Religion and consolation

[TheHitch]

When religion is discussed and you run through all the inconsitencies and wrong doing that sprouts from these "holy texts", a few of the arguments left in favour of religion are that:

1/ A lot of charity and kinds acts are performed by the religious in the name of god.

2/ Religion offers consolation to those who have lossed loved ones or are experiencing times of depression.

In regards to the first point, I don't think a few charitable acts can excuse all of the acts of evil performed in the name of god. I think Stephen Fry put it something along the lines of (I cant find the actual quote, sorry)" if a mass murderer was up in court being tried for his crimes and the jury looked at his past and said 'Oh but he helped his mum with the groceries lots of times, surely we can't convict him'" that would not exempt him from his crimes and that is essentially the same arguement of charity exempting religion from all it's wrong doing. But I digress...

So coming back to my original reason for creating this thread; if people do not have religion, what could they have to replace it to provide consolation?

Does this wish thinking equal a lack of intelligence? Religion is well known for preying on the poor and uneducated.
Do we really need aything to replace it?
Can people grow to not fear death and instead move forward on how we view life and its value?

I'm interested to hear all of your views.

[mike pulcinella]

1. I think people are naturally philanthropic. Religion gives a focus to those feelings and actions which would still be expressed even if religion did not exist. I have no way to prove this. However, there are many non-religious philanthropic organizations.

2. Why do adults need consolation? To paraphrase a famous quote...I would rather suffer with the truth than be consoled by a lie.

That is my return question to this discussion. Why do adults need consolation about the finality of death?

[TheHitch]

1. I think people are naturally philanthropic. Religion gives a focus to those feelings and actions which would still be expressed even if religion did not exist. I have no way to prove this. However, there are many non-religious philanthropic organizations.

2. Why do adults need consolation? To paraphrase a famous quote...I would rather suffer with the truth than be consoled by a lie.

That is my return question to this discussion. Why do adults need consolation about the finality of death?

That was part of the point of my post too, if we are to truly grow and reach our full pontential we need to get over ourfear of death; but can we?
Thank you for your input, Mike.

[mike pulcinella]

That was part of the point of my post too, if we are to truly grow and reach our full pontential we need to get over ourfear of death; but can we?
Thank you for your input, Mike.

I have.

Death sucks. It really sucks. There, I've dealt with it.

So what happens to me now? Do I fall into a deep depression, and give up on life? Exactly the opposite.

An acceptance of the possibility that death is final makes life MORE precious and leads ultimately to a deeper appreciation and constant thankfulness for every breathing moment. This is exactly what Christianity claims to provide. But its methods are violence, fear and guilt.

[TheHitch]

I have.

Death sucks. It really sucks. There, I've dealt with it.

So what happens to me now? Do I fall into a deep depression, and give up on life? Exactly the opposite.

An acceptance of the possibility that death is final makes life MORE precious and leads ultimately to a deeper appreciation and constant thankfulness for every breathing moment. This is exactly what Christianity claims to provide. But its methods are violence, fear and guilt.

Great points and a healthy attitude.
Why don't more people take this stance? Is it easier to believe in an afterlife? Do you think anyone really believes or just pretends?

[mike pulcinella]

Great points and a healthy attitude.
Why don't more people take this stance? Is it easier to believe in an afterlife? Do you think anyone really believes or just pretends?

Penn Jillette is a radical atheist in that he doesn't believe in God...and he thinks that people who say they believe in God don't really either.

How else, he argues, could they do some of the heinous things they do if they REALLY thought a vengeful omnipotent being was watching their every move? it's a good point.


There is also a strong sense of community that comes with belonging to a religion that I think most people really like and need, even if they don't buy all of the dogma. Just my speculation.

[TheHitch]

Penn Jillette is a radical atheist in that he doesn't believe in God...and he thinks that people who say they believe in God don't really either.

How else, he argues, could they do some of the heinous things they do if they REALLY thought a vengeful omnipotent being was watching their every move? it's a good point.


