Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[grumbler]

If God tells you what to believe, you are either a saint or a schizophrenic. 

I think you need to keep in mind, Mal, that there are people who view certain books as "the word of God" and, while such people may be schizophrenics to your mind, that is a misuse of the medical term.  Certainly they don't see themselves as schizophrenics.  They just believe, for whatever reason, that their god is attempting to communicate with them.

I would note that I am gonna head you off at the pass on prayer as well.  It may look like the act of the mentally disturbed, but perfectly sane people can engage in it, so don't jump to conclusions there, either.

[Pat]

Anyway, I've been thinking more on why America is the great exception in the modern world on account of it's religiosity. Perhaps it is the back-side of the American ideal of freedom, which in itself is applaudable, but, of course, all societies require at least some authoritarianism for reasons of societal cohesion. Since Americans for reasons of culture and history do not want this authority to be the state, even if it is democratic, they make products of imagination their authorities, which leads to all different kinds of maladies of the mind, that you see little of elsewhere in the modern world.

[Berkut]

I find that a lot of the agnostic/atheistic attacks on religion are attacks very clearly based on the attacker's own perception of religion, and tend to have little to do with how religious people perceive religion.

That is a load of bullshit Beebs.

*Your* view of religion is not the only one out there, so pretending like you dismiss the criticism of religion in general by presuming that all such criticism is based on not understanding *your* view of religion is rather intellectully dishonest.

"Religious" people view religion in about as many different ways as there are religious people.

[Pat]

And in relation to my earlier post, one would do well to bear in mind the words of Sigmund Freud on the matter:

"The commandment, 'Love thy neighbour as thyself', is the strongest defence against human aggressiveness and an excellent example of the unpsychological [expectations] of the cultural super-ego. The commandment is impossible to fulfil; such an enormous inflation of love can only lower its value, not get rid of the difficulty. Civilization pays no attention to all this; it merely admonishes us that the harder it is to obey the precept the more meritorious it is to do so. But anyone who follows such a precept in present-day civilization only puts himself at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the person who disregards it. What a potent obstacle to civilization aggressiveness must be, if the defence against it can cause as much unhappiness as aggressiveness itself! 'Natural' ethics, as it is called, has nothing to offer here except the narcissistic satisfaction of being able to think oneself better than others. At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life. But so long as virtue is not rewarded here on earth, ethics will, I fancy, preach in vain. I too think it quite certain that a real change in the relations of human beings to possessions would be of more help in this direction than any ethical commands; but the recognition of this fact among socialists has been obscured and made useless for practical purposes by a fresh idealistic misconception of human nature."

[citizen k]

And in relation to my earlier post, one would do well to bear in mind the words of Sigmund Freud on the matter:

"At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life. But so long as virtue is not rewarded here on earth, ethics will, I fancy, preach in vain."

What about karma?

[Pat]

Freud never, as far as I'm aware, mentioned karma. But still not a reward in this life. Not very different.

[grumbler]

And in relation to my earlier post, one would do well to bear in mind the words of Sigmund Freud on the matter:

Ah, the classic "Appeal to Authority" fallacy rears its ugly head! 

One would do well to ignore Freud on this matter, as he has no especial expertise in, nor skills with, philosophical analysis.  The fact that he is famous doesn't make him more worthy of heed (except in the field of his expertise, and then with the understanding that he was mostly wrong) than if he were Jaron.

[Pat]

I'm not saying "this is right because Freud says so" - I'm saying "this is what I think but Freud puts it into words better than me".

Chrissake grumbler.

[Barrister]

I find that a lot of the agnostic/atheistic attacks on religion are attacks very clearly based on the attacker's own perception of religion, and tend to have little to do with how religious people perceive religion.

That is a load of bullshit Beebs.

*Your* view of religion is not the only one out there, so pretending like you dismiss the criticism of religion in general by presuming that all such criticism is based on not understanding *your* view of religion is rather intellectully dishonest.

"Religious" people view religion in about as many different ways as there are religious people.

I was discussing this conversation.  Several people have defended the religious viewpoint, and none of them have been of the 'fundamentalist' perspective.  Yet the attacks on religion all seem to be attacks on fundamentalists.

It's only an observation though, it can't be objectively proven...

[Pat]

Yet the attacks on religion all seem to be attacks on fundamentalists.

Not really

[citizen k]

Freud never, as far as I'm aware, mentioned karma. But still not a reward in this life. Not very different.

According to Buddhist philosophy, karma embraces both past and present deeds.

[Pat]

Freud never, as far as I'm aware, mentioned karma. But still not a reward in this life. Not very different.

According to Buddhist philosophy, karma embraces both past and present deeds.

What claims are made here, exactly? If karma does work, and it does give reward here on earth, in this life, then Buddhism would only have to give proof of this and it'd convert a lot of people, I'm sure.

[Razgovory]

I find that a lot of the agnostic/atheistic attacks on religion are attacks very clearly based on the attacker's own perception of religion, and tend to have little to do with how religious people perceive religion.

That is a load of bullshit Beebs.

*Your* view of religion is not the only one out there, so pretending like you dismiss the criticism of religion in general by presuming that all such criticism is based on not understanding *your* view of religion is rather intellectully dishonest.

"Religious" people view religion in about as many different ways as there are religious people.

I was discussing this conversation.  Several people have defended the religious viewpoint, and none of them have been of the 'fundamentalist' perspective.  Yet the attacks on religion all seem to be attacks on fundamentalists.

It's only an observation though, it can't be objectively proven...

I honestly don't know why you try Beeb.  Most of the attacks on religion are attacks on a fundamentalist perspective because alot of the attackers have shown a dismal knowledge of theology.

[Pat]

That is simply not true.

I think I have given some rather reasoned criticisms of religion in this thread, such as this post, for example, as well as many more like it, that no one replied to. I have tried to argue against the arguments that religious people themselves tend to use to defend religion. More specifically, I have argued against what I consider to be the best arguments for religion, even those not brought up by the religious in this thread but are usually favoured by prominent defenders of religion, like the Brothers Karamazov argument. I have also argued against religion entirely from a perspective of utility, even though I assume religious people actually do believe what they believe to be true, and do not hold their beliefs merely for reasons of utility.

It is true that I have polemicised against fundamentalist religion as well as religion in general, but to say all my argumentation has been against some caricature of religion is simply not true. No one who has read what I have posted can say that with a straight face.

Why we would have to have a good knowledge of theology to criticise religion I don't understand - if the religions aren't true, then the theology isn't true either. And you can always enlighten us on these particularities of theology if you think they'd make a difference.

[Eddie Teach]

What claims are made here, exactly? If karma does work, and it does give reward here on earth, in this life, then Buddhism would only have to give proof of this and it'd convert a lot of people, I'm sure.

How would you devise a test to see if karma worked or not?