When Does Religion Become Just Silly?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yeah, I think that by the time Scientology came in, this was getting just too silly.

[JoeMorgue]

The "Oh now it's silly" problem is also my issue with end of days prophecies.

- "God will destroy the world, saving only certain chosen people, in some fashion at some point in the future" is a mainstream opinion here in America at least.

- Close to 50% of Americans think that this event will happen in their lifetime.

- But "The world is going to end next Tuesday" is crazy.

If you think the world is going to end "sometime soon" you don't really have much a right to point and laugh at a guy saying the exact same thing with just more precision.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The "Oh now it's silly" problem is also my issue with end of days prophecies.

- "God will destroy the world, saving only certain chosen people, in some fashion at some point in the future" is a mainstream opinion here in America at least.

- Close to 50% of Americans think that this event will happen in their lifetime.

- But "The world is going to end next Tuesday" is crazy.

If you think the world is going to end "sometime soon" you don't really have much a right to point and laugh at a guy saying the exact same thing with just more precision.

Do you have a link for that? I've never heard it was that high. Certainly, not nearly 50% act as though it will.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Do you have a link for that? I've never heard it was that high. Certainly, not nearly 50% act as though it will.

I'm actually going to retract that exact number for the moment, I think I might have been reading one skewed poll taking right before 2012. So while no intentional dishonesty was intended I might have failed to do full diligence.

The number seems to be closer to about 20%, but I'm gonna do some more research and take that particular point off the table for now, although I still say there's some truth in my general argument that compared to general opinions specific end time prophecies are not that "out there" and I might present a revised argument soon.

ETA: For full transparency and intellectual honesty my original point was in reference to a Washington Post poll that stated 41% of Americans agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "the world is currently living in the ‘end times’ as described by prophesies in the Bible." https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ing-end-times/

But as said I am having trouble getting greater context or corroborating that so I'm shelving that for now.

A more robust Reuters poll put it at 1 in 7. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...8400XH20120501 But again seems influenced by the "Mayan Calender / 2012" nonsense so I'm taking it with a grain of salt for now.

[JoeMorgue]

But regardless of which numbers we finally find to be most accurate I agree that whatever the number is the number of people who act as if they believe that will be significantly smaller.

As David Wong put it.

Quote:

I spent every Sunday growing up hearing that the Apocalypse was imminent -- within the year, maybe within the month or the hour. I would call the congregation "doomsday preppers," but here's the thing: They weren't prepping at all. They talked like the apocalypse was coming, describing in chilling detail how soon, the godless government would start beheading Christians. But they weren't spending their spare time stocking water, canned goods, or fuel. They walked out of those sermons about the impending starvation and pestilence and then went home to watch the Chicago Bears.

I don't think they were lying about their beliefs; it's just that those beliefs didn't exist anywhere outside of their skulls. They certainly didn't extend to their feet, which could have carried them to the hardware store to get water purification pills and a ******** of batteries. They never propelled them to the library to study insurgency and guerrilla tactics. They believed the climactic battle with Satan was at hand, but they didn't 'believe' it.

[ahhell]

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't trying to call you out, I just thought the number seemed high based on my vague memories of polling.

Even 20% is also alarmingly high of course, but fortunately, most don't really act out on the belief.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Now you are just strawmanning me.



My only point was whether the Garden of Eden story illustrates the theory in the Logical Problem of Evil. It would take a massive overimagination to say that I was positing that as the solution to all of the religious silliness.

Er no. That is a summary of my views of this part of the thread.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Now you are just strawmanning me.

My only point was whether the Garden of Eden story illustrates the theory in the Logical Problem of Evil. It would take a massive overimagination to say that I was positing that as the solution to all of the religious silliness.

The logical problem of evil only exists if you believe that

a) God exists

b) God is absolutely Good.

A lot of people seem to believe that (b) follows from (a) but it doesn't. There's no reason why the entity that created this universe (if it exists) has to be good. In fact the evidence strongly suggests that - if it exists - it is not absolutely good, or, having set the Universe in motion, has no power over it.

[JoeMorgue]

If you can "logic" yourself into that you can just as easily "logic" yourself into the fact that there is no God.

The "Watchmaker" is just something the philosophers made up, he's not a God that a meaningful significant percentage of people actually believe in.

As always I'm going to put a lot of effort into making sure this discussion stays on the level of "Gods that people actually believe in on a practical, day to day level" not philosophical thought experiments and "Gods designed for special pleading argumentative outs in internet arguments."