There is also a strong sense of community that comes with belonging to a religion that I think most people really like and need, even if they don't buy all of the dogma. Just my speculation.

I think this a strong point. These days (at least where im from and in my generation) I dont see anyone buying the biblical stories and I dont think anyone takes them seriously, I don't know of anyone who believes in no sex before marriage, I dont know of anyone who is against the use of condoms, I dont know of anyone who believes in the communion lieterally and to be honest, I dont know of anyone who really believes in any reprecussions of sin. However, if you dont believe in god you can be seen as a bad person. I think the numbers will taper down as the generations go on but I doubt it will die out as there will always be those who go to hold up their end of Pascal's wager.

[TGC]

Penn Jillette is a radical atheist in that he doesn't believe in God...and he thinks that people who say they believe in God don't really either.

How else, he argues, could they do some of the heinous things they do if they REALLY thought a vengeful omnipotent being was watching their every move? it's a good point.
.

A very small percentage of believers are guilty of any heinous things. People will use religion to start a war or do evil, that doe not mean the religion is the evil thing, it means they are using it as a means to control people. If no religion ever existed the exact same wars would happen and be just as terrible, they would be fought over different ideas. Don't for a second think that humanity is better off without any religion.

[mike pulcinella]

A very small percentage of believers are guilty of any heinous things. People will use religion to start a war or do evil, that doe not mean the religion is the evil thing, it means they are using it as a means to control people. If no religion ever existed the exact same wars would happen and be just as terrible, they would be fought over different ideas. Don't for a second think that humanity is better off without any religion.

I don't think you really believe in God. I think you WANT to and TRY to believe, but fall short of the mark.

[The Celt]

A very small percentage of believers are guilty of any heinous things. People will use religion to start a war or do evil, that doe not mean the religion is the evil thing, it means they are using it as a means to control people. If no religion ever existed the exact same wars would happen and be just as terrible, they would be fought over different ideas. Don't for a second think that humanity is better off without any religion.

They don't even have to do heinous things, just things that are unbecoming of the god and religion they believe in...

[TGC]

I don't think you really believe in God. I think you WANT to and TRY to believe, but fall short of the mark.

Depends on where the mark is. Do I personally fall short? Oh yeah, I've never hid behind that. Are there people who absolutely believe and live their life accordingly? Absolutely.

[mfcruncher]

Depends on where the mark is. Do I personally fall short? Oh yeah, I've never hid behind that. Are there people who absolutely believe and live their life accordingly? Absolutely.

One thing to remember is when you're arguing with Pulcinella or the other skeptics is that you're actually arguing with Penn, Maher or Dawkins. They listen to or hear something that makes sense to them, and then splash it on your face as if they're absolutely convinced that they've spoken the truth. They didn't discover it, so they usually yield it with a lot less discipline or class then either Penn, Harris or Dawkins. However, Maher has no class whatsoever. It certainly gets lost in translation and empowers their egos by mimicking their far more creative and intelligent teachers.

Lately, I've been skipping over Psycho, BIB and some of the other skeptics and listening to their source. It's far more informative and educating than listening to these kids that want to sound cool like their mentors.


This brings up a good point. How many skeptics fall short of their own mark? None, because as their own god, they can change their standards as long as their comfortable with their lifestyle. That's why one can never call a skeptic a hypocrite. They are their own god(little g) and accommodate their whims.

What Penn calls the mark, we call a love for Christ or God. There's not a skeptic on earth that knows whether a man or woman loves Christ and, therefore, whether they fall short of the mark.

[TheHitch]

One thing to remember is when you're arguing with Pulcinella or the other skeptics is that you're actually arguing with Penn, Maher or Dawkins. They listen to or hear something that makes sense to them, and then splash it on your face as if they're absolutely convinced that they've spoken the truth. They didn't discover it, so they usually yield it with a lot less discipline or class then either Penn, Harris or Dawkins. However, Maher has no class whatsoever. It certainly gets lost in translation and empowers their egos by mimicking their far more creative and intelligent teachers.

