What is a "good" religion?

[Jarhyn]

And now you are getting to what is, for me and in my discussion on the topic, the core defining factor of "religion": uncritical doubt.

Don't you mean uncritical belief?

The below are the seven tenants of TST, which actually satisfy your rules for a "good religion" but do not satisfy mine insofar as they spray critical doubt back on all of it, so it isn't really under my concept of "religious", and while they ALSO do not show their work very readily, I've already done most of not all that work that they didn't show.

I discovered TST AFTER I spent years posting HERE about the basis for these tenants.

What is "TST"?

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

Does that go for children? If a parent decides to have her children vaccinated, can they refuse the shot?

The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

I disagree. One person's freedoms end where another person's freedoms begin. Otherwise, none of us would have the freedom to resist what another person wants to freely do to us.

So you know, TST is The Satanic Temple. Their whole goal is to wrap secular ethics in the thinnest sheet of religious flavoring they can, because this is a brick they can walk in the front door with, and toss back out through the window of "religious freedom".

There are some things that create conflicts in their ethics, but the most important part, as you corrected me, is the lack of uncritical belief: one of the tenants demands critical application of reason even against the structure of the tenants themselves.

I generally boil it down to "mutually compatible self-actualization is the most powerful basis of strategy for non-specifically goaled closed system game theory", which strips away the conflicts around vaccines nicely.

Are they as homophobic and misogynous as the right wing mainstream? Christianity and Islam?

Regards
DL

Lolno. In fact they use "religion" to weaponize secular ethics AGAINST homophobia and misogyny. Birth control and family planning are within this framework "sacred rites".

They also use it to get cross statues taken down, usually by getting a big old baphomet statue erected. It's one of the most amazing things I have ever seen.

 

[Hermit]

Buddhism fails criterium 9 because it makes claims about reincarnation and nirvana that it can't know to be true. I've also met at least one Buddhist who didn't seem very happy with my criticisms of Buddhism.

Buddhism failed criterium 9 because its bicycle was not competitive.

The below are the seven tenants of TST, which actually satisfy your rules for a "good religion" but do not satisfy mine insofar as they spray critical doubt back on all of it, so it isn't really under my concept of "religious", and while they ALSO do not show their work very readily, I've already done most of not all that work that they didn't show.

Tenants satisfy rules when they pay their rent in a timely manner.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Religious institutions are social and political entities...

That definition is insufficient because many "social and political entities" are hardly religious institutions. Would you categorize the GOP or the NAACP as religious institutions, for example?

...religion is a broader concept, that though nebulously and controversially defined, generally includes personal, psychological, philosophical, and/or aesthetic elements beyond the mere social.

Here's one definition of religion from Webster:

religion - an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

As for institution we have:

institution - a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture

So again, there appears to be no significant difference between religion and religious institution as commonly understood. The terms are interchangeable conveying the same meaning. At most, religion appears to be concerned with doctrine while religious institution focuses more on people organized to practice that religion, but that's splitting hairs.

 

[Politesse]

That definition is insufficient because many "social and political entities" are hardly religious institutions. Would you categorize the GOP or the NAACP as religious institutions, for example?

Are you being intentionally dense? If I say "A man is a human being", would you protest that I am saying women are not human beings?

A religious institution is a type of social institution. There are others. Religion and religious insitutions are overlapping concepts, they just aren't straight synonyms, and religion is the broader concept of the two, incorporating many non-social aspects. Such as, in your own quoted definition, the idea of personal belief.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That definition is insufficient because many "social and political entities" are hardly religious institutions. Would you categorize the GOP or the NAACP as religious institutions, for example?

Are you being intentionally dense?

I don't normally respond to abusive or rude posts, but I just can't resist this one.

Are you being intentionally dense?

You're starting out here with an ad hominem--a fallacy in your first sentence.

If I say "A man is a human being", would you protest that I am saying women are not human beings?