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

What is? The thread? It seems to me that the question in the OP relates not to the question of whether religion is logically consistent, which your discussion of the problem of evil relates to, but to that of whether the actual content of religion is something a reasonable person would accept.

Dave

Yes well that's about right I think. Logically consistent is one thing but just plain silly is another.

After observing his scribblings on many other threads I get the impression psion just likes to be contrary, resulting in an explosion of opposition from others. Wouldn't take too much notice if I were you.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Darat

The devil as we “know” today was indeed a creation of the Christian church in the “dark ages” and is not biblical in origins. It was created because the church couldn’t provide an answer to why if their god was all powerful, all knowing and even sacrificed himself for everyone’s sins there was still evil in the world. Now obviously with a bit of further thought you soon realise it doesn’t provide an actual answer to the problem of evil, but it worked as a handy bit of sticky plaster.

Many Christians will dispute that because of vague scripture identifying the Devil. Made his* first appearance as that conniving snake in the apple story, which is sort of supported in the book of Ezekiel where the King Of Tyre (personification of the Devil we are told), is reported as once being in the Garden of Eden.

Fairly common among Christians is the belief that Lucifer, referred to in Isaiah, is one and the same as the Devil. Once was a beautiful angel we are told, who defied God and fell from grace - sound familiar? I was told by a Christian once that if I were to see the Devil I would be dazzled by his beauty.

The Devil has a number of appearances in The New Testament as well. Possibly the most notable when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness to “fall down and worship him” in exchange for riches and glory. This I think deserves a special mention in the silliness list. Jesus, being God in the flesh and knowing he was, should have just scoffed at this and told the Devil to **** off.


* Has to be male of course although that impeccable source of Biblical knowledge "Mr Deity" has Lucifer "Lucy" as a woman.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

The logical problem of evil only exists if you believe that

a) God exists

b) God is absolutely Good.

A lot of people seem to believe that (b) follows from (a) but it doesn't. There's no reason why the entity that created this universe (if it exists) has to be good. In fact the evidence strongly suggests that - if it exists - it is not absolutely good, or, having set the Universe in motion, has no power over it.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

If you can "logic" yourself into that you can just as easily "logic" yourself into the fact that there is no God.

Why would I take logic lessons from such illogical people?

[Thor 2]

Steering back on course from psion's squabble with others about logic, I thought I would mention what inspired me to start this thread: In short the stream of silly utterances from the religious in recent times.

Israel Folau told us that homosexuals, and others would go to Hell! Apart from the conviction regarding the existence of Hell, (something many of todays Christians seem to realise the absurdity of and shy away from endorsing), Folau's ignorance is astounding. Does he not know that being homosexual is not the result some kind of evil choice people make?

We have the televangelist Graham telling us that opposing Trump is the work of the Devil! As with Hell the Devil is being fazed out by many of today's faithful who see this as one step too far down the silly road. Holding man responsible for his own actions but then entering the Devil into the equation, just makes less and less sense.

Can anyone else add to the list of silly utterances of late?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I thought I would mention what inspired me to start this thread: In short the stream of silly utterances from the religious in recent times.

People have been making silly utterances for as long as religion has been around. Every religious person seems to have a pet theory of what the "true" God is all about and most of these theories conflict. It is only to be expected that statements made by some will be silly to others.

The only difference here is that you have zeroed in on utterances made by people who are currently in the public eye.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Can anyone else add to the list of silly utterances of late?

Margaret Court (unlike Israel Folau) actually came out and spelled out that homosexuality is a "choice".

BTW The OP was about the apparently illogical concept of a good God that permits evil (not silly utterances). That was why I linked to the Logical Problem of Evil. It doesn't explain everything but it gives a possible perspective on why evil exists.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

When Does Religion Become Just Silly?

Religion becomes just silly when you stop needing it, obviously!

When do you stop needing to proclaim that religion is just (!) silly?!
There is nothing more childish than the perpetual attempts to portray religion as a kind of exercise in logical thinking gone horribly wrong. That's not at all what religion actually is, that's not why people believe.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by psionl0

People have been making silly utterances for as long as religion has been around. Every religious person seems to have a pet theory of what the "true" God is all about and most of these theories conflict. It is only to be expected that statements made by some will be silly to others.

Well I wasn't implying that the silliness of religion was a new thing* - or the silly utterances either. Of course it has been going on for a long time. I am just trying to draw a line (which may be fuzzy) between reasonable religious belief and the silly stuff.

