Let's talk about the GOOD in religion

[ugly ripe tomato]

My cousin's husband has colon cancer so he's undergoing chemo and radiation, and is facing more surgeries. They have 3 little kids (oldest is 6). He's constantly sick and tired and has been ready to just give up at times.

People from their church take it in turns to drive him to his doctor appointments, watch the kids so my cousin can get stuff done or just have some time to herself, bring over meals so she doesn't have to worry about cooking, and clean the house.

[Blaster Master]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

If this thread was meant as some kind of "let's convince the atheists that religion is really wonderful after all!" thing, then I regret my participation.

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

More to the point, is this a witnessing thread that doesn't allow opposing criticism? I'm not sure what forum would allow that.

Originally Posted by Otara

Thats a nice thought, but there are lliterally entire organisations dedicated to telling people how good religion is.

I dont think anything said here is going to be anything different to what most people who dislike religion havent heard tens of thousands of times before. Which is why I find its rationale a bit odd myself, one thing the world is not short of is advocates for the benefits of religion.

Otara

That wasn't my point. I wouldn't expect anyone to come out of this thinking that religion is good or to convert people. I think having a bunch of religious people going "look how awesome we are" and non-religious people going "look how stupid you are" isn't going to be productive. My point was that I think the fact that so many people felt the need to post snark shows that it's not just a simple disagreement over religion but a fundamental disconnect in how religious and non-religious people view it.

Take it to another arena for a second. Suppose someone posts a thread about a major political figure and some legislation they support. If all that happens is that the people who align with that person's party say "this is great news!" and everyone who aligns with the opposite party says "this is horrible news!" then nothing good comes out of it and there will continue to be an impass. If instead, those who support it can enumerate why they support it and those who oppose it make a real effort to understand why those people think those reasons are good, they may not agree with eachother, but at least they can disagree with eachother from informed positions.

Even though I am a theist myself, I fully recongize that religion isn't all peaches and cream, I see there are plenty of people who have abused it over time or use it to numb their minds rather than open them. I also see many of the draws of atheism or simply not really caring one way or the other. But I personally think it's counterproductive to approach those I disagree with and just reitterate over and over that I disagree with them and insulting them rather than trying to understand where and why we disagree. I have no desire to convert anyone at all, I just want people to try to understand eachother and have productive conversation.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by ugly ripe tomato

People from their church take it in turns to drive him to his doctor appointments, watch the kids so my cousin can get stuff done or just have some time to herself, bring over meals so she doesn't have to worry about cooking, and clean the house.

That's awesome.

My father had a stroke back in February, and the people from his church have been amazingly supportive and helpful to both him and my mother.

[Czarcasm]

But if poster A says, "Such and such is something position that comes from religion" and you disallow poster B from saying, "Well, I don't believe that such and such is really that positive at all" then you aren't having a meaningful conversation at all-you're having a "Yea for Religion!" thread.

[Blaster Master]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

And that's any more believable than the claims of all the various Christian sects who claim that they are about "waking you up" to God? Or Scientology? What religions don't claim to be about enlightening people?

Well, isn't that also exactly what atheists are claiming when it's said that religion is an opiate and numbs people's minds? Some religious people seek elightenment, some don't, just as some atheists are truly seeking knowledge and some aren't. I personally know both theists and atheists on both sides of that. It's not fair and it's not productive to either perspective to paint the other as closed-minded and unenlightened.

Certainly, there are some people who claim they are pursuing knowledge and enlightenment and, under closer inspection, really aren't. But that's not so much a condemnation of religion or non-religion, as it is of humanity in general.

[bup]

Originally Posted by tdn

That's awesome.

My father had a stroke back in February, and the people from his church have been amazingly supportive and helpful to both him and my mother.

Oh, good point. We've gotten tons of help - from simply visiting my wife in the hospital, to meals and lawn mowing since she's been home. On the other hand, any sort of community, religious or not, can provide this.

