A lot of people have claimed that the bible was guided or inspired by god. Yet, it is full of evil and contradiction and as everyone knows there is no evidence for it whatsoever. It seems like a meaningless statement or a mere copout to me. Anyone care to elaborate on that?
So you’re of the opinion that without religion we’d be living in Nirvana (pun intended)?
No, I’m of the opinion that if religion didn’t exist people wouldn’t kill and oppress people to the same degree because they’d lack one of the best motivations & excuses for doing so. I’m of the opinion that religion is not a special case, and like every other belief system it actually affects how people behave; instead of it being this perfect abstract thing that doesn’t affect people except to do good and would be perfectly benevolent if those evil, evil humans hadn’t gotten their hands on it.
I’m scared by people who are irrational because their thoughts and “logic” can take them anywhere. One moment they think the birds are singing just to them. The next they think the birds are trying to kill them.
One moment people think God is speaking through their pastor and that he’s a true Man of God. The next moment they think God wants them and their children to drink cyanide-laced koolaide.
If Einstein and Newton were found to be total wackjob frauds, first I’d be shocked, then I’d be a bit disappointed, but I wouldn’t go through any existential crisis. I don’t have much invested in their theories. My ego, my hopes and fears, my morality, and in my inner drive are not at all connected to their laws. Indeed, I would be excited about New Physics, because maybe it will have answers to questions we have never asked before. Evolution of human thought is a beautiful thing.
But a religious person can’t be open. They don’t evolve. They harden their minds against new information and are willing to die and kill for the sake of ancient beliefs.
They impede progress.
Why wouldn’t this be troubling?
Einstein and Newton were both quite religious, so they kind of are wackjobs. 
Religion cannot, by definition, be a wholly benevolent institution because it is naturally predisposed to separating people into those who follow, those who follow wrong, and those who do not follow at all. Taken to extremes, we have holy wars. But that’s true of any large human institution, including governments designed to protect the very people they sometimes exterminate.
So your claim that religion is somehow worse than some other human organization is correct only through sheer numbers of victims, but not intrinsic human motive to separate into us and them camps and try to kill them before they come to kill us.
In the midst of all that, I do believe that most people are good. But not in mobs, regardless whether you call them religions or tribes or extreme nationalists. This part of human psychology has been well explored.
Look, I do understand that fundamentalism is on the rise in the US and other places, and among Christians and other religions, but you are generalizing to the point of absurdity.
I can assure you that you are quite wrong about me and the great majority of my Episcopalian sisters and brothers. Allowing for individual variances in ability, intelligence and personality, we are open, evolving, able to learn and certainly no more inclined to kill than anyone else. We don’t bash gays (we welcome them and often ordain them), we aren’t terrorists, we don’t demand that anyone else conform to our religious beliefs.
There are quite a lot of Christians like this. Instead of dismissing us as not really religious, you ought to consider whether it’s really religion you’re troubled by, or people who use Christianity to justify unjust, unkind and un-religious behavior.
And really the view of human nature that assumes religion turns people into intolerant and/or murderous robots–contrary to their natural inclinations–seems far more pessimistic to me than the idea that humans will justify greed, power grabs, and bigotry with whatever is convenient (including religion, nationalism, and racism). People in this country in this century can and do choose their religion or no religion; unfortunately quite a number of them choose one that allows them to be intolerant and unjust.
I’d be interested to know whether there’s research or evidence to support the idea that not being religious makes one more open, able to evolve and learn, or less likely to be violent.
The last, alas, is definitely true. There are no perfect human institutions, and the lack of religion would not introduce a “Nirvana.” We might be a bit better off, but it wouldn’t be Edenic.
I wonder, though, about your first observation. It seems true of the “monopolist” religions, the big universal ones – the Abrahamics especially – but not so much of the old pantheisms. In the good old days, if you followed Hermes and I followed Athena, we didn’t have to fight. We’d get along okay. We were distinct, but not separated.
It even worked, to a lesser degree, between pantheons. Some nice follower of Odin or Vishnu or Ashtoreth could join us at lunch, and we didn’t feel the need to mock them. Likely as not, we’d start making comparisons and looking for points of commonality. “Ashtoreth – much like Aphrodite, isn’t she?”
This isn’t an iron-clad rule – pantheists were sometimes nasty and bigoted – but it seems that they were a lot less so.
Ah, the good old days. 
This is strictly speculitive on my part… Perhaps the fact that a smaller and more granular population with a wider range of beliefs would find it beneficial to find common traits in order to build alliances. After all, if you were tollerant of your enemy’s neighbours, perhaps you could count on them not to align themselves with your enemy and attack you. Best case scenario, they might help you attack and defeat your enemy.
I used this in another thread, but I’ll repost it here. Here are some of the things your god commands you to do.
