Is Religion Like a Toy? (point of view, God, Christ, religions)

[No*s]

So, do atheists have the same core? If both "God" and "afterlife" are part of the core, atheists do not share the same core values. Even that inclusive statement of yours is exclusive.

As for the differences, they aren't simply run of the mill differences. I believe abortion is murder, another man, based on different spiritual values, disagrees. We cannot reconcile these ethics, unless we eliminate moral values as a core. If that distinction is irrelevant, which points of opposing murder become moral? These different religious beliefs project vastly different ethical praxis, not just religious praxis.

Simply saying we all believe the same basic thing isn't the same as validating it. Already, with the definition you've supplied, I've excluded people simply with the definition. If, however, we break it down as far as possible to what everyone believes, then you have a problem again: religion and religious beliefs must be eliminated, because they make truth statements that are inherantly divisive. Worse, they may even come to be regarded as pure fantasy with the correct presuppositions.

[Master Vigil]

I didn't say everyone had the same beliefs. I just said all religions have the same core. Athiesm is not a religion, or thats what an athiest would say. There area also difference between man's morals, and religion. I believe that the core of religious expression is goodness. If it does not support goodness in any way, it is no longer a religion. And I agree they are not run of the mill differences, neither is the differences of the toy for a child. Get my point? The concept of abortion is extremely complex. First you must decide if the baby is alive. If it is, then you are killing it and that is murder. If it is not, then no it is not murder. But that has nothing to do with the unknown. Only with what we think is right or wrong. Which is extremely subjective.

"religion and religious beliefs must be eliminated, because they make truth statements that are inherantly divisive. Worse, they may even come to be regarded as pure fantasy with the correct presuppositions."

Exactly!!!! That is my whole point. Religion is nothing but adding pointless uneccessaries onto something that is already there. And of course, some if not most would finally be seen as pure fantasy and no one would need to debate the way we are doing right now.

[kreeden]

Although I agree with what you are saying Master V. , I had to play the Devil's advocate again . You see , religion isn't just the toy . Religion also includes the owner's manual . How you use that toy . Mmmm , don't want anyone to " put an eye out ", now do we ?

Like I said , I agree in princible with what you are saying , but the way I tend to look at it is " Do all Paths lead to the same place ? Do they all get you there in the same condition ? " Sometimes small differences can become huge differences .

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

I didn't say everyone had the same beliefs. I just said all religions have the same core. Athiesm is not a religion, or thats what an athiest would say. There area also difference between man's morals, and religion. I believe that the core of religious expression is goodness. If it does not support goodness in any way, it is no longer a religion. And I agree they are not run of the mill differences, neither is the differences of the toy for a child. Get my point? The concept of abortion is extremely complex. First you must decide if the baby is alive. If it is, then you are killing it and that is murder. If it is not, then no it is not murder. But that has nothing to do with the unknown. Only with what we think is right or wrong. Which is extremely subjective.

I apologize. I tend to view things like goodness as being defined, very often, by our beliefs. Som e of the most rudimentary and core things, to use your term, are the same. The Golden Rule, for instance, is universal...but it's application is not. Said application is divisive, unless we want to decide that every application for every individual is the same. When we start saying what is and isn't an application of the rule, we have created division.

Your points on abortion are exactly my points. I think we can both agree that murder may never be classified as goodness. Disagreements here reflect incompatible systems, and they do not both represent goodness. If we may define it as murder in one, based on a person's beliefs, and it is acceptable in another, based on the same beliefs, we have effectively eliminated goodness. Why not have hunts for human sacrifice the way the Aztecs did. I doubt their neighbors appreciated the raids (I use Aztecs, to avoid the potential "willing" counter-argument that can be made with many other groups). To the Aztecs, this was good. It was for the survival of not just themselves but the world, because if they didn't, the sun wouldn't shine. We cannot, then, say that they weren't trying to support goodness, but the fact that they were trying to support it, would make it valid under the abortion criteria, unless we decided to draw a line. This is a divisive action, though, pointing out the flaws in our toys, as your analogy goes.