[Blaster Master]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

But if poster A says, "Such and such is something position that comes from religion" and you disallow poster B from saying, "Well, I don't believe that such and such is really that positive at all" then you aren't having a meaningful conversation at all-you're having a "Yea for Religion!" thread.

I don't think it would be against the spirit of the thread to agrue whether or not a specific point is true or is actually a positive thing; that's healthy reasonable debate. As in someone says religions promotes X and someone disagrees that it promotes X or thinks that X is a bad thing, sure.

What I think the OP was against was people just comining in and just straight up listing a bunch of bad stuff. For instance, if someone were to go "Look, religious people are the main ones against SSM." or some of the early snark comments like "good comedy fodder" I'd think that's what the OP was against.

[johnpost]

well there was this really good pancake breakfast i went to once.

some religions do good charity work not part of a missions effort. these aren't without flaws but can be overall good. many hospitals were started by religious institutions to provide quality health care at a more affordable price.

some religions have good disaster aid efforts.

some religions have food and clothing banks and reuse shops.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by bup

Oh, good point. We've gotten tons of help - from simply visiting my wife in the hospital, to meals and lawn mowing since she's been home. On the other hand, any sort of community, religious or not, can provide this.

Yes, but many, not all, churches are fairly open communities. Belonging isnt tough. And church membership carries the expectation of lending a helping hand, not all organizations do. And churches tend to be large enough to share that sort of co-caring burden.

My brother in law, not a church member, is dying of cancer. And his close friends and family have been really helpful. But his larger communities, fandom, renfair, and folk musicians, are not organized for "who is bringing the hot dish over and who is mowing the lawn" the way churches often are. My congregation has a care committee for organizing just this sort of thing.

On a related front, my husband is an atheist. He is also a church member (yeah, UUs are a strange religion). Despite not being a person of faith, being able to talk to a minister has been comforting and helpful. It's an awkward time for us, venting to family and friends is only adding stress to those already stressed...we can commiserate, but we are all in states if misery and there is an amount of brave face being put on by everyone. His work environment has been supportive, but he wants to remain professional. Here is a ready made third person, trained and experienced in this particular issue, who requires no caregiving and not involved, ready to listen and, if wanted, advise. There really isn't another source for this for him, maybe a therapist, but a therapist is similar, not the same. And he is the first to admit that even fifteen years ago he never thought he'd have a minster, and as recently as three years ago, never really thought he would ever need one (he's been humoring me).

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

And that's any more believable than the claims of all the various Christian sects who claim that they are about "waking you up" to God? Or Scientology? What religions don't claim to be about enlightening people?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Are you saying that because all religions claim to offer enlightenment, that none of them do? That would be a pretty ignorant statement, if so.

[Ellen Cherry]

As long as people civilly state their problems with the "good in religion," I don't see why it can't be lightly debated. However, we do have a debate forum, and if people want to go at it for reals, we'll have to move the thread there.

So, disputing a "good" with a counterargument is OK. Statements which boil down to "religion is stupid and so are you" are not.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by bup

Oh, good point. We've gotten tons of help - from simply visiting my wife in the hospital, to meals and lawn mowing since she's been home. On the other hand, any sort of community, religious or not, can provide this.

Agreed with Dangerosa about how churches are a little more equipped to deal with it. And this is in the south, where church is probably the strongest community you'll find. But yes, my father also got help from friends, his fellow flotilla members, golf buddies, and many others. It took him having a stroke to realize how many people love him.

[Rodgers01]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Nitpick: You mean "flak." "Flak" is anti-aircraft weaponry; metaphorically, it means "criticism." A "flack" is a publicist or a spokesman.

Your question seems to imply that the people who are giving flak to religion on these boards aren't aware of the (purported) good in religion. But we live in a society in which we are constantly bombarded by that message.

I'm curious about the motivation for the OP. Do you really think that the critics of religion on this board are unaware or ill-informed of the good in religion? Is this witnessing in disguise?

