So a worthless religion? What you have just described is a completely useless religion. If the religious texts are unambiguous, then how can they be open to criticism and change? If they know the truth, why wouldn't they want to tell others the truth, especially their own children? You say no hatred for any reason, but what about murderers; should they just be accepted as good by the religion?
I don't see how this would be a worthless religion.
Why couldn't unambiguous texts be open to criticism/change? By 'unambiguous', I just mean that they state their beliefs plainly with no metaphors and so that no two people could interprete two different meanings from it (like with books like the Bible, where people can take any meaning they want out of it). Their logic and conclusions can be open to criticism, and the religion can then change its beliefs based on this (and also based on any new scientific findings that might disprove certain beliefs it holds).
"If they know the truth". But they don't know the truth. As described in point 2, they realise that they don't know anything for certain (I forgot to add the words 'they realise' into point 2 so it might have been unclear what I meant, I've added them in now though). They also wouldn't be so arrogant as to call their beliefs 'the truth'. And they do teach people their beliefs, but only once they ask for it. But forcefully teaching anyone religious doctrines without their consent is brainwashing and psychological abuse. Children's minds aren't developed enough to consent to something like that, so it should be illegal.
You don't have to hate a murderer to be able to imprison him, you can reluctantly imprison him because it's unfortunately the only way to keep the public safe. The justice system should be based on doing what's best for society, not on what's worst for the criminals.
So the entirety of the religion's following doesn't even believe their own religion. What good does that do them? If they realize that they don't actually believe their religion to be true, then what's the point in having the religion? Why is teaching someone the truth brainwashing and psychological abuse? People should be taught the truth, especially children, who are very susceptible to having their minds corrupted with falsehood. Are there even any religions that teach actual hatred towards anyone? The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is Islam.
They would believe it, they'd just realise that it might not be true. They'd also readily change their beliefs if someone gave a good enough reason as to why their beliefs might be flawed or in light of any new evidence that disproves their beliefs. They wouldn't be like some religious people nowadays, where they continue to believe their religion even though it's been largely disproven.
Teaching people the truth isn't brainwashing, but like I said these people would realise that no religion is 'the truth', it's just their personal belief. Children are susceptible to believing whatever they're told, so taking advantage of that to teach them your personal beliefs (rather than just educating them with facts) is wrong. By the time they're old enough to decide for themselves about religious matters it's too late, they've already been indoctrinated into a religion they might not necessarily have wanted, and they may need psychological help to rid themselves of these unwanted beliefs.
Well obviously Christianity and Judaism teach that people deserve to be stoned to death for committing harmless acts, so they preach hatred.
That's not belief at all. If you think that it might not be true, then you don't actually believe in it. To someone who truly believes, the thing that they believe is fact to them and should be treated as so by them. Judaism was not a religion of hatred; it was a religion of law. If you broke the law, you got punished by the judges. Think of it like a government; just because the government puts murderers to death does not mean that the government hates the murderers, nor does it mean that they want the people to hate the murderers. Are you really going to argue that Christianity teaches that people should be stoned to death? The religion that states
"[7] When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. [9] But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst."
-John 8:7-9
and
"[14] And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed: [15] Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15
advocates for the stoning or hatred of people? That is not the case at all.
That is belief. What you're describing, continuing to believe in something after it's been proven to be false or highly unlikely, is just self-delusion. For example, many people believe in things like the multiverse, the simulation hypothesis, or aliens, but if those things were disproven then they wouldn't believe in them anymore. They wouldn't continue to live in a fantasy world believing what they want to believe and ignoring reality, like a lot of religious people do today.
It is possible for the death penalty to be based purely on practicalities alright, that the main purpose of it is simply to save money in keeping the prisoner alive, but I highly doubt that's the reason people support it today. People want the criminals to die because they're repulsive, they hate them. Some of them take time out of their day to gather in groups to jeer at the criminals as they're making their way to court. What else other than hatred could motivate them to do that? And certainly any death penalty that wasn't based on hate would attempt to execute the criminal in the most humane manner possible, but the death penalties of ancient times were about inflicting more pain on the criminals they hated most. If they didn't hate them, they wouldn't have killed them by stoning. And they certainly wouldn't have made it a public spectacle, and even encourage the public to take part.
Well like I said in my first post, religious texts today have a lot of contradictions and people can take any meaning they want out of them. Many branches of Christianity today interprete the Bible as supporting the death penalty and their hatred of certain people. You could argue that their interpretation is wrong and that yours is right, but that's more a matter of personal opinion than fact, those arguments will never end.
I'm not arguing for continued for continued belief if the beliefs have been truly disproven. I'm saying that if you have a religion full of believers who aren't sure of their beliefs, then they don't actually believe them. If something is highly unlikely, it is still also possible, and a believer would still believe. One of these false believers that you describe may not continue believing, but a real believer would continue to believe until their beliefs were completely disproven.
About the death penalty, Christianity neither opposes nor supports the death penalty. The idea of the death penalty is the idea of possibly eternally damning someone in order to prevent the possible eternal damnation of more people. Just because people during stonings did end up hating the person being stoned does mean that they were intended to.
