deem worthy? That’s probably not kindness, at all.

I thought about not mentioning Hitler as that's supposed to be bad form for making any argument but I did it anyway as everyone gets the point.

Most/much kindness is very selective. Church groups go to Africa and other places as an act of kindness to help build a school, work on a water project, etc. but it's still a holiday/adventure for them and it's still (usually) to "spread the word of Christ".

If they were really "kind" they would not go on the trip, donate all that additional money directly to the cause and also leave out the "spreading of the word BS".

It's kind of like Hollywood parties where they spend a million dollars to raise $200,000. The $200,000 is a welcome contribution I'm sure but $1,200,000 would be "kinder".

That's why it's less selective (less judgmental) to either help everyone or to a least harm no one.

Instead of volunteering locally to help at a food kitchen but voting to eliminate funds for a local drug rehab project it would be better to do nothing. Less harm, more kindness.

Another way of saying "more kindness" might be to say "less judging" or "do not harm".

Politically there is always a lot of harm being done by those judging. Trying to help in Africa while preaching no birth control is doing more harm than good, for example.

 

[Capracus]

On the contrary, you use different varieties of philosophy to positively connect different varieties of things. You are just not accustomed to analyzing things in terms of epistemology.

Regardless of what methods are employed in the analysis, if there is not some empirically based elements involved, a positive assessment cannot be reached.

The same way as any other:
Identify the relationship between things, establish a process to accommodate or realize that relationship, and finally, qualify the process with criteria by which one can determine it's success (or failure), or establish what the goal of the said process is.

How can you identify a relationship to something that can’t be rationally identified? Without a rational identification of the divine subject, the remaining steps of your proposed methodology are pointless.

Yes.
Regardless whether one is actually in a position to perceive how it is tangible.
For instance an unexperienced driver may completely fail to understand that their car was taken to a mechanic and tuned up. The driver's ignorance in no way invalidates the mechanical service.

But there exists a real car that was serviced by a real mechanic, and if needed, a way to empirically investigate and prove that the service was indeed done.

Someone who establishes devotion to God in the greater community as opposed to the standard animalistic pursuits that society is otherwise engaged in.

Nonsense. Devotion to an imagined deity is in no way a rational justification for the existence of that imagined deity, or a connection to it. By your logic, since Flat Earthers are devoted to the notion of a flat Earth, they have unquestionably demonstrated a connection to an existing flat Earth.

But these services tend to be utilized exclusively by persons who are actually not in a position to empirically validate them.

But they do have access to the empiric evidence for validation if desired.

So an irrational observer would be like someone who busts into the pilots cockpit with a newly purchased handbook of "Flying for Dummies", as they unrealistically demand the empirical be laid out before their unqualified mind and senses, yes?

As if a rational observer couldn’t conclude that the plane they were in was indeed flying, and that the pilots of the plane did indeed exert obvious control over the behavior of the plane. I would say that most of the passenger on the plane would qualify as rational observers by this standard.

It is a poor example since courtrooms accept "expert findings" from the professionals. If a professional is not given the "expert" rubber stamp, their testimony is of no value. IOW your courtroom example is an elaborate begging of the question since the credentials of experts are already established by institutions outside the legal institution. Can you think of a better way to frame the question?

Because these professionals have been empirically qualified as experts. They all have empirical histories to demonstrate their qualifications. Where is the empirical history that can be researched to validate the claims of the religious authority?

On the contrary, the numerous caricatures produced by the atheist community suggests otherwise.

What do the caricatures by atheists have to do with a theist's inability to demonstrate a rational connection to a god?

 

[sideshowbob]

perhaps you might want to start with your position on how miracles pertaining to God are at the core of religious practice

I haven't said a word about "the core of religious practice". We're talking about what people believe. If you weren't aware that other people have beliefs as silly as yours but different, that's a reflection on you, not me.

It might be more intelligent to start with something pertaining to history and/or philosophy of religion rather than ask silly questions about pineapples and cars.

This isn't a contest to see who can be the most intelligent. I asked you what I asked you: What's the difference between those beliefs? If you don't know the answer, stop claiming that there's a difference.

 

[Goldtop]

On the contrary, practically every one is saying that

I haven't seen that myself, nor would I agree with whomever is saying it. While Empiricism is a very good way of discerning the world around us, there may be a better way, but no one as of yet has come up with another process or solution.

If you feel compelled to poke holes in it, feel free to do so, but please make sure your accusations are valid and that you could come up with at least something better. I'll await your solution to this conundrum.

Even if they give lip service and say that they aren't, several posts later they are back to saying the same thin

Fair enough, I think you may have some excellent ammunition for a thread if that were true. I'd be happy to participate in such a thread and most likely would be on your side of the debate, again, if what you say is true.

 

[wegs]

I thought about not mentioning Hitler as that's supposed to be bad form for making any argument but I did it anyway as everyone gets the point.

Most/much kindness is very selective. Church groups go to Africa and other places as an act of kindness to help build a school, work on a water project, etc. but it's still a holiday/adventure for them and it's still (usually) to "spread the word of Christ".

If they were really "kind" they would not go on the trip, donate all that additional money directly to the cause and also leave out the "spreading of the word BS".

To them, I'd assume it's not ''bs,'' and they are being true to their faith. True to their God. True to their ''calling,'' for want of a better word. The kindness comes through in all of that, perhaps? Is it all that kind to write a check and send it off? Doesn't take much effort, and in the end, we pat ourselves on the back because it made us feel good. There's nothing with feeling good after performing an act of kindness, but why would donating money be better than donating one's time? (although, doing both is ideal)

It's kind of like Hollywood parties where they spend a million dollars to raise $200,000. The $200,000 is a welcome contribution I'm sure but $1,200,000 would be "kinder".