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

If this thread was meant as some kind of "let's convince the atheists that religion is really wonderful after all!" thing, then I regret my participation.

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

More to the point, is this a witnessing thread that doesn't allow opposing criticism? I'm not sure what forum would allow that.

Nope, no witnessing, no proselytizing. In fact, I've been happily atheist almost my entire adult life. ("Almost" because of several years as an agnostic.)

Motivation for the thread was partly just to see if it could be done - in a crowd that is generally anti-religion, I was curious how well people could hold their noses and discuss the good in something they dislike. Partly it was just because it's an under-covered topic on these boards, where virtually every topic has been discussed. But mostly it was just out of sheer curiosity of what people would say. I'm certainly not out to change anyone's mind - as mentioned, I'm quite content with my own atheism, and have no interest in challenging anyone else's.

Why ask that the thread only focus on the good elements of religion? Because the good, the bad, and the ugly of organized religion has been debated in countless other threads, and it's pretty predictable how that discussion would play out. I purposely did not put this in Great Debates.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by tdn

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Are you saying that because all religions claim to offer enlightenment, that none of them do? That would be a pretty ignorant statement, if so.

I think he might be saying that since most all religions claim to offer enlightenment, saying that any particular religion is doing good by "enlightening" people doesn't really mean anything, especially since the term is so loosely defined.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I think he might be saying that since most all religions claim to offer enlightenment, saying that any particular religion is doing good by "enlightening" people doesn't really mean anything, especially since the term is so loosely defined.

Sure, but then one has but to do a tiny amount of research to find out what's really going on. It's not like religions go to great lengths to hide what they're about.

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

My parish provides a place for outcasts to come in out of the rain literally and emotionally. People that I see and talk to every Sunday include a bizarre gigantic effeminate black guy wrapped in bright colored sheets so that only his eyes can be seen, a mentally-impaired aged abuse survivor who gets marginal work as a carpenter, sometimes, a guy dying of cancer with no other friends in town . . . they are all welcomed and supported and known and cared about by the parish. They have no other place. Nothing is asked of them, only given. They are a small sample of the people whom my parish serves. Perhaps in a different kind of town there would be a non-church place for them, but not the town I live in.

Social opportunities for people who would not have a lot of other opportunities for being social, for whatever reason. Some churches have buses to get senior citizens and other non-drivers to church. That's giving them opportunities to get out and be social that they wouldn't have without religion. Many religions encourage people to visit sick people. That keeps housebound sick people from being socially isolated. Social isolation is generally not good for people.

Mourning rituals, in religions that have them, give people motivation to get out of the house and be with other people, even when they've recently lost a loved one. Jewish mourning ritual in fact has a prayer for the dead that can only be said in a group of 10 adult Jews. This keeps mourners from being socially isolated. Isolating yourself can be a very natural thing to do in a time of mourning, but it's generally better to get out and have at least some social contact. The ritual of Kaddish makes people do this, even if they don't want to right now.

A church or synagogue can be active in establishing cultural continuity- lessons in the language of your ethnic group, stuff like that. Synagogues provide opportunity and motivation for Jewish kids to learn Hebrew, and education programs for adults to learn about Jewish culture. The Greek Orthodox cathedral near me offers Greek school for kids. They also have an annual food festival where you can get some great Greek food.

Pastoral counseling can provide help for people who might not be able or willing to seek out needed help through other routes.

When I got married, a lot of the decisions about what to do at the wedding were made for me when I decided to have a Jewish wedding. Same goes for many other life-cycle events. Planning such events can be stressful (especially for less happy life-cycle events like deaths), and those kind of defaults can take away some of the stress.

My religion gives me an excuse to not do any chores or errands from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. I don't feel like I "really should" be cleaning the house instead of reading and relaxing, because my religion says it is OK to read and relax on Shabbat, and it is not OK to clean the house.

