Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Life]

I've spent a lot of time listening to Dr. Jordan Peterson and the New Athiests (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris...) and I realized something.

Hitch and company have it all wrong. They view religion in the style that fundamentalists do. It's either scientifically true or false. That's the wrong way to look at it. Religion is true but not on the same level as scientific truth. It's more of an amalgamation of archetypes that are retold over the years. Peterson refers to it as "meta-truth".

Quite fascinating, really.

[Lord Raven]

You'll find we had a discussion on this, "Are science and religion compatible?"

The answer was no. You cannot use scientific principles to judge religion/faith and vice-versa.

[Flee Fleet!]

On 2/15/2017 at 8:31 PM, Jotari said:

How does that work? Double leap years? Or is it basically ignore the whole dissonance that'll eventually result?

um, I just know that it works according to the moon, and it has no leap years.

 

I'll look into it more in detail later, sorry.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Flee Fleet!

[Phoenix Wright]

8 hours ago, Comrade said:

I've spent a lot of time listening to Dr. Jordan Peterson and the New Athiests (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris...) and I realized something.

Hitch and company have it all wrong. They view religion in the style that fundamentalists do. It's either scientifically true or false. That's the wrong way to look at it. Religion is true but not on the same level as scientific truth. It's more of an amalgamation of archetypes that are retold over the years. Peterson refers to it as "meta-truth".

Quite fascinating, really.

uhhhhh

'new atheists'? wtf does that mean? also, that argument doesn't make any sense

On ١٥‏/٢‏/٢٠١٧ at 7:31 AM, Jotari said:

How does that work? Double leap years? Or is it basically ignore the whole dissonance that'll eventually result?

the gregorian calendar isn't perfect either, since the earth's rotation is slowing over time. perfect enough though. i can't find any sources on the accuracy of the chinese lunar calendar rn, after a quick search, but it's also likely to be 'perfect enough.'

[Tetragrammaton]

2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

the gregorian calendar isn't perfect either, since the earth's rotation is slowing over time. perfect enough though. i can't find any sources on the accuracy of the chinese lunar calendar rn, after a quick search, but it's also likely to be 'perfect enough.'

I wouldn't use the term Chinese blah blah...., since it's not only apply to China. And it also was not invented by the Ancient Chinese. But I know the Chinese would say otherwise.

Anyway, this lunar calendar is based on the moon's movement, since a moon year and a sun year do not match perfectly, there will be an leap month, a 13th month will be added after a few years to make things align again, so the Lunar New Year is always in January or February.

[Phoenix Wright]

42 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

I wouldn't use the term Chinese blah blah...., since it's not only apply to China. And it also was not invented by the Ancient Chinese. But I know the Chinese would say otherwise.

Anyway, this lunar calendar is based on the moon's movement, since a moon year and a sun year do not match perfectly, there will be an leap month, a 13th month will be added after a few years to make things align again, so the Lunar New Year is always in January or February.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_calendar

i'm not sure of its accuracy, but it says there's a diff. between certain calendars, so that's why i said it.

[Life]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 10:27 PM, Phoenix Wright said:

uhhhhh

'new atheists'? wtf does that mean? also, that argument doesn't make any sense

It's the title for essentially the current round of atheists who follow Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.

As for the argument not making sense, I invite you to actually watch some of Peterson's material. It's fascinating and on YouTube.

[Phoenix Wright]

who are the "atheists"? what is the old age of atheists?

[Life]

6 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

who are the "atheists"? what is the old age of atheists?

I didn't give them that title, what do you want from me? I'm just using the title that they have been given. What do you want from me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#The_.22Four_Horsemen.22

Edited February 27, 2017 by Comrade

[Lord Raven]

If you understood the terms you were using then you would be able to explain it to us without having to rely on wikipedia.

[Raumata]

Depends on the type of religion, what they believe in, and the impact they have on society as a whole. Plenty of people believe in it to get through their day or use it as a concentration tactic during times of crisis.

I believe religious extremism and cults have done more harm, since it seems that their leaders always become corrupt. That's not to say that your local pastor, nun, etc aren't just as susceptible to corruption as them. Power tends to do things to people in leadership positions or who are in a position to care for others.

Good thing there are still plenty of good natured people on this planet.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Raumata

[Phoenix Wright]

11 hours ago, Comrade said:

I didn't give them that title, what do you want from me? I'm just using the title that they have been given. What do you want from me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#The_.22Four_Horsemen.22

ok, relax yo.

so it turns out, i already know of this fellow. i saw a youtube video where he was surrounded by a number of sjw's and he was trying to discuss the use (rather, why we shouldn't have to use) of non-binary pronouns (zim, zir, etc). he couldn't really get a word in, though it was obvious he was intelligent, coherent, articulate, etc. but you can have these qualities and be wrong.

listening to his interview with joe rogan, i still can't agree with him. were i debating with him, i would spend a bit of time to respond...but i'm not. so use your own damn words. you do this all the time. i'm not here to respond to videos you watch.

equally as annoying, you come to these "revelations," like when you pointed out you "realized something," which are not your own thoughts, but are a regurgitation of the words someone else said. with or without due credit.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[JJ48]

I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by "religion"?  I could point out that the early-to-mid 20th century had some of the worst bloodshed (both in and out of wars) that the world has ever seen, started by some atheistic and even antitheistic regimes.  However, as I tend to equate "religion" with "a person's worldview", even these would be religious in nature.  So, how should we define it so that we're not talking past each other?