Quote:

The only difference here is that you have zeroed in on utterances made by people who are currently in the public eye.

These are the ones I hear about in the news. Now you may have a neighbour that has come out with some real doozies, but I can't comment on them unless you tell me.

Quote:

Margaret Court (unlike Israel Folau) actually came out and spelled out that homosexuality is a "choice".

Yes well thanks for that. I have heard others say the same thing and I guess the religious need to believe this, in order for the transgression to be legitimately punishable offence. One of the many situations where emphatic denial of scientifically gained knowledge is needed.

Quote:

BTW The OP was about the apparently illogical concept of a good God that permits evil (not silly utterances). That was why I linked to the Logical Problem of Evil. It doesn't explain everything but it gives a possible perspective on why evil exists.

Strange that I can't see that in the (my) OP. Doing some "between the lines" reading again psion?

* Mind you the advance of human knowledge has made the silliness a bit more obvious in modern times. Scripture about stars falling to Earth may have not seemed too stupid even a few hundred years ago.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by dann

Religion becomes just silly when you stop needing it, obviously!

When do you stop needing to proclaim that religion is just (!) silly?!
There is nothing more childish than the perpetual attempts to portray religion as a kind of exercise in logical thinking gone horribly wrong. That's not at all what religion actually is, that's not why people believe.

Most appreciative of your input and links to your in depth posts on the subject in the past dann. I think you have missed the point however and no, I don't think religion is a kind of exercise in logical thinking gone horribly wrong. Where did you get that idea?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by ynot

Religions don’t become just silly, they all ARE just silly from the very beginning.

This wins my prize for the most predictable response in a thread.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Doing some "between the lines" reading again psion?

No, just the lines themselves. You don't mention "silly utterances" at all in the OP. The OP is devoted entirely to the outline of the Abrahamic religion.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Well I wasn't implying that the silliness of religion was a new thing* - or the silly utterances either. Of course it has been going on for a long time. I am just trying to draw a line (which may be fuzzy) between reasonable religious belief and the silly stuff.

Sorry to chew on this buddy but I still don’t know why you think some religious beliefs are more reasonable than others and all are not equally unreasonable/silly. Any belief that claims an invisible, magical, supernatural, sky-daddy actually exists isn’t reasonable and is silly. Such beliefs don’t become any more or less unreasonable/silly with any amount of other unreasonable/silly beliefs added.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

* Mind you the advance of human knowledge has made the silliness a bit more obvious in modern times. Scripture about stars falling to Earth may have not seemed too stupid even a few hundred years ago.

It’s not just the advance of human knowledge in modern times, it’s also (if not more) the increase of actively vocal atheists with personal prior religious experiences and sound arguments exposing the silliness and dangers of religions to large and growing internet audiences. Religions haven’t had such an effective and damaging attack from intellectually honest former believers with logically sound arguments before.

I think what has become sillier are the desperate arguments scrapped from the bottom of the credibility barrel by punch drunk believers that have had their emotional beliefs so effectively beaten up and torn apart before. (but I would think that of course )

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by ynot

Sorry to chew on this buddy but I still don’t know why you think some religious beliefs are more reasonable than others and all are not equally unreasonable/silly. Any belief that claims an invisible, magical, supernatural, sky-daddy actually exists isn’t reasonable and is silly. Such beliefs don’t become any more or less unreasonable/silly with any amount of other unreasonable/silly beliefs added.

Some religions hold with the religious belief that it is good to be kind, charitable and helpful towards others. Is that belief silly?

[ynot]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Some religions hold with the religious belief that it is good to be kind, charitable and helpful towards others. Is that belief silly?

Why don't you simply predict my reply?

Perhaps that may be too hard for you . . . so . . .

That it’s good to be kind, charitable and helpful towards others is not a religious belief. It’s a belief common to all good humans including the non-religious (a humane belief). All beliefs of religious people aren’t religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are exclusively beliefs that invisible, magical, supernatural, sky-daddies/mummies actually exist (aka - silly beliefs).

Does that win your prize for the second most predictable response in a thread .

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Some religions hold with the religious belief that it is good to be kind, charitable and helpful towards others. Is that belief silly?

That sounds more like an ethical system. What makes it religious?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Some religions hold with the religious belief that it is good to be kind, charitable and helpful towards others. Is that belief silly?

You can't just cherry pick one truism, apply it to religion with no reason, and drop that into the discussion as a gotcha.