There are Jewish groups that are involved with making genetic screening available to Jewish people of child-bearing age, at reduced or no cost to the people getting the screenings. Mr. Neville got a genetic screening through one of these programs. If you're a carrier for a genetic disease, it's generally better to know that than it is to not know. Tay-Sachs disease is a lot less common than it once was, and part of the credit should go to Jewish groups that encourage people to get screened for it. It also provides reassurance- I know my baby is extremely unlikely to have Tay-Sachs disease, because neither Mr. Neville nor I are a carrier for it. Insurance companies are more reluctant to screen people for genetic diseases, and they don't do outreach to encourage more people to get screened (at least none of the insurance companies we've been with ever did). They are really reluctant to do such screenings for people who aren't trying to conceive yet, even though early detection gives you the most options of how to deal with being a carrier. If you only screen people who are trying to conceive for Tay-Sachs, you aren't giving people the option to not try to have children because they and their spouse are both carriers, for example.

[Rodgers01]

Originally Posted by Ellen Cherry

As long as people civilly state their problems with the "good in religion," I don't see why it can't be lightly debated. However, we do have a debate forum, and if people want to go at it for reals, we'll have to move the thread there.

So, disputing a "good" with a counterargument is OK. Statements which boil down to "religion is stupid and so are you" are not.

With all due respect, is it possible for people who'd like to debate to simply start a new thread? I just feel that opening the floodgates will throw the thread completely off its intended course, and I'm really curious to hear peoples' answers to the original question.

And no, I'm not "against" debating religion. I've read and participated in plenty such debates on these boards. It's just that that was not the intent of this thread.

[Anne Neville]

The campaigns to stop human sacrifice in Aztec Mexico and sati in India had religious motivations (possibly among other motivations). Some churches in the US were involved in ending slavery here in the nineteenth century. Churches were involved in the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s in the US.

[OldnCrinkly]

My husband spent four years in a desert refugee camp. It was a VERY BAD PLACE, indeed. He was eventually accepted to come to the U.S. All of the associated costs (paperwork processing, airfare, place to stay once here, etc.) were provided by Catholic Charities. I asked him once, do they try to get you to become Catholic, or love Jesus, or anything like that? He said "Hell no, man! They drive you to the mosque if you want. (He is a Muslim, from a Muslim country.) They help you, whatever you need, whatever they can do, they just help you! They never tell you God and Jesus or whatever!" He was surprised by the question because it was so off base from his experience.

They do ask that in the future, if you are able, you pay back the airfare. It is pretty expensive, and they don't hound you for it, or send it to collection agencies. It helps them to be able to help other people, in other refugee camps, or other VERY BAD PLACES. Seems reasonable and fair to me.

They do help a lot of people this way. Also, it was not just for people coming to the U.S., from what I understand, they do all of the paperwork for people trying to go to any country that might accept them. That alone is a huge task. I do not know if they actually handle any resettlement expenses in other countries, though.

I'm not sure how anyone could find fault with Catholics for that bit of work.

[Nzinga, Seated]

I understand the spirit of your thread, Rodgers01, and I think those who can't resist snarking are making fools of themselves.

Like Acid Lamp, I like the art, music and the bible is interesting to read. (haven't read it in years, but used to read it all the time, and found it fascinating.)

When I think of a child who learns they have inoperable cancer and will die very shortly, I just can't find a way to convince myself that it is harmful to comfort that child with ideas of a heavenly afterlife. I have always been conflicted about that.

[panache45]

Great art and music. That's about it.

[tdn]

OldnCrinkly, did your husband ever pay them back?

[Ellen Cherry]

Originally Posted by Rodgers01

With all due respect, is it possible for people who'd like to debate to simply start a new thread? I just feel that opening the floodgates will throw the thread completely off its intended course, and I'm really curious to hear peoples' answers to the original question.

And no, I'm not "against" debating religion. I've read and participated in plenty such debates on these boards. It's just that that was not the intent of this thread.