“'If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” - Leviticus 21: 9
“And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.” - Leviticus 24: 16
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. - Leviticus 25: 44-46
Before you say that Jesus came to do away with the old law, let me remind you that he actually did not.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matt 5:17 (Jesus)
Honestly, cherry-pick all you like, but your god commands you to do these things, and you are disobeying him. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that you are not all that religious. The fundamentalists are the ones taking it seriously. What’s scary is that we live in a modern world, where most people live convenient lives and so they are able to look past these barbaric ideas. But, when push comes to shove, and resources get slim, religious people will be inclined to follow their leaders, who derive their morality from this despicable book.
ETA: Also, you admit that fundamentalism is on the rise, while at the same time we are in the middle of an economic depression. It could be a coincidence, or it could be a correlation. I don’t like take chances with that sort of thing.
It’s circular reasoning, though, isn’t it? Religion is bad, ergo anyone who isn’t bad isn’t really religious.
I’m not a fundamentalist and am opposed to the politics and social precepts espoused by many fundamentalists who claim these things are required by scripture. I go to church every Sunday, am active in my church, do volunteer and charitable work, and try to love my neighbor as myself.
I’m quite religious, I’m just not the kind of religious that’s easy for you to denounce perhaps.
“Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
How have I generalized?
I never said all religious people do or think anything. But they do have one thing in common: they eschew reason on principle.
If you accept reason 99% of the time and use faith to fill in the uncomfortable gaps the rest of the time, you are still an irrational human being. You are really no different than the crazy person who thinks light fixtures are sentient, and yet doesn’t believe in ghosts or aliens.
Be honest: If a friend of yours revealed to you that the light fixtures talk to him, wouldn’t you be bothered by this? Wouldn’t you worry about the other kooky things he believes?
I love my mother. She’s very much against oppression or hatred, just like I am. Very progressive. She’s the type of minister everyone could get behind. Except for one little thing. She believes white people are going to burn in hell. Her understanding of God and his loving justice tells her this must be true.
.
I know she’s not going to run out and kill people. She doesn’t preach this craziness from the pulpit, as far as I know. Nonetheless, I’m scared of her when she shares this side of her faith with me. I’m scared to find out what other shit she believes in.
And I’m pretty sure she doesn’t think she’s a fundamentalist either.
I used to call myself a Believer. Back then, I didn’t really think about stuff as much as I do know (though, to be fair, I was young and didn’t know what I didn’t know). But I don’t think I believed anything crazy, despite my mother and the crazy church she forced me to attend. So I do think it is possible to be a Believer and also be a reasonable person. But the thing is, IMHO, the more committed to faith a person is, the less reasonable that person becomes.
The scripture that you quoted and the ones I quoted simply illustrate the contradictions in the bible and the tendency of believers to cherry pick the ones they like. I don’t think it’s circular reasoning. It’s pretty straightforward. Perhaps, a better question is why do you choose to follow the scripture you do, instead of the more sinister type? It’s all inspired by god, right?
Monstro, you generalized when you said that religious people can’t be open, can’t evolve, can’t learn, and are willing to kill someone for the sake of their beliefs. I’d say that’s generalizing by any reasonable standard.
panacionne, if one believes that Christ is the redeemer (as I do) than one must take the two great laws as the two great laws, and make judgments about what else to accept or reject accordingly. An (imperfect) analogy would be that if I accept the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I accept or reject laws and interpretations of laws based on whether they are consistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Also, I have ethics and critical reasoning. Therefore I concur with some things written in the bible and reject other things, just as I would any other book.
When it comes to their faith, a religious person will not waiver. They are resistant to change. They DO refuse to be challenged.
Individual rationalists can be this way too. Everyone has their pet idea. But a true rationalist can be swayed with enough evidence and a compelling enough argument.
A true Believer, by definition, cannot.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matt 5:17 (Jesus)
Also, Non-Stamp Collector does the best job at pointing out contradictions I have ever seen. Worth a look.
Well, saying that a religious person can’t waiver in matters of faith is quite different from your original statement, that religious people can’t be open, evolve, or learn and are willing to kill people.
I’m not at all convinced that this more modest assertion is true, or why you believe it is. But if so, why is that a bad thing? If my religion leads me to believe that I must love my neighbor and act accordingly, why should I waiver?
Because you can be wrong. Even when it comes to something as “good” as neighborly love.
Christ directs his followers to turn the other cheek, love thy enemy, and be a fount of forgiveness. This is great when your enemy’s only crime is stealing your graham cracker during snack time.
But what if your enemy is a hording army with raping and pillaging on its agenda? Do you trust your faith to inform you what you should do in this case too? Do you pray and ready your cheeks for turning? Or do you build up your arsenal, and save Sunday School lessons for another day?
I accept that my ideas about the world can be 100% wrong. I’m working with the best information that I have, but I realize that my interpretations could be faulty. I also know that I have it in me to correct my course if events indicate it would be wise to do so. Because I do not have my eternal soul tied up in any one idea, and there is nothing wrong with respecting and changing one’s mind.
A person guided by faith is not flexible in this way.
They will often keep doing the same shit over and over again out of the belief they are doing what God wants them to do. Rather than what makes sense.
(Listening to the radio today, I caught an interview from a couple who just survived the tornado in OK. They will be rebuilding, by golly. Because God is obviously watching over them and this is what he wants them to do.)