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by "religion"?  I could point out that the early-to-mid 20th century had some of the worst bloodshed (both in and out of wars) that the world has ever seen, started by some atheistic and even antitheistic regimes.  However, as I tend to equate "religion" with "a person's worldview", even these would be religious in nature.  So, how should we define it so that we're not talking past each other?

That definition sounds more like Philosophy. Typically religion would be based on a shared worship and faith surrounding an organised movement.

[Salamud]

Not a single monotheistic still holds up in light of scientific research. Of course, this isn't surprising from creeds designed for bunches of illiterate goat herders.

[eclipse]

5 hours ago, Salamud said:

Not a single monotheistic still holds up in light of scientific research. Of course, this isn't surprising from creeds designed for bunches of illiterate goat herders.

You're in Serious Discussion.  You're going to need to do better than this.

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Salamud said:

Not a single monotheistic still holds up in light of scientific research. Of course, this isn't surprising from creeds designed for bunches of illiterate goat herders.

That's a bold claim. Can you provide a scientific proof for it?

[Salamud]

Do I point to the lack of evidence for any global floods happening during mankind's time on Earth? Or the little example of Pikaia:

https://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca

http://paleobiology.si.edu/burgess/pikaia.html

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/humans-oldest-ancestor-found

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Salamud said:

Do I point to the lack of evidence for any global floods happening during mankind's time on Earth? Or the little example of Pikaia:

https://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca

http://paleobiology.si.edu/burgess/pikaia.html

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/humans-oldest-ancestor-found

That's more evidence against biblical stories rather than a proof against the existence of god. Though I do note your original comment only specified a monotheistic without actually including a noun of some sort.

[JJ48]

47 minutes ago, Salamud said:

Do I point to the lack of evidence for any global floods happening during mankind's time on Earth? Or the little example of Pikaia:

https://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca

http://paleobiology.si.edu/burgess/pikaia.html

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/humans-oldest-ancestor-found

I notice you site a lack of evidence for global flooding, then immediately link to a site talking about marine fossils in sedimentary rock in the middle of the continent.  I understand that those who deny a global flood have their own explanations of such things, so this isn't necessarily proof of a global flood, but one can hardly claim that layers of sedimentary rock deposited all over the world is inconsistent with the idea of a global flood.  (Not to mention, diverse cultures around the world having Flood legends is precisely what one might expect if everyone is descended from the survivors of a Great Flood.)

I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make with the links about Pikaia.  It's certainly an interesting creature, but people simply asserting that it is "human's oldest ancestor" isn't exactly the proof to end all proofs.

 

Ultimately, what it really comes down to is your starting point.  Everyone's worldview has to start with some basic assumptions (you may remember axioms from geometry).  Some take as an axiom that God has revealed Himself through His Word, and use this axiom to interpret evidence.  Others assume that everything must be strictly natural in origin (and thus that the supernatural either doesn't exist or is irrelevant), and use that axiom to interpret evidence.  It's not a matter of evidence, but of interpretation.  

[Salamud]

51 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I notice you site a lack of evidence for global flooding, then immediately link to a site talking about marine fossils in sedimentary rock in the middle of the continent.  I understand that those who deny a global flood have their own explanations of such things, so this isn't necessarily proof of a global flood, but one can hardly claim that layers of sedimentary rock deposited all over the world is inconsistent with the idea of a global flood.  

No remotely accepted evidence has been found of a global flood happening when homo sapiens were a thing.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

 

I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make with the links about Pikaia.  It's certainly an interesting creature, but people simply asserting that it is "human's oldest ancestor" isn't exactly the proof to end all proofs

It debunks any creed claiming a creationist account of the world. 

[JJ48]

3 minutes ago, Salamud said:

No remotely accepted evidence has been found of a global flood happening when homo sapiens were a thing.

It debunks any creed claiming a creationist account of the world. 

Ok, you're going to have to explain to me exactly how simply asserting something to be true debunks any claims to the contrary.

[FionordeQuester]

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different.  Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real.  No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing.

 

What are the implications of that?  What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament?  Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here!  The world's gonna be awesome!")?  Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"?

 

Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking.  It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good.  What would your guys's responses be?

Edited March 22, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[blah the Prussian]

10 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different.  Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real.  No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing.

 

What are the implications of that?  What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament?  Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here!  The world's gonna be awesome!")?  Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"?

 

Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking.  It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good.  What would your guys's responses be?

I guess if He was the Old Testament God I wouldn't be happy, where if He was the New Testament God I would be fine with it. I mean, God ruling would basically be a benevolent Monarchy with no chances of things going tyrannical, as long as He's the New Testament. I suppose a second question is, will He actually do anything, or just continue on letting humans tear each other apart? 

[Refa]

12 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different.  Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real.  No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing.

What are the implications of that?  What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament?  Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here!  The world's gonna be awesome!")?  Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"?

Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking.  It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good.  What would your guys's responses be?

I'd ask Him what his opinions of the Shin Megami Tensei series are and if picking the Law route will let me go to heaven.