If human beings lived forever....

[_mentalgymnast]

And as a globally entwined community, it will benefit ourselves to benefit others.

Sounds like a very happy scenario.

I suppose that over a period of ten thousand years we might be able to bring everyone, Shites/Sunnis/Christians/Atheists/Communists/Capitalists/Socialists/Third World, etc., etc., together as one big "entwined community".

I'm just worried about the next fifty years...

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

I'm just worried about the next fifty years...

Regards,
MG

On that we are in total agreement.

[_sock puppet]

...would religion cease to exist?

A large part of religion seems to be an attempt to prepare human beings for life after death. If human beings lived forever, that purpose would be meaningless. Therefore, religion would be neutered. Its only purpose would have to do with involving the godbeing in one's current life. And the necessity of faith itself leads us to conclude that that involvement is so minimal and vague it can be attributed to other natural factors. So what purpose would religion then serve?

It's not inconceivable that, in the future, we would be able to attain some sort of immortality of consciousness by merging consciousness with technology, so maybe this question is more pertinent than we now realize.

If religion would cease to exist if human beings lived forever, what does that tell us about religion?

Religion is a sale in the same vein as casualty insurance. The sale turns on inducing fear of the unknown future. Just as I would not buy insurance and pay premiums if I knew that my house would not catch fire, one would not buy into religion if he knew he would live forever.

[_mentalgymnast]

Just as I would not buy insurance and pay premiums if I knew that my house would not catch fire, one would not buy into religion if he knew he would live forever.

How can you know that your house isn't going to catch on fire?

What if buying into a particular religion, and living by its precepts, brings more than simple protection? Let's say, as some do, the hope filled possibility of investing in a future mansion of glory found in a heavenly kingdom? That's a motivator for living a life full of goodness and service.

Why wouldn't you want people to have that as their life paradigm? Why the desire to limit goodness? You are a fan of goodness, aren't you?

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

How can you know that your house isn't going to catch on fire?

What if buying into a particular religion, and living by its precepts, brings more than simple protection? Let's say, as some do, the hope filled possibility of investing in a future mansion of glory found in a heavenly kingdom? That's a motivator for living a life full of goodness and service.

Why wouldn't you want people to have that as their life paradigm? Why the desire to limit goodness? You are a fan of goodness, aren't you?

Regards,
MG

History has already shown us that religion doesn't necessarily promote goodness in one's life. Religion is just as apt to become a tool of oppression.

In my view, religion has little to do with how good people may or may not be. That comes down to their nature. If someone is a mean SOB as a believer, that person will remain a mean SOB as an atheist. If someone treats their fellow beings with kindness as a believer, that person will continue to do so as an atheist.

Religion does have an effect on behavior that is symbolic, of course, like whether or not one will drink coffee. But that's pretty irrelevant in terms of moral behavior.

The one thing religion has going for it is that it provides a good organization for collecting money or organizing behavior to respond to need. But human beings could easily do that in a world without religion, as well. It would be a gradual change, of course. It may be hard to imagine in a society that is so dominated by religion.

So let's put some of the negative effects of religion on a balance against the ability to organize people to meet a need. I'll be generous and pick that one above the other benefit of religion, which is collecting money for charitable purposes, because that one is so easily negated by religion collecting money and using it to further the religion more than charity, as well as manipulating people who can't afford to give money to the church to do so.

Some religions are very good at organizing people to mobilize in case of need. Mormonism is particularly good at that. The problem on the balance scale is that these acts don't occur very often, like the response to Katrina. The more frequent organization is more minor, such as getting people to help someone move, or providing food to someone sick. In a society where neighborhoods are less interactive than they used to be, that positive benefit cannot be dismissed. But how does it weigh against, for example, the century plus long contribution to the oppression of minorities?

I don't want to minimize how important it is to help someone move, or have food when they're sick, but it does seem to be rather lightweight against teaching large groups of people that anyone of color is inferior and, according to God's plan, can rightfully be used as a servant.

[_mentalgymnast]

History has already shown us that religion doesn't necessarily promote goodness in one's life. Religion is just as apt to become a tool of oppression.

