Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

globalnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#91

Post by nautilius »

JetAlone wrote: post #76
nautilius wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would they? What's that god they killed for?

In the case of Mao and Stalin? That would be the idol of Ideological purity. It is presented as the one true ideal variant of humanistic utilitarianism, and conveniently because they are the glorious leader through whom it is to be enacted, they are basically the prophet of this god. It is an impersonal god, a "force" or natural economic/social principle whose pseudo-personhood emerges from collective humanity. It us…

That's it? That's all your god has to offer? That's all your god is? An ideology? Bureaucrats and formalism? I feel betrayed! To you, god is indistinguishable for from this? How? Now, I am not a religion-apologist, but it seems to me you're selling god short, no?

What about all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo? Here's Oxford: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Wow! Yeah! Thats's a god! But you're arguing that god is equivalent to formalism and bureaucracy?! Wow, what a disappointment!

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#92

Post by forum_ghost »

goldenkey wrote: post #52
belfalas wrote: post #32

Meanwhile the Buddhists are unattached about being left out of the survey. They don't mind.

Buddhism isn't a religion insomuch as it is a philosphy.

it most certainly is an actual religion/theology and a rather dark one, too.

e.g. "your life sucks today for reasons beyond your control? well, you must've deserved it in the previous life, scumbag"

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#93

Post by nautilius »

powerslacker wrote: post #71
nitrogen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we have far similar values with each other than with atheists. I would describe the values of the altruistic modern atheism of people I know, which has a lot in common with Christianity and Judaism at the big picture level, as "be good, do good." One needn't believe in God or gods to believe in good.

Values concerning sexual purity, obscenity, drug use, the transcendence of the almighty God, the material and immaterial parts of mankind, and the complementary roles of men and women are inherent in Biblical teaching. Some of these can be present among atheists, and they may be regarded as good. The difference is these values (and more) are present and regarded as good in varying degrees in every Abrahamic religion.…

If the only thing keeping you from being a bad person (TM) is the threat of eternal damnation and suffering through some divine almighty being - how are you then not a bad person?

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#94

Post by forum_ghost »

nautilius wrote: post #53
getcrunk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point was trying to make is that having a god is ultimately irrelevant to being an evil murderer

No one claimed atheists cannot be murderers. But I have yet to learn of an atheist starting a crusade in the name of that god they don't believe in.

did mao and stalin believe in communism?

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#95

Post by forum_ghost »

nautilius wrote: post #88
rhexs wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state?

The state ? Buildings and bureaucrats? Now that's a low bar for 'god'. That's it? There isn't more to it? That's what all the fuzz is about?

why are you so insecure about your atheism?

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#96

Post by forum_ghost »

car_analogy wrote: post #12
jleyank wrote: post #5

Quoted post unavailable.

> Perhaps if they followed their purported beliefs rather than their tribal nature? The Old Testament is extremely tribal, and commanded the Chosen to exterminate several competing tribes. I'd rather it not be followed too closely: 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. Numbers 21…

How is Buddhism any better?

"oh your life sucks today because of circumstances beyond your control? oh well, you must've deserved it in your previous life by being a total dickhead,you scumbag!"

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#97

Post by goldenkey »

forum_ghost wrote: post #92
goldenkey wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buddhism isn't a religion insomuch as it is a philosphy.

it most certainly is an actual religion/theology and a rather dark one, too. e.g. "your life sucks today for reasons beyond your control? well, you must've deserved it in the previous life, scumbag"

That's something you'd get from Buddhism for Dummies if you just assumed Reincarnation and Karma were simplistic concepts with only one definition. The reality is that these are metaphysical concepts and Buddhism is often conveyed via metaphor or analogy.

Your interpretation is a rather naive one, and "deserve" is a loaded word.

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#98

Post by Brian_K_White »

avighnay wrote: post #66

I have come to view religions as organisms in an eco-system. The behavior is very analogous. The goal for both is survival and propagation. As within an eco-system, organisms evolve and adopt survival strategies. Religions do the same too. Organisms evolve due to genetic aberration, Religions evolve due to social aberration. In any eco-system, the young organisms are known to adopt harsher survival strategies, in rel…

It is funny to observe that even a religion is itself the product of, and subject to, and actively conducting evolution exactly the same as biology.

All evelotion is is the axiom or truism "That which works, works."

That statement can't be denied or escaped, and regardless what your mystical feelings are about how unbelievable it is that an eyeball just evolved by itself because that would be magic and magic is impossible but gods are magic that is possible or maybe gods aren't magic...I'm so confused...anyway no matter what you think about all that, there is no way around such a basic statement. You can't not-believe it.

And everything else ultimately flows from that. You can avoid considering it and imagine that there is some unknown other stuff between that and evolution and eyeballs, but you can't actually produce that unknown other stuff if you are ever forced to consider it.

And so it is with any self-oganizing self-modifying system, including organized religions and religious ideas.

You are right that they evolve strategies to perpetuate themselves. That which works, works. If someone had a religious idea to only accept seekers but keep themselves secret and never advertise, not even to their own offspring, that religion would cease to exist within a generation. Anyone still in it after that would have to be in some new religion resulting from a mutation that it's ok to bring in at least some new people by some means or other.

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#99

Post by JetAlone »

nautilius wrote: post #91
JetAlone wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of Mao and Stalin? That would be the idol of Ideological purity. It is presented as the one true ideal variant of humanistic utilitarianism, and conveniently because they are the glorious leader through whom it is to be enacted, they are basically the prophet of this god. It is an impersonal god, a "force" or natural economic/social principle whose pseudo-personhood emerges from collective humanity. It us…

That's it? That's all your god has to offer? That's all your god is ? An ideology ? Bureaucrats and formalism? I feel betrayed! To you, god is indistinguishable for from this? How? Now, I am not a religion-apologist, but it seems to me you're selling god short, no? What about all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo? Here's Oxford: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe an…

I wasn't saying that's what God is. I was saying that is what a person can try to make a god out of.

I agree that bureaucracy and formalism makes for a disappointing god. That's the way the pharisees tended towards practicing.

Re: Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society: survey

#100

Post by sudosteph »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #60
LegitShady wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That table is interesting. The gulf between jewish view of evangelicals (+35) to evangelicals view of jews (-45) is interesting, but there are other situations similar like protestants like evangelicals (+55) while evangelicals are a little cooler to protestants (-10). edit: it seems someone is saying the columns and rows are reversed from how I read it. I don't see where that's indicated, although that makes sense i…

Jews for Jesus was started in the 70s and maintains a $25M a year tax-free income through donations from Baptist and Evangelical sources. They make their rounds through the various churches every few years asking for money, and so Evangelicals have frowned upon the idea that the Jews have their own covenant with God. The Vatican, on the other hand, has stated in the past that Judaism and Christianity have incompatibl…

If anyone is curious, I think this is referring to dispensationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism), which is indeed a relatively new phenomenon compared to covenant theology. It's interesting how much it's caught on in baptist and non-denominational communities in particular. Most reformed (calvinist) evangelicals are still very covenantal in their theology, but even they seem to be less strict on it than they used to be. Mainline protestants are pretty uniformly covenant theology as well.
Post reply on HN