You can have a good idea within a bad intellectual or moral framework.

You can be religious and kind/charitable/helpful. Religion doesn't make you kind/charitable/helpful.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You can't just cherry pick one truism, apply it to religion with no reason, and drop that into the discussion as a gotcha.

You can have a good idea within a bad intellectual or moral framework.

You can be religious and kind/charitable/helpful. Religion doesn't make you kind/charitable/helpful.

At the risk of sounding tedious, religion can make other than kind/charitable/helpful, when some piece of scripture demands you be less than so, to someone offending that scripture. I'm sure I don't need to give examples.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Some religions hold with the religious belief that it is good to be kind, charitable and helpful towards others. Is that belief silly?

Originally Posted by Darat

That sounds more like an ethical system. What makes it religious?

Of course it is not. Accept of course to those lacking an ethical nature, who need a religious direction to tell them stuff like it being a bad thing to kill, rape, and rob. Does arthwollipot know of such people among those religious friends he tells us about?

[JoeMorgue]

Nobody ever admit that they would be out raping and murdering without believing in God, no not them.

But... the other. Oh yes they would.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by ynot

Sorry to chew on this buddy but I still don’t know why you think some religious beliefs are more reasonable than others and all are not equally unreasonable/silly. Any belief that claims an invisible, magical, supernatural, sky-daddy actually exists isn’t reasonable and is silly. Such beliefs don’t become any more or less unreasonable/silly with any amount of other unreasonable/silly beliefs added.


It’s not just the advance of human knowledge in modern times, it’s also (if not more) the increase of actively vocal atheists with personal prior religious experiences and sound arguments exposing the silliness and dangers of religions to large and growing internet audiences. Religions haven’t had such an effective and damaging attack from intellectually honest former believers with logically sound arguments before.

I think what has become sillier are the desperate arguments scrapped from the bottom of the credibility barrel by punch drunk believers that have had their emotional beliefs so effectively beaten up and torn apart before. (but I would think that of course )

No worries, I know we all do not have an identical take on this stuff.

Given the origin of all is a mystery* I am prepared to accept the possibility that we may be the product of some kind of celestial intelligence - some kind if experiment in a test tube perhaps. I see this as a possibility although highly improbable. Any "religion" that has this premiss, I cannot discard as just silly in consequence.

When the faith starts talking about a god or gods, making our World without any appreciation of the size of the total universe, and giving such special attention to this speck we call home. When we have talk of being made in the image of the god or gods who really cares for us, then the silliness is overwhelming


* I know the how is being tackled very well by some fine minds but the why (if there is one) is more elusive.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Given the origin of all is a mystery

Not sure exactly what you mean by "origin of all". Whenever I'm asked "Where did everything come from?" I always answer "The past". I don't see why the past has to have an origin or beginning.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Given the origin of all is a mystery* I am prepared to accept the possibility that we may be the product of some kind of celestial intelligence - some kind if experiment in a test tube perhaps. I see this as a possibility although highly improbable. Any "religion" that has this premiss, I cannot discard as just silly in consequence.

That something hasn't been proven to be impossible doesn't mean it's possible. "It's possible" shouldn't be concluded or assumed from "I don't know".

Originally Posted by Thor 2

When the faith starts talking about a god or gods, making our World without any appreciation of the size of the total universe, and giving such special attention to this speck we call home. When we have talk of being made in the image of the god or gods who really cares for us, then the silliness is overwhelming.

"The faith" started talking about all that silly nonsense thousands of years ago.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Because now one would find oneself in the position of claiming attributes for an entity that one has failed to demonstrate.

And the problem is?

Quote:

A hurdle which has never been surmounted by anyone, ever.

Nonsense. Literally billions of people have accepted the notion of a god. Clearly this hurdle is not too hard to surmount.

Quote:

Making up fictional attributes for a fictional entity is trivial.

So you agree that 'claiming attributes for an entity that one has failed to demonstrate' is not hard once the notion of it is accepted?

Quote:

Why should it? Exactly how did you determine which characteristics this "god" may or may not have? Just how limited and weak is this "god" you propose?

An anthropomorphic god is not weak, it is strong - just like us. We are (as far as we know) the most intelligent, capable beings in the Universe. It's perfectly obvious that a powerful god would be just like us only stronger - and speak perfect American English.

Quote:

The claimed god/s are not human at all. None of them. Why should any of them have human characteristics?