Yes. This point is not arguable.

In my view, religion has little to do with how good people may or may not be.

If a person is educated, reinforced, and then gently pushed (counseled and advised) in the direction of being good, that won't make a difference? How can it not?

That comes down to their nature. If someone is a mean SOB as a believer, that person will remain a mean SOB as an atheist.

That is likely.

OTOH, if a person was a mean SOB as an atheist and converts to the LDS church, the likelihood that they would remain a mean SOB is highly unlikely. It may take a period of time, but as they live the principles of the gospel they can change and become a better human being.

If someone treats their fellow beings with kindness as a believer, that person will continue to do so as an atheist.

Again, that is likely true.

Religion does have an effect on behavior that is symbolic, of course, like whether or not one will drink coffee. But that's pretty irrelevant in terms of moral behavior.

Religion has an effect on behavior that is non-symbolic also. Go to the Beatitudes for starters, then the rest of the New Testament. Ten Commandments in the Old Testament. Many, if not most, of the conference talks throughout the modern day restoration period. Moral behavior is constantly preached and reinforced. I'm surprised that you would even try and defend or propose that religion has a merely symbolic effect on behavior. As though not drinking coffee is what it's all about.

The one thing religion has going for it is that it provides a good organization for collecting money or organizing behavior to respond to need.

Take out the word "The" and we're in a agreement.

But human beings could easily do that in a world without religion, as well.

And they do.

It would be a gradual change, of course. It may be hard to imagine in a society that is so dominated by religion.

I'm curious as to why it it necessary, in your view, to push religious enterprise out of the mix in doing good for humanity?

So let's put some of the negative effects of religion on a balance against the ability to organize people to meet a need.

But as it is, religious organizations are ALREADY performing an important function throughout the world in meeting needs. Why REPLACE something that works?

I'll be generous...

That's awfully good of you.

...and pick that one above the other benefit of religion, which is collecting money for charitable purposes, because that one is so easily negated by religion collecting money and using it to further the religion more than charity, as well as manipulating people who can't afford to give money to the church to do so.

In organizations that are run by people there are always going to be questions as to how the money is used. To negate the good that is done because there may be questions as to how ALL the money is used is rather unreasonable, in my opinion. Also, it is somewhat unreasonable to equate using money to "further the religion", i.e., building chapels, temples, sending out missionaries, supporting church schools, etc., as being inherently negative/bad.

Some religions are very good at organizing people to mobilize in case of need. Mormonism is particularly good at that.

That seems to be so. And that's a good thing, no argument there.

The problem on the balance scale is that these acts don't occur very often, like the response to Katrina.

That accusation is arguable, but it's already been argued in one forum or another multiple times. But if you want to believe that the church really doesn't have the welfare and concern for humanity in mind when they step up to the plate and choose when and where they can be of most assistance, then that's your choice.

The more frequent organization is more minor, such as getting people to help someone move, or providing food to someone sick. In a society where neighborhoods are less interactive than they used to be, that positive benefit cannot be dismissed.

Again, we are in agreement here. And that is the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Serving at ground level meeting the needs of people in distress and/or discomfort.

But how does it weigh against, for example, the century plus long contribution to the oppression of minorities?

Weigh? What for?

Why are charitable acts performed by individuals within an organization being balanced against sociological imperfections of the larger society and churches within those societies? We ought to be happy that the service is being done regardless of the other issues that arise within an organization composed of rather conflicted/biased/at times unreasonable human beings.

I don't want to minimize how important it is to help someone move, or have food when they're sick, but it does seem to be rather lightweight against teaching large groups of people that anyone of color is inferior and, according to God's plan, can rightfully be used as a servant.

Those issues have been remedied/ameliorated. Let's get back now to the basics that you're in favor of. That's what the everyday ward/branch in the church is all about.

Regards,
MG

[_Bazooka]

OTOH, if a person was a mean SOB as an atheist and converts to the LDS church, the likelihood that they would remain a mean SOB is highly unlikely. It may take a period of time, but as they live the principles of the gospel they can change and become a better human being.