IMHO is for debating "less than cosmic topics." I don't see how you can open a thread here and not expect debate. Religion is one of THE subjects people debate about. Everyone has an opinion. The answer to the original question is still welcome and encouraged. But I don't think you get to control what others say when you start a thread in In My Humble Opinion.

[NoClueBoy]

The "pay it forward" type of thought is often highlighted by many religious people I've talked with.

IOW, they may feel that since God did them an unrepayable good, they want to share something good with others.

It exists outside of religious thought too, though.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by NoClueBoy

The "pay it forward" type of thought is often highlighted by many religious people I've talked with.

IOW, they may feel that since God did them an unrepayable good, they want to share something good with others.

It exists outside of religious thought too, though.

Religion provides an ethical framework...it isn't necessary, individuals develop ethics all on their own. But, as someone who spends a lot of time at work adapting "best practices" and "frameworks" for use inside the company, a starting or comparative framework can add a lot of value. One of the motivations for being Unitarian was to provide the kids with an ethical framework that was bigger than "Mom says.".

A lot of athests I've met have no religious faith, but have spent time looking at both religious and secular philosophy as part of their ethical or intellectual journey.

[OldnCrinkly]

tdn, yes, and gladly, when he was able to do so. But I also know people who didn't. One guy told me they used to send him a letter with a bill a couple times a year. I don't know if he ever paid it back. That particular guy was a jackass in various ways, so it didn't surprise me. He could afford it. I will say that even he never claimed to have been proseletyzed to. They were resettled in different parts of the country, so it was a whole separate group of people involved. But the help was the same. Yay Catholics!

[control-z]

Tradition; the ceremonies, beliefs, and practices are handed down from generation to generation.

Fellowship; you should feel accepted and in sync with others in your religion. You don't feel alone in the world, you feel like there is a higher (and maybe parent-like?) power.

Morals; the basis of a civilized society.


Having said all that, I am not religious but I get it.

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by control-z

Tradition; the ceremonies, beliefs, and practices are handed down from generation to generation.

And some of them are fun, even. Lots of people have happy childhood memories of Christmas or Passover. Lots of people who aren't particularly religious still celebrate religious holidays in some way.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by OldnCrinkly

tdn, yes, and gladly, when he was able to do so.

I'm glad to hear that. It's too bad about the guy who didn't.

[NoClueBoy]

Originally Posted by tdn

It's too bad about the guy who didn't.

With any luck, maybe he'll spend some time in limbo.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by NoClueBoy

With any luck, maybe he'll spend some time in limbo.

Can the Pope really enforce that?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

The campaigns to stop human sacrifice in Aztec Mexico and sati in India had religious motivations (possibly among other motivations). Some churches in the US were involved in ending slavery here in the nineteenth century. Churches were involved in the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s in the US.

This one is a little iffy, considering the rolls religion played on both sides of each example.

[Gukumatz]

Music, art and counseling. Yeah, priests do other things as well, but a lot of the services they provide to their community would be called counseling if it was anybody else doing it.

[NoClueBoy]

Originally Posted by tdn

Can the Pope really enforce that?

I'm not sure if it's even an official RC doctrine.

[ñañi]

Religion can mark people as worthy of damnation. However, it can also expand people's moral imaginations so that they can conceive of adversaries who are not enemies. Over time, in my humble opinion, the second trait is stronger.

The development of a Just War ethic, and conceptions of things like non-combatant immunity, is an example of what I'm talking about and owes a lot to religion.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Nava

* 'Cos I Iz Boss laws. These range widely from the pleasurable to the bothersome to the easily-overcome (laws about female modesty, meet mantillas and mermaid-cut dresses). ... produced many pretty things

Verdadera.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by tdn

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Are you saying that because all religions claim to offer enlightenment, that none of them do? That would be a pretty ignorant statement, if so.

