I think this is obviously incorrect since all people function with some belief system.
Was this directed at me? Not even close to what I said.
It would seem some here judge a person on the reasonableness of their thoughts rather than the reality of their accomplishments. (But since I have not yet mastered the darn quote function, I would rather not use it.)
It wasn’t meant as praise or condemnation. It’s an observation about humanity and belief systems
It seems (if I might say politely) that observation is the one thing it is not. It would seem that ignoring the good (or bad) works of a person, but making a judgement based on the origin of an intangible system of belief is not observation, but prejudice.
Or, because some “belief systems” ARE more based on facts and more logically inconsistent than others.
Your line of thought isn’t original; it’s an old attempt to make excuses for religion. Since religion isn’t defensible on its own terms, pretend that all belief systems are equally plausible. Sooner or later that’s the kind of position people trying to defend religion get pushed to; rather than admit that religion is inconsistent both with observed reality and itself, they deny that reality or logic exist or are important. It happens fairly often on this board; someone trying to defend religion starts spouting what amounts to solipsism or even denies the validity of logic.
Why? Because fundamentally, religion makes no sense and doesn’t fit the facts. And yes, that DOES make such “belief systems” inferior to logically consistent ones that do fit the facts. Including, yes, in cases where people following religious beliefs are doing good for the moment; those same people who are doing good in the name of their religion could at any time turn around and start inflicting great misery, because their beliefs are not reality based. Such as Chefguy’s example of the Christians pushing for a massacre of homosexuals; they are doing what they are doing for the same reasons that the believers who run soup kitchens do what they do.
Consistently moral behavior just isn’t possible for a group that is acting according to a set of delusions; it’s more luck than anything that determines whether their intentions intersect reality enough at the moment that they do more good than harm. So long as their worldview is not based on facts and logic, at best they will flail about in the world doing good or bad randomly.
Paul, apparently you didn’t get the official memo. Those evangelicals are just preparing the ground so they can later force people to stop teaching evolution, kill gays and force women to have 10 children every year.
They are illogical hypocrites, Paul, they possibly ask for plastic bags at Wal Mart.
Given any group of people you can bet none of them will act according to any set of beliefs. When you say religion, which religion do you mean, there are thousands of them, and not all religions push for hurting homosexuals. They actual invite them to their churches. So your post is invalid because it paints too broad and too general a picture of religion. People are individuals, unique in all cases. It is best not to judge others at all, but if you must then sharpen your pencil.
But they all by nature push for stupid behavior of one sort or another. If they weren’t stupid, they wouldn’t be a religion. No one bothers to slap the “religion” label on a belief system that make sense, that fits reality; such a rational belief system can be defended without demanding the false respect of religion.
So all religions are silly because you define all those systems that are silly to be religions? That is a tad circular, don’t you think?
Then please tell us who you’re talking to. For now I’ll assume it’s me.
I have no idea what you read into my posts but let me try again. Honestly, read what I said,
The reason that a religious one is no better or worse than another is because a religious belief system can be the basis for either great good, {like your example} or great evil {see crusades, or the inquisition} Likewise a non religious belief system can also be used for good or evil and both cover all the shades in between.
I am in no way judging thoughts over actions and results. Quite the contrary, I think the real life results and consequences of our choices should cause us to evaluate and perhaps tweak our belief system as we go through life.
Keep in mind, the fact that people who believe Jesus is Lord do good works doesn’t add any weight to that specific belief. Lots of people do good works and don’t agree.
No; don’t distort what I am saying. I’m pointing out that if a belief isn’t silly, it doesn’t need to be labeled “religion” to defend it, so people aren’t likely to do so. Religion is what people label stupid ideas, ideas that they can’t honestly defend but want to believe anyway; so they label such beliefs religious and demand respect for those beliefs regardless of their worth. Religion is the garbage heap of the mind; it’s where all the stupidest, most ridiculous beliefs go.
So, you really think that the truth or logic of a belief system has no effect on how good or bad it is? You really think that someone operating according to a fantasy can do good as well as someone rational?
That’s ridiculous; but it is a form of ridiculousness demanded if you are to show religion respect. You can’t admit that it is better to be right than wrong, without admitting that a religious belief system is inferior to one based on facts and logic. So instead you try to pretend that no matter how lunatic a belief system is, or how sane another is, there’s nothing to choose between the two.
It seems you are wrong because you grossly misunderstood what I was saying and made incorrect assumptions about my meaning rather than politely asking for clarification.
A belief system is something held by every human, believer or otherwise. I neither said nor implied anything about ignoring the works of a person. I believe all belief systems {that unique combination of intellect and emotion} are imperfect because humanity is imperfect. That is my observation. There is nothing prejudice about it since it contains no judgment about the value of any group. It recognizes that the nature of belief systems means both religious and non religious systems have the capacity for both good and evil.
I hope I’ve clarified that.