You're kidding, right? The vast majority of 'claimed' gods have decidedly human characteristics. They may have 'powers' but their behavior is very human.

Quote:

Then you have a problem because that makes your caring god totally uncaring.

When I say that I 'care' about something I mean that it matters to me. That doesn't mean I mean it well. For example, I 'care' that Trump is currently president. Am I doing everything in my power to help him stay there? I bet you can guess the answer...

Quote:

Either you are claiming that YOU know what that purpose is, in which case you must demonstrate it. Or you don't know either...

How did you determine the limitations of gods power?

Kindly demonstrate the existence of "angels". Until you do so, all you have is fan fiction created out of whole cloth.

He could be a total bastard. You have no way to tell.

Yet here you are defining it.

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. Syllogistic logic 101.
Stick in false premises, get out faulty conclusions.

Oh dear. You must be mistaking me for someone else. Nowhere did I ever claim that God exists.

The OP posits that religion only 'becomes silly' when 'The notion of a caring god, who takes great interest in our activities' is accepted. I say that if you accept the notion of a god at all, then the rest is no sillier. In fact, assuming this god has any of the attributes normally associated with gods, taking an interest in our affairs is fully expected.

Quote:

All of that is tacked on post hoc rationalisation.

Nonsense. Does an author of a story rationalize the plot and characterizations after writing it? No. Generally they do it while making up the story. It's the same with religion. The Christian God evolved as the story was written, and is still evolving today.

Quote:

Which is why most of the rest of us have got rid of the death penalty. It is religion that provokes the US to retain it.

Nonsense.

Understanding Americans' Support for the Death Penalty

Quote:

According to a recent Gallup Poll News Release, roughly 7 in 10 Americans support the death penalty for those convicted of murder... A closer look at support for the death penalty also shows great divides in support by race, political attitudes, and to a lesser extent, gender and education.

Almost half (46%) of those who oppose the death penalty say they do so because it is "wrong to take a life." A quarter of death penalty opponents say that the person could be wrongly convicted. Thirteen percent of death penalty opponents say that the punishment should be left to God rather than the criminal justice system.

Seventy-five percent of whites favor the death penalty, compared with just 46% of blacks (48% of blacks oppose the death penalty).

Support for the death penalty is probably largely due to the appeal of fairness, or revenge,

Note what is not present in that poll analysis - a religious argument for the Death Penalty. If anything, Christians should oppose it - and many do.

Quote:

Sure. Accept the magic sky fairy.

Yes, that is what this thread presupposes.

Quote:

Then you can simply make up whatever you want.

Not exactly. As with everything, what I can do is limited by human nature and the mores of society. I could declare that God is my left armpit, but nobody would accept it.

Quote:

So your caring god doesn't care about some people.

'My' caring God? I am simply describing the God that has already been documented.

Quote:

Really? Don't eat shellfish? Bats are birds? Snakes and donkeys can talk? Don't wear clothing of mixed fibres? Slavery is morally fine? Rape victims must marry their attacker? Incest is a good thing? Genocide is OK? Human sacrifice is a good thing?

Or ignore good advice, misrepresent categorizations, deny efforts to reform, moralize about ancient customs and misunderstand their religion?

Some time in the future, someone will look back and accuse you of supporting the most idiotic, immoral and disgusting practices. And have no appreciation of what it's like to live in today's society.

Quote:

Fantasy being the operative word.

When did I ever say it wasn't? The truth is, most of the time all of us live in a fantasy.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by ynot

Why don't you simply predict my reply?

Perhaps that may be too hard for you . . . so . . .

That it’s good to be kind, charitable and helpful towards others is not a religious belief. It’s a belief common to all good humans including the non-religious (a humane belief). All beliefs of religious people aren’t religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are exclusively beliefs that invisible, magical, supernatural, sky-daddies/mummies actually exist (aka - silly beliefs).

Does that win your prize for the second most predictable response in a thread .

It sure does. See below.

Originally Posted by Darat

That sounds more like an ethical system. What makes it religious?

The fact that religious dogma and religious edicts say it. When a religion instructs people that charity is a pious act, rather than just an ethical one, which both Catholicism and Islam do, by the way, among others, then it becomes a religious belief.

Wow that's a lot of commas for a single sentence.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by ynot

Not sure exactly what you mean by "origin of all". Whenever I'm asked "Where did everything come from?" I always answer "The past". I don't see why the past has to have an origin or beginning.