Lately, I've been skipping over Psycho, BIB and some of the other skeptics and listening to their source. It's far more informative and educating than listening to these kids that want to sound cool like their mentors.


This brings up a good point. How many skeptics fall short of their own mark? None, because as their own god, they can change their standards as long as their comfortable with their lifestyle. That's why one can never call a skeptic a hypocrite. They are their own god(little g) and accommodate their whims.

What Penn calls the mark, we call a love for Christ or God. There's not a skeptic on earth that knows whether a man or woman loves Christ and, therefore, whether they fall short of the mark.

I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. Are you trying to say that all your ideas are your own? That every conclusion you've drawn was that of your own and you are completley unique in
Your morals? Of course not, you follow a creed or dogma of whatever religion
It is that you are part of, so for you to say that others just mimic those like Dawkins is complete bullshit.
These men are experts in their field and they present evidence and ideas that are radical and challenge our own
Way of thinking. I know I couldn't put their points across as eloquently as they could or even begin
To think up some of the theories they have but I believe I'm intelligent enough to take in their points and reach a logical outcome for myself and what seems right to me.
You have a nerve to say we see ourselves as our own gods when it is the religious who
Claim to be made in god's image and the religious who
Claim to know their maker's mind.

[mike pulcinella]

They don't even have to do heinous things, just things that are unbecoming of the god and religion they believe in...

Ok, maybe heinous was too strong a term.

[mike pulcinella]

I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. Are you trying to say that all your ideas are your own? That every conclusion you've drawn was that of your own and you are completley unique in
Your morals? Of course not, you follow a creed or dogma of whatever religion
It is that you are part of, so for you to say that others just mimic those like Dawkins is complete bullshit.
These men are experts in their field and they present evidence and ideas that are radical and challenge our own
Way of thinking. I know I couldn't put their points across as eloquently as they could or even begin
To think up some of the theories they have but I believe I'm intelligent enough to take in their points and reach a logical outcome for myself and what seems right to me.
You have a nerve to say we see ourselves as our own gods when it is the religious who
Claim to be made in god's image and the religious who
Claim to know their maker's mind.

True. We synthesize all of the ideas that we absorb, hopefully into a coherent whole. That's how we learn and grow.

As a musician I absorbed a a little of Bach, a little of Coltrane, a little of Elvis Costello. To imagine that in order to play music one must reinvent music from scratch...well that just demonstrates the bankruptcy of this line of argument.

[mike pulcinella]

No one is addressing the thread question of CONSOLATION.

Do we need consolation? If so, why?

[mike pulcinella]

One thing to remember is when you're arguing with Pulcinella or the other skeptics is that you're actually arguing with Penn, Maher or Dawkins. They listen to or hear something that makes sense to them, and then splash it on your face as if they're absolutely convinced that they've spoken the truth. They didn't discover it, so they usually yield it with a lot less discipline or class then either Penn, Harris or Dawkins. However, Maher has no class whatsoever. It certainly gets lost in translation and empowers their egos by mimicking their far more creative and intelligent teachers.

Lately, I've been skipping over Psycho, BIB and some of the other skeptics and listening to their source. It's far more informative and educating than listening to these kids that want to sound cool like their mentors.


This brings up a good point. How many skeptics fall short of their own mark? None, because as their own god, they can change their standards as long as their comfortable with their lifestyle. That's why one can never call a skeptic a hypocrite. They are their own god(little g) and accommodate their whims.

What Penn calls the mark, we call a love for Christ or God. There's not a skeptic on earth that knows whether a man or woman loves Christ and, therefore, whether they fall short of the mark.

By the way, you have just forfeited your ability to quote from the bible or refer to any other literary source from now on.

All of your observations about the world, the universe, human beings and God must be completely original and only from your own personal observation.

Ouch!