Not at all. Given that religions all claim to be providing enlightenment, that they contradict each other wildly, and that they have no actual evidence for the reality of their claims that's a very good indication that none of them have a clue what they are talking about. And it's a fairly commonly used argument against religion.

But my main point was to point out how baseless the claim was that Eastern religions like Buddhism opened the mind while Western religions closed them. To put in perspective, if someone claimed that Buddhism closed minds and Christianity opened them, could you demonstrate that statement to be any more or less valid than the pro-Buddhism one?

[Otara]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

Take it to another arena for a second. Suppose someone posts a thread about a major political figure and some legislation they support. If all that happens is that the people who align with that person's party say "this is great news!" and everyone who aligns with the opposite party says "this is horrible news!" then nothing good comes out of it and there will continue to be an impass. If instead, those who support it can enumerate why they support it and those who oppose it make a real effort to understand why those people think those reasons are good, they may not agree with eachother, but at least they can disagree with eachother from informed positions.

I guess the difference for me is I havent already had tons and tons and tons of situations where I was expected to sit there and understand a major current political figure without criticising.

The idea that anyone disagreeing with religion doing it from an uninformed position in most of our societies, let alone because they havent 'made a real effort' to understand the other perspective is one I find quite baffling. You generally have to actively resist being put in positions where you're being asked to sit down and 'give it a fair chance' on a regular basis, even as an adult.

Otara

[Locrian]

Well, there would be very few horror movies.

And if you like the violent films, Passion Of the Christ is considered THE MOST violent film in history.

[Dave Hartwick]

Originally Posted by Locrian

Well, there would be very few horror movies.

And if you like the violent films, Passion Of the Christ is considered THE MOST violent film in history.

Wow, never thought about how horror genre often plays off religious themes. An interesting "good" that shows the cultural literacy aspect of religion.

Speaking of literacy, religious institutions have at times had policies that promoted literacy. Religious desires have also motivated individuals to learn to read so they could peruse sacred texts for themselves.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by kayaker

How about, "Religion provides structure for peoples' lives".

So does a prison cell. So does... pretty much every social institution in existence.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Not at all. Given that religions all claim to be providing enlightenment, that they contradict each other wildly, and that they have no actual evidence for the reality of their claims that's a very good indication that none of them have a clue what they are talking about. And it's a fairly commonly used argument against religion.

But my main point was to point out how baseless the claim was that Eastern religions like Buddhism opened the mind while Western religions closed them. To put in perspective, if someone claimed that Buddhism closed minds and Christianity opened them, could you demonstrate that statement to be any more or less valid than the pro-Buddhism one?

I've read this eight times and I still have no idea what it means. When you say "Not at all", do you mean that some religions offer more enlightenment than others, or that it's ignorant to say that none do.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that enlightenment is possible? That's a simple yes or no question.

And to answer your question about Buddhism closing minds an Christianity opening them, that couldn't have come at a better time. A close friend told her born-again sister about what I'm doing with my life. The sister accused me (not to my face) of being a Satan-worshipper. Coming from someone like that, I'm more assured that I'm on the right path.

[Boyo Jim]

You tell us what 'enlightenment' is, and we'll tell you if we think it's possible.

If you think it means, "coming to a new understanding", then yes, it is possible. That's not to say the understanding is correct, however.

If you think it means, "coming to a more correct understanding", then yes, it is also possible. That's not to say that religion, eastern or western, leads to such an outcome, or even makes it more likely.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

You tell us what 'enlightenment' is, and we'll tell you if we think it's possible.

If you think it means, "coming to a new understanding", then yes, it is possible. That's not to say the understanding is correct, however.

If you think it means, "coming to a more correct understanding", then yes, it is also possible. That's not to say that religion, eastern or western, leads to such an outcome, or even makes it more likely.

Oh boy, we're not really going to play this game, are we?

OK, my definition of enlightenment: Coming to a fuller understanding of yourself, finding sustainable happiness, and being at peace and stillness.