Yes I am comfortable with this also but also see it as not silly to try and find some kind of answer about a possible beginning. Unnecessary maybe but silly no. Silliness is what I am on about.

Quote:

That something hasn't been proven to be impossible doesn't mean it's possible. "It's possible" shouldn't be concluded or assumed from "I don't know".

No argument with being happy to say "I don't know". I am always reluctant to say something is impossible but extreme silliness is always a good sign that it is so.

Quote:

"The faith" started talking about all that silly nonsense thousands of years ago.

Oh yes I know, and I am not just talking about something that has just emerged. Mind you our modern knowledge does accentuate some silly stuff, that may have not been so obvious in the past.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I am always reluctant to say something is impossible

Yet you’re apparently not always reluctant to say something is possible – Why? . . .

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I am prepared to accept the possibility that we may be the product of some kind of celestial intelligence - some kind if experiment in a test tube perhaps. I see this as a possibility although highly improbable.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by ynot

Yet you’re apparently not always reluctant to say something is possible – Why? . . .

My limited knowledge.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

My limited knowledge.

Isn't your knowledge equally limited regarding what's possible and what's impossible?

Originally Posted by Thor 2

No argument with being happy to say "I don't know".

Then why do you need to say more than that?

[ynot]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It sure does. See below.

The fact that religious dogma and religious edicts say it. When a religion instructs people that charity is a pious act, rather than just an ethical one, which both Catholicism and Islam do, by the way, among others, then it becomes a religious belief.

A religious act (pious or not) isn't a religious belief.

"Religious belief is the belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion. Religious belief is distinct from religious practice or religious behaviours with some believers not practicing religion and some practitioners not believing religion. Religious beliefs, being derived from ideas that are exclusive to religion, often relate to the existence, characteristics and worship of a deity or deities, divine intervention in the universe and human life, or the deontological explanations for the values and practices centered on the teachings of a spiritual leader or group. In contrast to other belief systems, religious beliefs are usually codified." - https://www.definitions.net/definition/religious+belief

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by ynot

A religious act (pious or not) isn't a religious belief.

"Religious belief is the belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion. Religious belief is distinct from religious practice or religious behaviours with some believers not practicing religion and some practitioners not believing religion. Religious beliefs, being derived from ideas that are exclusive to religion, often relate to the existence, characteristics and worship of a deity or deities, divine intervention in the universe and human life, or the deontological explanations for the values and practices centered on the teachings of a spiritual leader or group. In contrast to other belief systems, religious beliefs are usually codified." - https://www.definitions.net/definition/religious+belief

Fair enough, so the practice of charity is not a religious belief, because a practice is not a belief. The belief that charity is pious is the religious belief.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Yes I am comfortable with this also but also see it as not silly to try and find some kind of answer about a possible beginning. Unnecessary maybe but silly no. Silliness is what I am on about.

What would be silly is spending billions on trying to find an answer about a possible 'beginning', instead of dealing with issues in the here and now.

And religion, while undeniably silly, can also be a force for good.

Quote:

A sceptic might point out that that influence can be both positive and negative. So, for example, it might be queried whether the Church’s work in education or health would be more effective if control was switched to the state. In some ways, this is the wrong question – in much of the developing world, if the Church was not involved, the services would not be provided at all. But there is a good deal of research which has attempted to compare the performance of Catholic provision of education or health with that of other providers and, in general, Catholic institutions come out rather well.

The health analyst Kenneth White, of Virginia Commonwealth University, found Catholic hospitals in the US to be on average more efficient than equivalent secular hospitals. This was a particularly remarkable finding given that he also discovered evidence that Catholic hospitals, reflecting their mission to reach out to disadvantaged communities, were providing more compassionate care and stigmatised services (to groups that often face discrimination) than other providers.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

What would be silly is spending billions on trying to find an answer about a possible 'beginning', instead of dealing with issues in the here and now.

And religion, while undeniably silly, can also be a force for good.

You seem to be off with the fairies yet again.

Just because the topic is about the silliness of religion, doesn't mean you can shoot off in all kinds of silly directions with the subject matter. The effectiveness of religion as a "force for good", has been argued in other threads.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by ynot

Isn't your knowledge equally limited regarding what's possible and what's impossible?

To concede that something may be possible is essentially the same as saying you don't know if it is impossible.

Quote:

Then why do you need to say more than that?

I don't need to say it at all. This thread is just an amusing look at some silly religious ideas that I find interesting.

Let's not get too serious about it.