Atheists, what are your views on religion in general?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
So a worthless religion? What you have just described is a completely useless religion. If the religious texts are unambiguous, then how can they be open to criticism and change? If they know the truth, why wouldn't they want to tell others the truth, especially their own children? You say no hatred for any reason, but what about murderers; should they just be accepted as good by the religion?
--
JellyBeanBandit
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't see how this would be a worthless religion.
Why couldn't unambiguous texts be open to criticism/change? By 'unambiguous', I just mean that they state their beliefs plainly with no metaphors and so that no two people could interprete two different meanings from it (like with books like the Bible, where people can take any meaning they want out of it). Their logic and conclusions can be open to criticism, and the religion can then change its beliefs based on this (and also based on any new scientific findings that might disprove certain beliefs it holds).
"If they know the truth". But they don't know the truth. As described in point 2, they realise that they don't know anything for certain (I forgot to add the words 'they realise' into point 2 so it might have been unclear what I meant, I've added them in now though). They also wouldn't be so arrogant as to call their beliefs 'the truth'. And they do teach people their beliefs, but only once they ask for it. But forcefully teaching anyone religious doctrines without their consent is brainwashing and psychological abuse. Children's minds aren't developed enough to consent to something like that, so it should be illegal.
You don't have to hate a murderer to be able to imprison him, you can reluctantly imprison him because it's unfortunately the only way to keep the public safe. The justice system should be based on doing what's best for society, not on what's worst for the criminals.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So the entirety of the religion's following doesn't even believe their own religion. What good does that do them? If they realize that they don't actually believe their religion to be true, then what's the point in having the religion? Why is teaching someone the truth brainwashing and psychological abuse? People should be taught the truth, especially children, who are very susceptible to having their minds corrupted with falsehood. Are there even any religions that teach actual hatred towards anyone? The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is Islam.
--
JellyBeanBandit
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
They would believe it, they'd just realise that it might not be true. They'd also readily change their beliefs if someone gave a good enough reason as to why their beliefs might be flawed or in light of any new evidence that disproves their beliefs. They wouldn't be like some religious people nowadays, where they continue to believe their religion even though it's been largely disproven.
Teaching people the truth isn't brainwashing, but like I said these people would realise that no religion is 'the truth', it's just their personal belief. Children are susceptible to believing whatever they're told, so taking advantage of that to teach them your personal beliefs (rather than just educating them with facts) is wrong. By the time they're old enough to decide for themselves about religious matters it's too late, they've already been indoctrinated into a religion they might not necessarily have wanted, and they may need psychological help to rid themselves of these unwanted beliefs.
Well obviously Christianity and Judaism teach that people deserve to be stoned to death for committing harmless acts, so they preach hatred.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
That's not belief at all. If you think that it might not be true, then you don't actually believe in it. To someone who truly believes, the thing that they believe is fact to them and should be treated as so by them. Judaism was not a religion of hatred; it was a religion of law. If you broke the law, you got punished by the judges. Think of it like a government; just because the government puts murderers to death does not mean that the government hates the murderers, nor does it mean that they want the people to hate the murderers. Are you really going to argue that Christianity teaches that people should be stoned to death? The religion that states
"[7] When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. [9] But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst."
-John 8:7-9
and
"[14] And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed: [15] Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15
advocates for the stoning or hatred of people? That is not the case at all.
--
JellyBeanBandit
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That is belief. What you're describing, continuing to believe in something after it's been proven to be false or highly unlikely, is just self-delusion. For example, many people believe in things like the multiverse, the simulation hypothesis, or aliens, but if those things were disproven then they wouldn't believe in them anymore. They wouldn't continue to live in a fantasy world believing what they want to believe and ignoring reality, like a lot of religious people do today.
It is possible for the death penalty to be based purely on practicalities alright, that the main purpose of it is simply to save money in keeping the prisoner alive, but I highly doubt that's the reason people support it today. People want the criminals to die because they're repulsive, they hate them. Some of them take time out of their day to gather in groups to jeer at the criminals as they're making their way to court. What else other than hatred could motivate them to do that? And certainly any death penalty that wasn't based on hate would attempt to execute the criminal in the most humane manner possible, but the death penalties of ancient times were about inflicting more pain on the criminals they hated most. If they didn't hate them, they wouldn't have killed them by stoning. And they certainly wouldn't have made it a public spectacle, and even encourage the public to take part.
Well like I said in my first post, religious texts today have a lot of contradictions and people can take any meaning they want out of them. Many branches of Christianity today interprete the Bible as supporting the death penalty and their hatred of certain people. You could argue that their interpretation is wrong and that yours is right, but that's more a matter of personal opinion than fact, those arguments will never end.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I'm not arguing for continued for continued belief if the beliefs have been truly disproven. I'm saying that if you have a religion full of believers who aren't sure of their beliefs, then they don't actually believe them. If something is highly unlikely, it is still also possible, and a believer would still believe. One of these false believers that you describe may not continue believing, but a real believer would continue to believe until their beliefs were completely disproven.
About the death penalty, Christianity neither opposes nor supports the death penalty. The idea of the death penalty is the idea of possibly eternally damning someone in order to prevent the possible eternal damnation of more people. Just because people during stonings did end up hating the person being stoned does mean that they were intended to.