I would posit that we can't really separate beliefs from the definition of core. If we do, then we validate multiple forms of "goodness" that neither of us would validate. If we don't separate them, then either the argument must fail, or we must draw a completely arbitrary line of what beliefs are important and which are not. When you indicate that a religion that "does not support goodness in any way, then it is not a religion," you strongly indicate that there are criteria by which we may judge goodness, and these are by definition beliefs (even feelings work themselves into beliefs).

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

Exactly!!!! That is my whole point. Religion is nothing but adding pointless uneccessaries onto something that is already there. And of course, some if not most would finally be seen as pure fantasy and no one would need to debate the way we are doing right now.

This brings us back to the atheist. We need look no further than this group to see the atheist, holding up their toy (their beliefs), saying it is better. They are creating division. I agree, by their definition, they are not religious. However, the points you are making against religion either must be expanded to include all claims, or they must be included as religious. The very things your post argues against, they do. However, your definition of core also excludes them. Does your argument criticize them at all? If it does, then your definition of core doesn't quite fly. If it doesn't, then why do you exclude one form of religious divisiveness from your definition (and it is a divisiveness over religion, and therefore, religious, even though there is no professed belief in religion...religion is the subject)? Both possibilities strongly challenge your argument.

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion .

[Master Vigil]

All of the things we are debating about right now are the differences of opinions that are unecessary. We are trying to prove our toys are better. You see? I see at the core, we all agree. Your god is infinite, eternal, and the cause of all things. An athiest would say it was the universe, I would say it is energy. We are in a sense talking about the same thing, just different terms. But when someone starts to put adjectives and finite limitations to their idea, "All loving, gender, etc..." And try to justify that with a man-made book, I see that as trying to make the differences more important. In fact, we are not arguing about god anymore, or religion. We are arguing about the parts that religion fills in society. Morals, abortion, etc... These have no bearing on whether or not everyone's idea of god is the same.

[No*s]

The problem is...that I don't think they don't matter, and I think reducing it our differances reduces everything to triviality (as outlined in my argument). You may see it as unneccessary, but if I consider something goodness, then I will fight to protect it. If I think someone is being wronged, I shoudl stop it. The person I'm trying to stop may well see goodness completely different. Either I believe nothing, or I am in conflict.

Reducing everything to its most basic form does away with even goodness, and that's why I can't agree with your system.

[Faminedynasty]

A toy could be used to describe it, but a dangerous toy, like a machine pistol. It's a nice, warm feeling to have a machine pistol. It's fun to play with and makes you feel safe. but you may exploit it to carry out acts of unspeakable violence.
But yes, it does indeed seem to me that all major religions focus on the same things. And it seems to me that Christianity, Islam and Judaism which have clashed and continue to, leading to countless millions of deaths, are essentially different cultural interpreatations of essentially the same idea of God. And it is the tiny differences that lead to the astounding similarites being ignored, justifying the hatred and violence.

[Master Vigil]

"A toy could be used to describe it, but a dangerous toy, like a machine pistol."

That wasn't my point. It doesn't matter what kind of toy it is, once you start saying it is dangerous and this and that, you start giving it added differences that are not necessarily important.

[Master Vigil]

"I think reducing it our differances reduces everything to triviality "

That is exactly my point, I think the differences between christianity, islam, judaism, taoism, buddhism, shinto, paganism, etc... are all trivial.

"Either I believe nothing, or I am in conflict."

I never said you wouldn't be in conflict. But better to be in conflict with what matters, and not with the trivial differences between religions.

"Reducing everything to its most basic form does away with even goodness, and that's why I can't agree with your system."

Or at its most basic form, goodness is inherrant. Or instead of goodness, we have simplicity. Which in my eyes is goodness anyway. My point is, if we get rid of all the trivial differences, there will be no more hatred, no more fighting, and goodness will be more prevalent.