Not what I said at all.
Of course. It’s possible for a rational person to be incredibly self serving and not help others or participate in charities in general. A person could be incredibly delusional but if their delusion moved them to feed the hungry then they’d be doing good.
This is a prime example of the kind of BS memes I referred to before. Whether you like it or not, or agree or not, a religious belief system can be based on facts and logic and a non religious one can be full of unreasoning prejudice. {hmmmmm let me see if I can think of an example}
I didn’t say or imply any such thing. You apparently missed the point. Try reading with different glasses.
Unless their delusion later demands that they then turn around and hurt or kill the people they were helping. Delusions are not a reliable guide to behavior.
And I never claimed that rational people were automatically more charitable; they are however, being rational, much more likely to be good at it if they try.
There’s no such thing as a religious belief system based on facts and logic; that’s why it’s called “faith”. Nor did I claim that non-religious belief systems are always rational; it’s just that they CAN be, unlike religious ones.
Well yeah, it’s good unless it gets bad. How observant.
Nice assumption. It isn’t just a matter of effort. It’s also a matter of heart. Sure, non believers can be awesome at it if they have compassion and empathy, just as believers can be so pious that they miss the opportunities to fill real needs.
We’re not just talking the fundies here. All people have belief systems and all of them contain a certain element of faith. As I said, all are a unique combination of intelligence and emotion. Certainly emotional attachment to religious myths or popular memes can and do blind people to logic and reason in certain areas.
A reasonable believer might say, these are the things I believe but I admit I don’t really know. A reasonable non believer has a similar approach. We hope and can expect both people to look at available factual info and reach a conclusion that will also reflect their personal preference and emotional make up. The degree to which they color the facts with their emotions can vary greatly on both sides.
“I* know* Jesus is Lord and I’m going to heaven”, is not a very logical line of thinking. Neither is “All religion is crap and should be eradicated” since there’s no hard evidence to truly support that.
I think it’s more accurate to say humans are a mixed bad of rational and emotional reactions. Extremists on either side are usually more emotion than logic, and that sometimes is subject specific. Granted we have many more extremists on the religion side simply by % of population that is religious.
Don’t distort what I’m saying. I was - obviously - pointing out that irrational people, being irrational, may well turn around and do cruel, destructive things for the very same irrational reasons they were doing nice things. Whether they mean well or not is irrelevant, because their irrationality will distort how that is expressed. Those same believers feeding the hungry will just as happily poison the hungry if their religion demands it; something demonstrated throughout the world and throughout history.
It’s not an assumption; it’s the obvious truth. Rational people are better than irrational people at any given task.
No; faith is not a universal.
There’s no such thing as a reasonable believer. If they were reasonable, they wouldn’t be one.
And again with the attempt to claim special privileges for religion. Religion IS “crap” by the standards applied to all the other silly claims in the world that don’t get the “it’s religion, you have to respect it!” label slapped on them.
This is such a gross over simplification it’s just ludicrous.
religious faith is not, but the internal human mechanism of believing things we can’t be factually sure of, exists in everybody. You demonstrate that pretty dam well.
summarily dismissed as one of the BS mems I mentioned
I am in no way asking for any special privileges for religion. Quite the opposite. By judging people and belief systems of believers and non believers by the same standard I’m advocating a more nuanced and realistic approach.
Since you consistently present your unproven and biased opinion as factual you’re in the same category as those with religious belief systems who do something similar.
Religion is in no way inherently morally superior, just as non belief isn’t inherently intellectually superior. Humanity is more nuanced and complex than that. Painting with to broad a brush and presenting it as factual is illogical and narrow minded. Something believers get accused of on a regular basis.
(Look! I managed to make a quote box!)
So all beliefs that are silly are called religion because all religions are (by your definition) silly? As I said, sort of the dog chasing his own tail in terms of logical thinking.
He already corrected you on this. Did you read what he wrote?
The argument he is making is that rational ideas that make sense and are held up as facts don’t get called religions or ‘religious’, due to their rationality and sensibility. This claim seems to hold up, at least to some degree; lightning was a supernatural phenomenon until we plotted it into a rational system, and now suddenly it’s fallen almost entirely off the supernatural radar. Alchemy lost all its mysticism when it got replaced by chemistry. Illness used to be considerd the work of demons, but we don’t consider viruses and bacteria demons now. Evolution treads in arenas historically held by religions, but while some religions accept it, it’s never referred to as a religious theory itself. So clearly, there is indeed a tendency for concepts that have a rational basis not to be categorized as religions.
Now, to fully accept Der Trihs’s argument, you have to presume that there isn’t just the case that there are logical explanations that are accepted unlabeled as religions, but you have to accept that there aren’t religions that are logical and correct. Presumably this is the bit you don’t want to accept. 
But regardless, the fact that there is at least a trend towards rational ideas being perceived as secular is pretty much undeniable.