What does religion do for mankind that the statement "Be kind" doesn't do better?

What does religion do for mankind that the statement "Be kind" doesn't do better?

Provides a route to salvation (in some religions at least).

Provides a metaphysics, a view of ultimate reality and the human individual's place in the big picture.

Creates a (mythical) context for events here on Earth, making historical and life events seem meaningful and not just 'one damn thing after another'.

Prescribes a means for inner transformation, ranging from ethical and/or ritual practice through many forms of meditation.

Motivates much of humanity's greatest art.
 
Provides a route to salvation (in some religions at least).

Provides a metaphysics, a view of ultimate reality and the human individual's place in the big picture.

Creates a (mythical) context for events here on Earth, making historical and life events seem meaningful and not just 'one damn thing after another'.

Prescribes a means for inner transformation, ranging from ethical and/or ritual practice through many forms of meditation.

Motivates much of humanity's greatest art.

Apart from a route to salvation (in some religions at least).

none of this can be done by Atheists???

:)
 
Apart from a route to salvation (in some religions at least).

none of this can be done by Atheists???

:)
It can be done, but most of us don't need those things provided for us.
The main reason we became atheists was that we didn't feel such a need.
The main reason theists don't understand us is that they do have that need and can't imagine giving it up.
 
Apart from a route to salvation (in some religions at least).

none of this can be done by Atheists???

:)
Maybe there's a realization that we don't need "salvation" - like thinking you're drowning and praying to the lifeguard, and then realizing that you can just stand up.
 
Maybe there's a realization that we don't need "salvation" - like thinking you're drowning and praying to the lifeguard, and then realizing that you can just stand up.
Well, what rational person thinks they will be immersed in fire and brimstone for eternity? Salvation presupposes something to be saved from.
 
Salvation presupposes something to be saved from.
SIN, original, heritable, unatonable
1 Corinthians 15:21 -For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
If you don't believe in the sin, you don't need saving.
That doesn't prevent them trying to save you. You can be walking quite comfortably in knee-deep surf, and one of them will come along an whack you in the head with a ring buoy.
 
Last edited:
SIN, original, heritable, unatonable
The question that spawned this reference to salvation was M345's, where he mentioned atheism. There is no sin for atheists. Sin is specifically divine judgment (that's the definition). Atheists may certainly
have ideas about wrongdoing and judgment, but divine sin is incompatible with any meaningful atheist view.
 
divine sin is incompatible with any meaningful atheist view.
I know. As I said above, it's a question of need.
If you're insecure enough to crave an external identity, you can be convinced that this mass identity is guilty from the get-go and requires mass salvation.
The pretzel-thinking that that engenders is difficult to contemplate, harder to comprehend.
 
You don’t make positive connections to anything solely using philosophy and history, if said examples don’t stand up to a reasonable standard of acceptance, then they must be characterized accordingly. Medical practitioners demonstrably treat and cure patients, religious authorities can’t demonstrate a reasonable connection to a supernatural deity.
I can only reject that which has been presented. Supply an example of what you deem credible and we can discuss the validity of your assertion.
Actually you DO make positive connections to anything with philosophy ... if philosophy had a job description, that would be it.
For instance, one can systematically reject a claim ( or to be kind, merely accept it as speculation) made on the authority of empiricism by examining what empiricism can and cannot deliver. Hence the science that governs metal smelting stands at one end of the spectrum, and the science that governs (?) abiogenesis and cosmology stands at the other. So, by way of that example, on what basis are you systematically rejecting these things?
At the moment you are talking about 'a reasonable standard' ... so what would a religious authority be required to demonstrate in order to be granted 'reasonable' status, iyho?
I ask, because in these discussions it's often the case that atheists are harbouring unrealistic standards within the core of their discussions.

Classic case in point with the atheists guffawing over the destruction of the notre dam cathedral.
 
Last edited:
The point is that if there is a difference, I can show the difference. You claim there is a difference between crystal-rubbing and God-bothering but you refuse to cite the differences.
The point is that you wouldn't bother trying to establish the difference between eating a pineapple and your car. These are the sorts of questions that come from the seriously deranged or someone playing some sort of cerebral game that culminates in wasting time.
 
Yes. It's "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I would like to be given the protection of the law, so I also want others to have the protection of the law, even murderers.
It may be a necessary evil or the best use of a bad bargain, but, in practical spheres, equating the law with kindness is a slippery slope.
 
Is the corollary true?
That one could worship God without the religion and one would not enjoy salvation?
It's seen that there is a popular distinction between religion and spirituality. People seem to take religion as rules and regs, formalities etc and spirituality as developing higher qualities born of self control or introspection (like kindness, for example).
Is this al9ng the same lines of what you are trying to say?
 
It's seen that there is a popular distinction between religion and spirituality. People seem to take religion as rules and regs, formalities etc and spirituality as developing higher qualities born of self control or introspection (like kindness, for example).
Is this al9ng the same lines of what you are trying to say?
That is what I am asking Yazata, yes.
 
Classic case in point with the atheists guffawing over the destruction of the notre dam cathedral.
I heard it differently: the most religious people in the world - jihadist Muslims - celebrated that fire. It seemed to them the triumph of their (true) god over your (false) god - both of whom like to show off with fancy houses, but neither cares much about kindness.
For the majority of atheists, severe damage to a fine example of medieval architecture is not funny - and I don't know any who "guffaw" - even if that architecture is a *monumental* waste of resources and man-hours, to the glory of church hierarchy at the expense of the poor French people of the time. Repairs will cost another fortune, but to the French people of today, it's beneficial as a landmark, a point of national pride and a tourist attraction.
Of course, jokes are made, by all kinds of people - but at least some atheists are thoughtful, even about that.
 
The point is that you wouldn't bother trying to establish the difference between eating a pineapple and your car.
Sure I would. All you had to do was ask:

Differences between driving a car and eating a pineapple
  1. It takes a lot longer to eat a car.
  2. A pineapple gets better gas mileage.
  3. You don't need a license to eat a pineapple.
  4. You can put a pineapple in your car but you can't put a car in your pineapple.
  5. A pina colada made of car juice is much harder to sell.
  6. You don't have to peel a car before you drive it.
  7. They don't grow cars in Hawaii.
I could go on and on if you like.

Now you: What's the difference between crystal-rubbing and God-bothering?
 
Back
Top