In 1977 one of those Gospel Principles was that black men were inferior. How did living that principle help people become better human beings?

[_mentalgymnast]

OTOH, if a person was a mean SOB as an atheist and converts to the LDS church, the likelihood that they would remain a mean SOB is highly unlikely. It may take a period of time, but as they live the principles of the gospel they can change and become a better human being.

In 1977 one of those Gospel Principles was that black men were inferior. How did living that principle help people become better human beings?

It didn't, if you define a gospel principle as something that is lived. Living according to the belief that another human being or group of human beings is inferior would fall within the purview of your concern. As you know there are arguments, for and against, the withholding of the priesthood from African Americans being considered doctrine. I think that it was. If it was, then those that lived their lives, in and out of the church system, were living according to a lesser light. A greater light was revealed in 1978, thank goodness. Whether the doctrine was originally of man or of God, that's for another discussion. We can probably agree that those that subscribed to these views of the world had distorted perceptions of reality and the inherent potential of their fellow human beings. Nonetheless, at the same time, there were many principles and doctrines of the gospel that, if lived and adhered to religiously, pun intended, would still act upon a mean SOB atheist to help them become a better human being.

And that was the question being addressed.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

If a person is educated, reinforced, and then gently pushed (counseled and advised) in the direction of being good, that won't make a difference? How can it not?

Of course sometimes it can do good. But, as you conceded, religion has also been used to "educate, reinforce, and gently push" people towards behaviors that did not benefit larger society at all.

That is likely.

OTOH, if a person was a mean SOB as an atheist and converts to the LDS church, the likelihood that they would remain a mean SOB is highly unlikely. It may take a period of time, but as they live the principles of the gospel they can change and become a better human being.

I don't believe people can change their basic natures. I've known too many mean SOBs who were believers to think otherwise.

What is highly likely is that the mean SOB will put on a fine show at church, and only his/her family will know the truth. I imagine you've known a few like that in your lifetime, haven't you?

Religion has an effect on behavior that is non-symbolic also. Go to the Beatitudes for starters, then the rest of the New Testament. Ten Commandments in the Old Testament. Many, if not most, of the conference talks throughout the modern day restoration period. Moral behavior is constantly preached and reinforced. I'm surprised that you would even try and defend or propose that religion has a merely symbolic effect on behavior. As though not drinking coffee is what it's all about.

Lovely teachings. However, if religion truly had the effect that you are claiming, then we truly would know them by their fruits, instead of being reminded of human frailities and churches being hospitals for the sick. In my experience, there are just as many rotten people who are believers as not.

One example is abortion. Most Christians label abortion as one of the most serious sins ever. Many label it as outright murder. Yet, according to a study done in 2006, there is no difference between the rate believers have abortions versus those not affiliated with any religion.

Christians Have as Many Abortions as Everyone Else, Catholics Have More
A new study by The Center For Reason (http://www.CenterForReason.com) finds that Christians have just as many abortions as their non-Christian counterparts. The study concludes that in the year 2000, Christians were responsible for 570,000 abortions. Catholics were found to be the worst offenders, with abortion rates higher than the national average.

With over one million abortions being performed in the US each year, this issue has dominated the political landscape. In recent years the rhetoric has escalated, with the pro-life movement becoming a flagship for Christian morality and ethics. The prevailing Christian doctrine--that abortion is murder--has polarized the issue, firmly placing the vast majority of Christians on the pro-life side of the debate.

Incendiary comments by some of the more outspoken Christian figureheads have sought to portray abortion as an “evil” perpetrated by the non-Christian left. In response to this, The Center For Reason, a private research group, undertook a study to test the premise: “Christians have fewer abortions than non-Christians”. The results disproved the premise.

The study, available as a downloadable report, reveals that Christians have just as many abortions as non-Christians. Data analyzed for all fifty states show that the rate of abortion is the same in the most-Christian segments of the population as it is in the least-Christian. The most-Catholic segments, on the other hand, showed significantly higher abortion rates.

