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

[Jeeves]

Religion might help you find it.

It was never lost.

It's meaningless when it doesn't come from the heart.

To you, perhaps. To the beneficiary, it's meaningful any way they can get what they need.

That applies whether it's done under threat or for advantage.

You mean, under threat from religion or for an advantage in community appreciation?
Either way, the beneficiary gets what they need and your ego is secondary.

Do I donate to charity to help others or for a tax write off?

That applies equally to church and secular charities.
Either way, the beneficiary gets what they need.

I can see how a religion might spring up from the worship of kindness.

And this is a problem, why? Religions have sprung up from the worship of much worse things.

 

[DaveC426913]

There are three things posted on this thread as possibilities - if anyone actually cares.

Well, I wasn't denying that; I even added one myself.

I was responding to Bowser, who somehow managed to turn not having to pay for the privilege of being kind into a sort of miserliness.

 

[Capracus]

You are just utilizing philosophy but choosing to call it something else. Making a whole out of parts, or taking a whole down to parts (or to put it even more simply, seeing the relationship between things) is the essence of the rumination process.

I don’t deny using philosophy, I just don’t refer to it as a method to positively connect to actual things. How does philosophy allow one to make a positive connection to actual divine beings?

Only when you are talking about empiricism, otherwise its bollocks
If you have ever taken your car to mechanic, accepted professional legaladvice, undergone a medical proceedure or caught a plane without requiring to bust into the cockpit to check that the pulot knows what they are doing, you are in staunch ageeement with the before-mentioned.

The examples of authority you cite above all produce tangible results. Cite an example of a religious authority that could provide an unquestionable connection to a supernatural deity.

Then your basis is unreasonable. Much like visiting a mechanic, lawyer, doctor or airport, you don't establish credibility with empiricism in this regard.

Like I mentioned above, these authorities you list do produce empirically valid results.

Demonstrate to who, exactly?

A rational observer.

Even in the case of law, reasonable doubt is determined by particular individuals.

Ideally the merit of particular case is decided on the quality of the evidence presented. How would you convince an objective judge that you have an actual connection to a specific deity?

But one can't help notice atheists who criticize theists for having a sky daddy, and in the same breath criticize God for not doing His half of the deal (at least, the duty they imagine a rightful God should possess) inadvertently reveal something about their own core beliefs about the relationship between God, the living entity and this world

Atheists realize that giving a god credit for anything, good or bad is folly, because the theists has no reasonable way of demonstrating the connection of a god to either.

 

[sideshowbob]

Justice (the premise for your "kindness") is one thing. The legal system is another. Ask anyone who works within 10ft of the legal system.

The premise was: It is better to give people the protection of the law than not to give them the protection of the law.

By analogy, a Kevlar vest may not always be effective but it is better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.

 

[sideshowbob]

Silly, isn't it?

Yes indeed, your example was silly. You have not shown that mine is.

 

[Musika]

Yes indeed, your example was silly. You have not shown that mine is.

Asking for the difference between two obviously disparate things is silly. If you want to take your question out of the realm of the silly, you will have to explain the similarity, as you see it. Otherwise the whole exercise just becomes an opportunity to ask further silly questions.
"So how long does it take to eat a car?"
"What if one made a miniature car too small for a pineapple"
... and so it goes on.

 

[Musika]

The premise was: It is better to give people the protection of the law than not to give them the protection of the law.

By analogy, a Kevlar vest may not always be effective but it is better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.

Depends entirely whether the system is simply being rorted to protect criminals. History is full of narrations where the contemporary law of the day was thoroughly rejected for the greater good or whatever .... Hence the slide of the slope.

 

[DaveC426913]

Asking for the difference between two obviously disparate things is silly.

Unless they're not disparate - say, when it comes to their efficacy in healing, or bestowing wealth, and prosperity.

You know perfectly well what he's asking. Why is it that God-believers are unable to just come out and say "there is a statistically significant degree of improved health and welfare directly correlated with praying - and here's the link to the researh paper" - or some such thing.

Why is manifestation of God as mysterious - even to God-believers - as ESP and ghosts?

You won't answer this directly. Because it has to be magical. And smoke and mirrors.

 

[Musika]

Unless they're not disparate - say, when it comes to their efficacy in healing, or bestowing wealth, and prosperity.

Because healing, bestowing wealth and prosperity are symptoms of the efficacy of a connection to God?
How do you figure that?

You know perfectly well what he's asking. Why is it that God-believers are unable to just come out and say "there is a statistically significant degree of improved health and welfare directly correlated with praying - and here's the link to the researh paper" - or some such thing.

