God and Devil

[Troubleshooter]

What do you call two non sequitors in a row?

[Happy Monkey]

The "haves vs have-nots" view of the world is a completely different axis to the religious/nonreligious view. If you don't want to help less fortunate people, and you're religious, you just say that the way things are is the will of God. If you don't want to help less fortunate people, and you're not religious, you just make that social darwinism argument (Or, in either case, you can just admit you're selfish and/or lazy). If you're generous, you can either say that you are carrying out the will of God, or that you have empathy.

The view that the only reason to help the less fortunate is because God says so is a very simplistic ethical system. Your characterization of nonreligious people wanting to let the weak die to increase the strength of the species is one of the confusions you are succeptible to when you equate evolution with religion. Evolution is something that happens, not something to worship.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The "haves vs have-nots" view of the world is a completely different axis to the religious/nonreligious view. If you don't want to help less fortunate people, and you're religious, you just say that the way things are is the will of God. If you don't want to help less fortunate people, and you're not religious, you just make that social darwinism argument (Or, in either case, you can just admit you're selfish and/or lazy). If you're generous, you can either say that you are carrying out the will of God, or that you have empathy.

The view that the only reason to help the less fortunate is because God says so is a very simplistic ethical system. Your characterization of nonreligious people wanting to let the weak die to increase the strength of the species is one of the confusions you are succeptible to when you equate evolution with religion. Evolution is something that happens, not something to worship.

But that's not what the quote was about.

The quote was about people, in their argument against believing in God, say they don't believe in him because there is suffering in the world.

Those same people (the majority of them) do NOT help the suffering.

I would say many people of faith (whatever faith it is, usually) do help suffering people more than atheists or humanists. Whether they do it because God said so or becaue they are good people is open to debate.

But the fact remains that more often, the people who help people in need are people of faith.

Of course, people can always make up excuses not to help people, (or simply say "I don't want to help people"). So I do see your point that not all religious people help, and not all atheists or agnostics don't help. But I would say generally, it's rare that people who do help suffering people complain that they don't believe in God because people are suffering.

[jaguar]

It's a load of crap because it buys into that strange phenomenon I've noticed a few times, the notion that Christianity has some kind of monopoly (patent pending!) on morals and ideals that happen to be contained in Christian teachings. HM is dead on.

But the fact remains that more often, the people who help people in need are people of faith.

No. It doesn't remain. It never was, it's a figment of your fucking worldview without the slimmest shred of evidence or logic behind it. In fact, it's a big fucking insult to a lot of very hard working, dedicated people that don't feel that they need some deity looking over their shoulder to make some serious sacrifices for the good of others.

I've seen plenty of self-proclaimed Christians who do nothing to help the less fortunate. Most people do fuck all to help others, irrespective of religion. I've also met both religious and non-religious people that do dedicate their lives to helping others. Religion really has little or nothing to do with it. Except that most if not all Christian aid 'charities' make sure that that daily bread only comes after your prayers whereas others are more worried about helping than indoctrinating desperate, deeply vunerable people with their agenda.

[Happy Monkey]

And What I was saying is that there is no reason to believe that. The majority of ALL people don't help the suffering. You have nothing more than your general feeling to justify your claim that the rate is different based on faith.

But the fact remains that more often, the people who help people in need are people of faith.

And the fact also remains that more often, the people who DON'T help people in need are people of faith - there are just more people of faith.

[OnyxCougar]

I don't think morals and beliefs like "Do unto others" is only able to be practiced by Christians.

I don't have any figures, but I don't know any people who are Christian that think that way.

Now there is an argument that can be made about western culture and the notion of right and wrong and western morals being heavily influenced by Christian thought, especially the United States, which began as a fundamentalist Christian society. But that's another thread...

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

there are just more people of faith.

And why do you think that is?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jaguar

In fact, it's a big fucking insult to a lot of very hard working, dedicated people that don't feel that they need some deity looking over their shoulder to make some serious sacrifices for the good of others.

Woah!

I never said that only people who help people have a particular faith, or believe in a diety. In fact, I said the opposite.

Originally Posted by onyxcougar

So I do see your point that not all religious people help, and not all atheists or agnostics don't help. But I would say generally, it's rare that people who do help suffering people complain that they don't believe in God because people are suffering.

Calm down, Jag.

[Happy Monkey]

In my opinion? Most people are raised religious, and feel no need to upset the boat.

[jaguar]

No. That's the point. You don't have any figures. You're making up stuff that fits your very specific worldview. Period. There is absolutely zero evidence that people of faith help other people more or less than atheists. Nada. Null. Zip. Zero. That's the point. I don't think it's rare at all, most of the people I know that have done work in some truly horrible hellholes are very certain that god clearly has taken one serious hiatus or must utterly love suffering.

And why do you think that is?

I'll post your a friend's anthropology dissertation if you want. People used to think storms were when the gods were angry too. Religion evaporates as society progresses.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Religion evaporates as society progresses.

I would say that ignorance evaporates as society progresses. Ignorance being that which can be disproven. And I think most would agree that disentangling ignorance from religion can only be good.

I'll disagree in advance with any assertion (not aimed at any single poster) that religion = ignorance.

[Troubleshooter]

Religion is a symptom of ignorance*.






*It's a symptom of schizophrenia as well, but we'll save that one for another thread.

[lookout123]

ok, TS - that sounds very pseudo-intellectual. let me make sure i understand the logic trail here. you find no value in faith because it has never been made clear to you. i'm ok with that so far. but then you make the leap that only the ignorant can have a religious faith? tell me how this works.

[Troubleshooter]

Religion in the context I stated is simply a psychological structure (ideology) upon which inexplicable events are given rationale.

The issue I was not addressing:

Faith is the belief that something will, or will not, has or has not occured because of a given (revelatory) premise.

[jaguar]

I would say that ignorance evaporates as society progresses. Ignorance being that which can be disproven. And I think most would agree that disentangling ignorance from religion can only be good.

I'll disagree in advance with any assertion (not aimed at any single poster) that religion = ignorance.

You're right. I can't quite articulate it correctly, that brush was a little too broad.

I would say ignorant people are more likely to be religious but that doesn't mean religious people are ignorant.

However on a broader sociological scale religion is on the decline and has been as science and technology have progressed. The only places religion seems to be growing are either stagnant or going backwards. Before you denounce me, show me a vibrant, forward looking economically growing society that is becoming *more* religious.