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

Jeeves said:
I heard it differently: the most religious people in the world - jihadist Muslims - celebrated that fire. It seemed to them the triumph of their (true) god over your (false) god - both of whom like to show off with fancy houses, but neither cares much about kindness.
For the majority of atheists, severe damage to a fine example of medieval architecture is not funny - and I don't know any who "guffaw" - even if that architecture is a *monumental* waste of resources and man-hours, to the glory of church hierarchy at the expense of the poor French people of the time. Repairs will cost another fortune, but to the French people of today, it's beneficial as a landmark, a point of national pride and a tourist attraction.
Of course, jokes are made, by all kinds of people - but at least some atheists are thoughtful, even about that.
Click to expand...
I was referring more to the thread on sciforums.
 
sideshowbob said:
Sure I would. All you had to do was ask:

Differences between driving a car and eating a pineapple
  1. It takes a lot longer to eat a car.
  2. A pineapple gets better gas mileage.
  3. You don't need a license to eat a pineapple.
  4. You can put a pineapple in your car but you can't put a car in your pineapple.
  5. A pina colada made of car juice is much harder to sell.
  6. You don't have to peel a car before you drive it.
  7. They don't grow cars in Hawaii.
I could go on and on if you like.

Now you: What's the difference between crystal-rubbing and God-bothering?
Click to expand...
Silly, isn't it?
 
DaveC426913 said:
That is what I am asking Yazata, yes.
Click to expand...
Then, if one is vouching that there is nothing higher than the individual development of higher qualities (as opposed to the attainment to a sphere where it is the norm and not, as our current experience dictates, the exception) it begs the question whether there can be regulative principles, formalities etc that help foster higher qualities.
For instance, does something like marriage have a reasonable potential to help individuals foster higher qualities?
 
Musika said:
Actually you DO make positive connections to anything with philosophy ... if philosophy had a job description, that would be it.
Click to expand...
No, philosophy isn’t about making positive connections, it’s about imaging such connections. You don’t make positive connections with actual things without engaging in actual investigations of these things.
For instance, one can systematically reject a claim ( or to be kind, merely accept it as speculation) made on the authority of empiricism by examining what empiricism can and cannot deliver.
Click to expand...
To the degree that something can be empirically demonstrated or supported determines how it’s ranked in regards to it’s validity. Demonstrated connections with supernatural deities doesn’t even register on this scale.
Hence the science that governs metal smelting stands at one end of the spectrum, and the science that governs (?) abiogenesis and cosmology stands at the other. So, by way of that example, on what basis are you systematically rejecting these things?
Click to expand...
The basis I mentioned above.
At the moment you are talking about 'a reasonable standard' ... so what would a religious authority be required to demonstrate in order to be granted 'reasonable' status, iyho?
I ask, because in these discussions it's often the case that atheists are harbouring unrealistic standards within the core of their discussions.
Click to expand...
A religious authority would have to demonstrate that their claims of divine contact were either empirically testable, or distinguishable from human imagination. In other words, at least what you might expect in a court of law.
Classic case in point with the atheists guffawing over the destruction of the notre dam cathedral.
Click to expand...
What does the appreciation or lack thereof of an architectural relic have to do with demonstrating divine reality?
 
About atheist and harbouring unrealistic standards

OK so let's take off the table swapping the pyramids with the statue of Liberty

That's gone

Mumbles - would have been easy for a entity who created the Universe in 6 days

So to all/any theist what do you have in mind which would meet a realistic standard?

How about any of those in the book? Flip through the book and pick one, tee it up with the boss, organise the venue and get the T shirts printed

Should be a sell out crowd with the certainty of thousands of converts the likes of which Billy could only dream of

:)
 
Capracus said:
No, philosophy isn’t about making positive connections, it’s about imaging such connections. You don’t make positive connections with actual things without engaging in actual investigations of these things.
Click to expand...
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.

To the degree that something can be empirically demonstrated or supported determines how it’s ranked in regards to it’s validity. Demonstrated connections with supernatural deities doesn’t even register on this scale.
Click to expand...
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 basis I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Then your basis is unreasonable. Much like visiting a mechanic, lawyer, doctor or airport, you don't establish credibility with empiricism in this regard.

A religious authority would have to demonstrate that their claims of divine contact were either empirically testable, or distinguishable from human imagination.
Click to expand...
Demonstrate to who, exactly?

In other words, at least what you might expect in a court of law.
Click to expand...
Even in the case of law, reasonable doubt is determined by particular individuals.

What does the appreciation or lack thereof of an architectural relic have to do with demonstrating divine reality?
Click to expand...
Nothing ar all.
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 .. ..

It's kind of like requiring a second caricature un order to get a good laugh at the first one.
 
Seattle said:
What does religion do for mankind that the statement "Be kind" doesn't do better?
Click to expand...
What good is "kindness" if it doesn't come from the heart? You could build a religion on the word, and it would still be empty.
 
Bowser said:
There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Show me. Even if the difference between non-heartfelt kindness and heartfelt kindness is evident to the recipoient, it's nothing to the difference between unheartfelt kindness and heartfelt condemnation.


So much better when you can save a dollar?
Click to expand...
For comparable benefit, you betcha! For palpable benefit compared to theoretical benefit, quadruple it.
The question was, after all, what does religion do for mankind, not what else can mankind do besides religion.
 
Bowser said:
The thread is comparing religion and kindness.
Click to expand...
The point is: what can religion do what simply being kind can't.

You pointed out that one can always be kind of their own free will.

So, why do we need to pay a tithe to other people to tell us when, where and how to be kind.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The point is: what can religion do what simply being kind can't.
Click to expand...
Religion might help you find it.

You pointed out that one can always be kind of their own free will.
Click to expand...
It's meaningless when it doesn't come from the heart. That applies whether it's done under threat or for advantage. Do I donate to charity to help others or for a tax write off?

So, why do we need to pay a tithe to other people to tell us when, where and how to be kind.
Click to expand...
You don't, but I can see how a religion might spring up from the worship of kindness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top