Most religions have been seeking this for thousands of years. Is it your assertion that not even one of them has gotten even a single thing right about it?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by tdn

I've read this eight times and I still have no idea what it means. When you say "Not at all", do you mean that some religions offer more enlightenment than others, or that it's ignorant to say that none do.

I was saying "not at all" to your claim that it's ignorant to say that the fact that the various religions all offer various contradictory claims of enlightenment is evidence that none do. It is evidence that no religion offers enlightenment; quite good evidence.

Originally Posted by tdn

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that enlightenment is possible? That's a simple yes or no question.

Certainly; through science and reason, most prominently. We're certainly more enlightened than the people of the past; but not because of religion. Religion is intellectually sterile at best because it is based on falsehoods; it is unlikely to enlighten anyone since it lacks the basis in reality needed to do so except by sheer luck.

Originally Posted by tdn

OK, my definition of enlightenment: Coming to a fuller understanding of yourself, finding sustainable happiness, and being at peace and stillness.

Most religions have been seeking this for thousands of years. Is it your assertion that not even one of them has gotten even a single thing right about it?

Happiness and "stillness" has nothing to do with enlightenment. Religion clouds the understanding of oneself and others, it doesn't help it. And only a subset of religion values any of those things.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I was saying "not at all" to your claim that it's ignorant to say that the fact that the various religions all offer various contradictory claims of enlightenment is evidence that none do. It is evidence that no religion offers enlightenment; quite good evidence.

Your logic here is faulty. Barack Obama claims to be the POTUS. Carrot Top claims to be the POTUS. They contradict each other. Does that mean that both are false?

Certainly; through science and reason, most prominently. We're certainly more enlightened than the people of the past; but not because of religion. Religion is intellectually sterile at best because it is based on falsehoods; it is unlikely to enlighten anyone since it lacks the basis in reality needed to do so except by sheer luck.

Please enumerate the falsehoods of Buddhism. Where does it lack a basis in reality?

For that matter, what is the falsehood in "Thou shalt not steal"?

Happiness and "stillness" has nothing to do with enlightenment. Religion clouds the understanding of oneself and others, it doesn't help it. And only a subset of religion values any of those things.

I guess we have different meanings of enlightenment. I much prefer mine.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by tdn

Your logic here is faulty. Barack Obama claims to be the POTUS. Carrot Top claims to be the POTUS. They contradict each other. Does that mean that both are false?

There is tons of evidence that Obama is the Prez.
Can you provide solid evidence that any one religion is more enlightening than the others?
If not, your analogy is extremely faulty.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by tdn

Your logic here is faulty. Barack Obama claims to be the POTUS. Carrot Top claims to be the POTUS. They contradict each other. Does that mean that both are false?

That analogy doesn't work because there's plenty of evidence besides what they say as to who is President. With religion on the other hand, there's no evidence at all beyond their unsupported word as to which religion is the "true way" and which is false. If I claim to be the one true god there's just as much evidence for that as for any other religion.

Originally Posted by tdn

Please enumerate the falsehoods of Buddhism. Where does it lack a basis in reality?

In all of the supernatural claims it makes.

Originally Posted by tdn

For that matter, what is the falsehood in "Thou shalt not steal"?

That's not a religious claim of fact, that's a common social rule.

Originally Posted by tdn

I guess we have different meanings of enlightenment. I much prefer mine.

Obviously you don't, or you'd be sitting in a corner somewhere out of your mind on heroin or something similar. Your definition of "enlightened" sounds an awful lot like "high on opiates".

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by tdn

Your logic here is faulty. Barack Obama claims to be the POTUS. Carrot Top claims to be the POTUS. They contradict each other. Does that mean that both are false?

Carrot Top also claims to be a comedian, which is absurd, and should lead you to pay less attention to any other claim he puts forth.

[tdn]

My analogy is quite apt. Der Trihs's claim is that when things contradict each other, then none can be true. That's clearly a false claim.