I'm scratching my head trying how to figure out how this analogy fits what I said about how your definition of religious institutions is insufficient to describe them. If you said a man was a human being, and I didn't know what a man is, then yes, I would want to know if a man is male or female. You wouldn't describe a man as a male human being? You should.

A religious institution is a type of social institution.

And a duck is a bird. Most birds are not ducks. Your defining a duck as a bird would then be insufficient to describe a duck. You would need to explain what makes a duck unique among birds. The same logic applies to defining religious institutions.

There are others.

Thanks for informing us that some "social institutions" are not religious, as if we don't know that.

Religion and religious insitutions are overlapping concepts, they just aren't straight synonyms, and religion is the broader concept of the two, incorporating many non-social aspects. Such as, in your own quoted definition, the idea of personal belief.

Well, those are your own definitions. To me, religion is an institution.

In summary, I'd say that the main weakness in your post is the absence of important details in your definition of "religious institution."

 

[steve_bank]

As I am the only source of truth based on Jesus, the only good religion is the one I declare to be the truth and nothin' but the truth.

How do you know I am the truth? Because I say so and I quote Jesus.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As I am the only source of truth based on Jesus, the only good religion is the one I declare to be the truth and nothin' but the truth.

How do you know I am the truth? Because I say so and I quote Jesus.

You are welcome to your opinion. What do you mean by "good" religion? Are there any ways in which your ideas about a good religion differ from my ideas?

 

[Hermit]

Religions are good in so far as they make the idea of dying less horrific. Believers are certain of a place in heaven, provided they have read the small print and heeded the advice it contained. Even serial killers and paedophiles are assured a place provided they have made a sincerely felt last minute confession. So are people who die fighting the good fight by, say, using skyscrapers as landing strips for the planes they stole. The prospect of eventual, inevitable death has been made so much more bearable for many millions of humans because of the promise of the pie in the sky when you die. It's been a big attraction of many religions.

 

[Politesse]

Thanks for informing us that some "social institutions" are not religious, as if we don't know that.

What do you want? I thought that was pretty obvious too, which is why I didn't spell out that the CIA or whatever is not a religious institution as per your question. Don't ask dumb questions if you don't want people to answer them by stating the obvious.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Religions are good in so far as they make the idea of dying less horrific.

In cases of imminent and unavoidable death, yes, it may be advantageous to make the thought of dying less severe. However, fear of death normally acts as a means by which we avoid death if possible. If religion causes people to lose their fear of death, then they will probably be more likely to die.

Believers are certain of a place in heaven, provided they have read the small print and heeded the advice it contained.

Christian salvation is tricky. I am told that Jesus preached that even those who are convinced that he will save them from hell will nevertheless be damned to hell. Very few Christians believe that will happen to them, of course.

Even serial killers and paedophiles are assured a place provided they have made a sincerely felt last minute confession. So are people who die fighting the good fight by, say, using skyscrapers as landing strips for the planes they stole.

So heaven will be full of murderers, thieves, and child molesters. Even some SS men who stoked the ovens in the death camps will be there. On the other hand, people like Sigmund Freud, Gandhi, and Albert Einstein not to mention the Jews murdered by the aforementioned saved SS men will have their place in hell. That's the Christian version of God's justice.

The prospect of eventual, inevitable death has been made so much more bearable for many millions of humans because of the promise of the pie in the sky when you die. It's been a big attraction of many religions.

Again, fearing death is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Thanks for informing us that some "social institutions" are not religious, as if we don't know that.

What do you want? I thought that was pretty obvious too, which is why I didn't spell out that the CIA or whatever is not a religious institution as per your question. Don't ask dumb questions if you don't want people to answer them by stating the obvious.

I'd recommend you see Hermit's post # 68 for an example of a post free of snarky comments. That post is also relevant to the issues being discussed.

 

[steve_bank]

As I am the only source of truth based on Jesus, the only good religion is the one I declare to be the truth and nothin' but the truth.

How do you know I am the truth? Because I say so and I quote Jesus.

