DiscussMormonism.com

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 31, 2023 8:04 pm

Why choose the term "telling lies" rather than "saying false things." Doesn't the first involve some kind of moral judgment that the second doesn't? If I make a factual statement that I'm wrong about, why does the word "lie" apply at all? It seems to me that there is a judgmental implication about the word "lie" that appeals to emotion.

Fine. Religion requires people to say false things.

That is still a judgment. Criticisms generally are.

Some Schmo wrote:It also promotes hate toward the LGBTQ community and wants to control women's bodies, which runs counter to their promotion of the Golden Rule.

Res Ipsa wrote:Does it? Or do some Christians do that?

If it's taught from the pulpit, it's promoted by the religion. I highly doubt people are making "God Hates Fags" signs on a whim.

But hey, we can ask the same of the Golden Rule. Does Christianity promote it, or do some Christians do that?

Res Ipsa wrote:In terms of black and white narratives or emotional narratives, how does your thread title differ from "Progressives hate America and want to destroy it?"

I'm criticizing religion, a set of ideas, not a group of people (although I am certainly critical of religious leaders knowingly promoting lies and using the appearance of piety to gain unearned trust).

I very much admire and agree with Steven Weinberg's take on religion:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Schmo, you used to say in your signature line that religion is a placeholder for ignorance. I think there is a lot of truth to that. I also think that a major impetus for mankind's invention of religion was desperation to understand enough about the scary world we live in to protect us from it and feel a bit more secure, even if, at first, we could only pretend to know that what we imagined or wished were true. Religion was (and still is) a placeholder for what we couldn't yet know or figure out. Shared religious beliefs undoubtedly motivated people to form cohesive groups for their own mutual protection and survival.

I don't think we can deny that much of the noblest and most beautiful achievements of mankind in art, literature, philosophy, music and human compassion have been motivated by sincere religious belief. But neither can we deny that many of the very worst atrocities and conflicts and most enduring hatreds between us have also been caused by "good" people fanatically convinced they were only carrying out the will of God.

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 01, 2023 5:23 am

I don't think we can deny that much of the noblest and most beautiful achievements of mankind in art, music and human compassion have been motivated by sincere religious belief.

I am all about the expression of art and whatever motivates someone to get there. If religion was regarded simply as fun myths to learn lessons from, I'd have no problem with it. The problem is that people say they really believe this crap, so one is left wondering whether they are lying or nutty.

When it comes down to it, we can find something good and bad in everything that happens, including religion. One could possibly make the argument (and a lot of people seem to live as though this is true) that the net effect of all that lying for the lord is good for society, but that presumes religion is good for society, and I don't see religion as a net positive. It gives people a false sense of themselves, and it has way too much baggage.

As I've said before, religion would be fine if people kept it to themselves. Just talking about it as though it has some underlying truth requires people to say false things. I've come to the conclusion that you can't be spiritual and religious at the same time. They are in conflict with one another.

Some Schmo wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 01, 2023 5:39 am

As I've said before, religion would be fine if people kept it to themselves. Just talking about it as though it has some underlying truth requires people to say false things. I've come to the conclusion that you can't be spiritual and religious at the same time. They are in conflict with one another.

I agree that probably the worst aspect of religion is the all too prevalent tendency of religions to want to force their own particular religion on everyone else, even sometimes even threatening to kill those who won't convert to their own brand or who choose to apostatize from it. One of wisest things the founding fathers of our nation chose to do was to forbid the establishment of a state religion and guarantee the freedom to choose one's religion or no religion at all.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 31, 2023 8:04 pm

In terms of black and white narratives or emotional narratives, how does your thread title differ from "Progressives hate America and want to destroy it?"

To be fair, there is a difference between making a claim about a belief, and making a claim about what a believer will do (to others) because of a belief. This thread’s title fits into the first category; the one you’ve mentioned fits better into the second. You could argue that both speak to intent, but there’s a scale mismatch.

For Pastafarians, an unknown lie is insisting the Flying Spaghetti Monster is at the heart of all existence. A known lie would be the claim that the FSM is covered in Alfredo sauce.

One of wisest things the founding fathers of our nation chose to do was to forbid the establishment of a state religion and guarantee the freedom to choose one's religion or no religion at all.

But this didn't mean they promoted people having no belief in religion or the supernatural as Schmo chooses to believe. The founding fathers understood how most people would behave if they had no belief in anything beyond what we see right now. To be fair I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral people. I'm just saying that most people live a morally better life with religion than without it.

canpakes wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 01, 2023 1:24 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 31, 2023 8:04 pm

In terms of black and white narratives or emotional narratives, how does your thread title differ from "Progressives hate America and want to destroy it?"

To be fair, there is a difference between making a claim about a belief, and making a claim about what a believer will do (to others) because of a belief. This thread’s title fits into the first category; the one you’ve mentioned fits better into the second. You could argue that both speak to intent, but there’s a scale mismatch.

That's entirely fair. I should have said "Lying is the Root of Progressivism."

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 01, 2023 5:09 pm

One of wisest things the founding fathers of our nation chose to do was to forbid the establishment of a state religion and guarantee the freedom to choose one's religion or no religion at all.

But this didn't mean they promoted people having no belief in religion or the supernatural as Schmo chooses to believe. The founding fathers understood how most people would behave if they had no belief in anything beyond what we see right now. To be fair I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral people. I'm just saying that most people live a morally better life with religion than without it.

I agree that the Founders didn’t promote non-belief. But I don’t think they had any sort of common understanding as you describe. Jefferson was a deist who saw God’s only role as that of creator. He didn’t believe that God was involved in the affairs of men and did not believe that Jesus had supernatural abilities. In the Jefferson Bible, he literally cut out all the miracles ascribed to Jesus and discarded them. I don’t think religion had any more impact on how Jefferson lived his life than it does on mine. And he wasn’t the only deist among the Founders.

The original Constitution included one provision regarding religion: no religious test are permitted with regard to federal offices. That certainly does not reflect any notion that the founders were concerned about the behavior of non-religious folks. The first amendment clarified the restrictions on the federal government with respect to religion: can’t establish, can’t prevent free exercise. Neither expressed a preference for religion over non religion.

I think we have to keep in mind that the US rejected monarchy, under which the political power vested from royalty originated with God. In the US, the political power originated with the people — not with God.

I’m not addressing your opinion that everyone would be a better person with religion. I don’t agree with it, but everyone gets to have opinions. I’m arguing against what you said about the founders. They held a wide range of opinions on all kinds of subjects — what they agreed on is what we see in the Constitution and its first 10 amendments.

It occurred to me after reading it that the primary feature of any religion is outright lying. Lying about your experiences, lying about the unknown, and especially lying about reality.

Great. Now I'm being called a freaking liar.