Why is manifestation of God as mysterious - even to God-believers - as ESP and ghosts?

You won't answer this directly. Because it has to be magical. And smoke and mirrors.

So far it seems to be yet another exercise in silliness, courtesy of our resident atheists.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because healing, bestowing wealth and prosperity are symptoms of the efficacy of a connection to God?
How do you figure that?

I don't. But I'm open your offering of symptoms of a connection to God. That's kind of what SSB is asking.

So far it seems to be yet another exercise in silliness, courtesy of our resident atheists.

So, no response then. Noted. Chalk another one up for atheists.

There is really little point in you engaging, if, on any of the tough questions, you just holler 'silly' and then don't answer. If, as you've suggested elsewhere, God can only be discussed on the terms you set, then you're not discussing; you're preaching.

 

[Jeeves]

Has anyone noticed?
Kind people tend to give everyone, even cruel people, the benefit of a doubt and the protection of the law; go out of their way not to blame anyone unfairly.
Religious apologists tend to go out of their way to misrepresent and denigrate atheists; to blame them even for things they didn't say or do.
Why are the defenders of religion so frightened of those who disagree with them?
I do believe that's the one constant; the one thing religion does better by far than kindness: instill fear.

 

[Tiassa]

Has anyone noticed?

The problem with that steaming heap of fallacious excrement is that it advocates cruelty, and does nothing to guard against it because cruelty is its purpose.

The juxtaposition of kindness and religion as opposite, per your second and third paragraphs, is inappropriate. That kind of bigotry does nobody any good. Or maybe it does: Did you feel better for a few seconds for having said it? Was that worth it?

 

[sideshowbob]

Depends entirely whether the system is simply being rorted to protect criminals. History is full of narrations where the contemporary law of the day was thoroughly rejected for the greater good or whatever .... Hence the slide of the slope.

That's exactly why we have to set a high standard. Be kinder than we need to be.

 

[Jeeves]

The problem with that steaming heap of fallacious excrement is that it advocates cruelty, and does nothing to guard against it because cruelty is its purpose.

To which of the many heaps of fallacious excrement does this purely unbiased comment refer?

The juxtaposition of kindness and religion as opposite,

There was none such. The OP question invites comparison between what the injunction "Be kind" and religious dogma, respectively, offer mankind.
My comparison was between the advocates of these two guiding principles, as manifest on the forum (in specific reference to Musika's frequent attacks on atheists, but others' also, if the shoe fits) not the principles themselves.

That kind of bigotry does nobody any good.

Do you mean to deny that religion instills fear in people more effectively than kindness does?
If so, I would like some proof.

Did you feel better for a few seconds for having said it?

I never feel any differently before and after an observation i believe to be accurate.

Was that worth it?

I can afford a few seconds' wasted typing.

 

[sideshowbob]

Asking for the difference between two obviously disparate things is silly.

If it's obvious, you should be able to show the disparity. If you can't show the disparity, it isn't obvious.

If you want to take your question out of the realm of the silly, you will have to explain the similarity, as you see it.

Rubbing crystals and expecting miracles can not be demonstrated to work reliably. Praying to God and expecting miracles can not be demonstrated to work reliably. That's the similarity.

Now you. Show us the difference.

 

[Musika]

That's exactly why we have to set a high standard. Be kinder than we need to be.

Well let's hope you bring more to the party than the legal system.

 

[Musika]

If it's obvious, you should be able to show the disparity. If you can't show the disparity, it isn't obvious.

Rubbing crystals and expecting miracles can not be demonstrated to work reliably. Praying to God and expecting miracles can not be demonstrated to work reliably. That's the similarity.

Now you. Show us the difference.

You've lost me.
Rubbing crystals causes miracles?
You don't sometimes find yourself eating a pineapple when you to find your car, do you?

 

[Musika]

Has anyone noticed?
Kind people tend to give everyone, even cruel people, the benefit of a doubt and the protection of the law; go out of their way not to blame anyone unfairly.
Religious apologists tend to go out of their way to misrepresent and denigrate atheists; to blame them even for things they didn't say or do.
Why are the defenders of religion so frightened of those who disagree with them?
I do believe that's the one constant; the one thing religion does better by far than kindness: instill fear.

Reads like an onion article.

 

[Jeeves]

Reads like an onion article.

Truth is where you find it.

 

[DaveC426913]

You've lost me.

Rubbing crystals and expecting miracles can not be demonstrated to work reliably. Praying to God and expecting miracles can not be demonstrated to work reliably. That's the similarity.

Rubbing crystals causes miracles?

You have enough time to respond with snarks, but not enough to be sincere.