All data sources used in the study are publicly available, and are referenced in the report. All raw data and calculated values are tabulated in the report, to allow full verification of the results.
The report, titled “The Landscape of Abortion”, may be downloaded from http://www.CenterForReason.com/reports.htm.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/03/prweb357377.htm

Just look at how people behave online, where folks often indulge in behavior they would otherwise restrict for various reasons. Believers may say they follow Jesus's teachings about forgiveness, turning the other cheek, etc., but their online behavior seems to be just as aggressive as any nonbeliever's. No matter what they may say about their ethics, their actual behavior shows "tit for tat", not "turn the other cheek."

I'm curious as to why it it necessary, in your view, to push religious enterprise out of the mix in doing good for humanity?

I didn't say it was necessary. I was responding to your seeming assertion that the push for goodness would disappear if religion disappeared.

But as it is, religious organizations are ALREADY performing an important function throughout the world in meeting needs. Why REPLACE something that works?

Once again, I was responding to your seeming assertion that the push would goodness would disappear if religion disappeared, in a world where human beings live forever.

In organizations that are run by people there are always going to be questions as to how the money is used. To negate the good that is done because there may be questions as to how ALL the money is used is rather unreasonable, in my opinion. Also, it is somewhat unreasonable to equate using money to "further the religion", i.e., building chapels, temples, sending out missionaries, supporting church schools, etc., as being inherently negative/bad.

I sound like a broken record, but you seem to have overlooked the context in which my statement occurred. You seemed to be asserting that the push for goodness would disappear without religion. All my comments were made in response to that assertion. I didn't say spending the money on furthering the religion was inherently bad. I just said it couldn't count in terms of charitable works done for the larger society.

That accusation is arguable, but it's already been argued in one forum or another multiple times. But if you want to believe that the church really doesn't have the welfare and concern for humanity in mind when they step up to the plate and choose when and where they can be of most assistance, then that's your choice.

You're putting words in my mouth. All I am doing is trying to weigh whether or not your assertion is valid, which was that the push for goodness would disappear if religion disappeared. I said nothing about whether or not the church doesn't really have the welfare and concern for humanity in mind.

Again, we are in agreement here. And that is the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Serving at ground level meeting the needs of people in distress and/or discomfort.

Do you believe that would disappear if there were no religion? Or would human beings simply find a different way to organize to meet those needs?

Weigh? What for?

Why are charitable acts performed by individuals within an organization being balanced against sociological imperfections of the larger society and churches within those societies? We ought to be happy that the service is being done regardless of the other issues that arise within an organization composed of rather conflicted/biased/at times unreasonable human beings.

I'm responding to your assertion that the push for goodness would disappear along with religion. I have stated that religion is good at organizing people to meet certain needs. That is something that would have to be addressed in a world without religion, but human beings could find other ways to organize. I then added that these small acts of kindess have to be weighed on the balance with the truly negative force that religion has sometimes been in history. It doesn't seem fair to me to argue that the push for goodness would disappear along with religion, and then assert you can rightfully ignore the push for evil that religion has sometimes been as well.

Those issues have been remedied/ameliorated. Let's get back now to the basics that you're in favor of. That's what the everyday ward/branch in the church is all about.

Once again, I don't believe it's fair to insist we ignore the negative effect of religion at times in history when we're discussing whether or not the push for goodness would disappear along with religion.

[_mentalgymnast]

...we're discussing whether or not the push for goodness would disappear along with religion.

That's going to be a little tough to do though, isn't it? The axial age religions have been around for a long time and have a mixed track record on being "good". Christianity, in particular, has had huge influence for good in the world. But also some bad along the way. Some folks will focus on the bad, but there's been ALOT of good. Granted, there are countries that are "least religious" that are also doing well.

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Source: http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least ... countries/

How would we do without God in the world? I suppose it might be helpful to look at the track record of Christianity in particular to recognize the huge influence for good it has been in the world and then go from there. If you haven't already, may I suggest you watch this debate and listen to the opening arguments presented by Dr. David Marshall in regards to the good that Christianity has brought to the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_QDJ7DOD_Y

Fun debate. Fairly recent.

Regards,
MG