Agree. Lol @ comparing a swanky party at the Kardashians to mission work

That's why it's less selective (less judgmental) to either help everyone or to a least harm no one.

Instead of volunteering locally to help at a food kitchen but voting to eliminate funds for a local drug rehab project it would be better to do nothing. Less harm, more kindness.

Another way of saying "more kindness" might be to say "less judging" or "do not harm".

Politically there is always a lot of harm being done by those judging. Trying to help in Africa while preaching no birth control is doing more harm than good, for example.

You seem to be judging, just differently than they judge. Maybe we all judge, at the end of the day, and we need to work on it.

 

[Seattle]

To them, I'd assume it's not ''bs,'' and they are being true to their faith. True to their God. True to their ''calling,'' for want of a better word. The kindness comes through in all of that, perhaps? Is it all that kind to write a check and send it off? Doesn't take much effort, and in the end, we pat ourselves on the back because it made us feel good. There's nothing with feeling good after performing an act of kindness, but why would donating money be better than donating one's time? (although, doing both is ideal)

Agree. Lol @ comparing a swanky party at the Kardashians to mission work

You seem to be judging, just differently than they judge. Maybe we all judge, at the end of the day, and we need to work on it.

Donating one's time is fine but the expense of flying to Africa to do a few days a menial tasks is really just a vacation. Writing a check that is larger by the size of the airfare and hotels is kinder.

I'm judging them for not being kind which was the initial topic.

 

[Jeeves]

I don't think it's necessary to consider all the possible ways that someone might interpret "be kind" in ways that have a negative effect, or unexpected effect, or some weird permutation where it turns into its opposite, in order to answer this ^ question.
"Religion" is such a big concept, with so many historical and cultural references alongside what it actually does for humankind, that it's impractical to put it next to a little simple phrase like "be kind", which is such a common, ordinary concept as to have no roots, no associations, no icons or frames of reference.
In fact, we can't answer the question, because these concepts are on different psychological planes.

 

[Seattle]

I don't think it's necessary to consider all the possible ways that someone might interpret "be kind" in ways that have a negative effect, or unexpected effect, or some weird permutation where it turns into its opposite, in order to answer this ^ question.
"Religion" is such a big concept, with so many historical and cultural references alongside what it actually does for humankind, that it's impractical to put it next to a little simple phrase like "be kind", which is such a common, ordinary concept as to have no roots, no associations, no icons or frames of reference.
In fact, we can't answer the question, because these concepts are on different psychological planes.

Sure you can, if you don't take the concept too literally. If you don't want to or choose to, that's another matter.

 

[Jeeves]

Sure you can, if you don't take the concept too literally.

Which one? And what is "too literally"? Either a word means something we understand well enough to use in communication, or it doesn't. If you make up your own definition, you can't expect other people to understand what you're saying.
My point was that there is no practical comparison, since they neither fill the same need nor exclude each other.

If you don't want to or choose to, that's another matter.

There was never a need to choose, because there is no reason you can't have both.
Of course, I have chosen, by default: I know of no harm done by kindness and i know of a great deal of harm done by religions.
And i don't have that hole in my psyche which needs to be stuffed full of god to stop hurting.
But i can imagine the experience of such a hole, and realize that just being kind doesn't fill it.

 

[iceaura]

When you hear people arguing about politics, if you mentally insert "be kind", it makes most of the arguments end/go away.

Nice planet you live on.

In any discipline of knowledge, having such an attitude grants dire results.

Why can't fundies write grammatical English on these forums?
It's as striking as the inveterate dishonesty, and less obvious in motive.

Meanwhile, we have for consideration several benefits of religion unavailable to those guided by "Be Kind" alone: a means for avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons; an organization of community power limiting the abuses common to an unopposed State (in several ways, including codifying the laws); a means of maintaining traditions and consistent social relations against the pressure of temporary enthusiasms or circumstances (thus avoiding the often underestimated costs of change itself).

 

[Hapsburg]

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

You have to keep in mind that religion is more than just belief. And religions don't necessarily concern themselves with moral questions. You cannot use Christianity as the benchmark for religion, since Christianity is actually a pretty atypical religion.

Religion is the intersection of worldview, ritual, and community. Most religions in the world and throughout history have been ethnic religions, so they serve a socializing function for a specific group of people, as a vehicle for rites of passage and other communal activity. Religion acts to contextualize cultural customs, ideals, rituals, and history for that people.

Now, is this significantly different from various other social institutions? I don't think so, but religion does not preclude those other social institutions, or conflicts with them. In some societies, it acts in concert with them, to provide structure.

 

[spidergoat]

You have to keep in mind that religion is more than just belief. And religions don't necessarily concern themselves with moral questions. You cannot use Christianity as the benchmark for religion, since Christianity is actually a pretty atypical religion.

Religion is the intersection of worldview, ritual, and community. Most religions in the world and throughout history have been ethnic religions, so they serve a socializing function for a specific group of people, as a vehicle for rites of passage and other communal activity. Religion acts to contextualize cultural customs, ideals, rituals, and history for that people.

Now, is this significantly different from various other social institutions? I don't think so, but religion does not preclude those other social institutions, or conflicts with them. In some societies, it acts in concert with them, to provide structure.

Ok, the Be Kind Club then. Meets every Tuesday to sing songs and raise money for food banks.

 

[davewhite04]

Ok, the Be Kind Club then. Meets every Tuesday to sing songs and raise money for food banks.

Like the Salvation Army.