You are welcome to your opinion. What do you mean by "good" religion? Are there any ways in which your ideas about a good religion differ from my ideas?

Being the light of truth for the world is a tough job but somebody has to do it. Unlike other imposters and posers , my relgion is the sole relgion of godness and truth. Get with the program or be evil. The choice is yours.

 

[TomC]

Religion is founded on "faith", a belief in the absence of evidence, and therefore religion is antiscientific.

I disagree.
Believing something in the absence of evidence is very different from believing something in contradiction of the evidence.

YEC is an antiscientific view. There's tons of evidence on the subject. YEC is a rejection of available evidence.

"Gramma is in heaven now. She died. Now she's not old and cancer ridden. She's happy and safe with God." is a faith based view held in the absence of evidence. There's no evidence to be had. It's not antiscientific.

And it's not just religious beliefs that people hold despite the evidence. A current example of a non-theist antiscientific belief is antivaxxers.

Tom

 

[steve_bank]

Religion is founded on "faith", a belief in the absence of evidence, and therefore religion is antiscientific.

I disagree.
Believing something in the absence of evidence is very different from believing something in contradiction of the evidence.

YEC is an antiscientific view. There's tons of evidence on the subject. YEC is a rejection of available evidence.

"Gramma is in heaven now. She died. Now she's not old and cancer ridden. She's happy and safe with God." is a faith based view held in the absence of evidence. There's no evidence to be had. It's not antiscientific.

And it's not just religious beliefs that people hold despite the evidence. A current example of a non-theist antiscientific belief is antivaxxers.

Tom

Good statement.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Religions are good in so far as they make the idea of dying less horrific.

Good lies beat out good morals.

That must be why the genocidal Yahweh/Jesus is loved.

Gnostic Christians have put morals above all.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Religions are good in so far as they make the idea of dying less horrific.

Good lies beat out good morals.

That must be why the genocidal Yahweh/Jesus is loved.

Gnostic Christians have put morals above all.

Regards
DL

[removed] Tell it it enough and you think it is the truth. It is [remmoved] that makes you feel good and puts yourself above others. A sense of superiority

The only exception is me. I am the sole light of truth. It is true because I say so. Gnostic Christians are evil liars.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Religions are good in so far as they make the idea of dying less horrific.

Good lies beat out good morals.

That must be why the genocidal Yahweh/Jesus is loved.

Gnostic Christians have put morals above all.

Regards
DL

That is a lie. Tell it it enough and you think it is the truth. It is a lie that makes you feel good and puts yourself above others. A sense of superiority

The only exception is me. I am the sole light of truth. It is true because I say so. Gnostic Christians are evil liars.

That would put the inferior as Christians.

If you want to advocate their moral tenets over mine, come ahead and show your satanic views.

[removed insult]

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Jesus put his morality above all else. For example condemning fornication. I would assume those who identify as Christians, for example Gnostic Chrstians, also condemn fornication.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Jesus put his morality above all else. For example condemning fornication. I would assume those who identify as Christians, for example Gnostic Chrstians, also condemn fornication.

If only he had condemned starting dangerous religious sects, the world would have been a better place.

 

[steve_bank]

You challenge the morality of religions yiu do not like. I challenge yiur morality as a clammed follower of Jesus.

Nost Chrtian sects declare thenseves the truth and call oters eveon oter Chrtians as evil.

Your proclamations of Gnostic Chrtianity as beeing supreme truth and gddness sounds lie all of the oter relgions. I ask yiu a simple moreal quetion, Jesus said fornication is wrong. Do Gnostic Christians decry fornicators?

It is not a trivial quetion. You clam to be morly superor and refer to Jesus. It is a simple yes no quetion. A superior moral person I imagin woud not hestate to answer. Do you pick and choose what to follow with Jesus?

If you are equivicating in your mnd over a possioble morel discrepancy, then that just makes you like verybody else to some degree. Nobody is 'god' as much as some seem to think they are.