[hhforever]

There are many religions in this world, Each have their own practices and rules. Of course over theyears religions do adapt too.

The problem here is that with different religions, certain customs from different religion group will clash with others' norm. Such as muslim do not eat pork but in certain places where eating pork is the norm, they have to adapt to make the muslims welcome as well by having halal restaurant available.

I personally think that if people would just stop criticising what is not 'normal' to them but respect other religion, this world would be a better place. The most important thing is that we do not force our own ideals onto others, whereas sharing each others' culture for information and knowledge will bring more sensitivity onto others.

The thing about criticising other religions' custom or forcing one's idealogy onto others will just cause unecessary conflicts(opinions and even violence). We can disagree in our own heart what is right and what is wrong in terms of religion but we should never force them onto others, rather listen to other side of story and respect them.

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by hhforever)
There are many religions in this world, Each have their own practices and rules. Of course over theyears religions do adapt too.

The problem here is that with different religions, certain customs from different religion group will clash with others' norm. Such as muslim do not eat pork but in certain places where eating pork is the norm, they have to adapt to make the muslims welcome as well by having halal restaurant available.

I personally think that if people would just stop criticising what is not 'normal' to them but respect other religion, this world would be a better place. The most important thing is that we do not force our own ideals onto others, whereas sharing each others' culture for information and knowledge will bring more sensitivity onto others.

The thing about criticising other religions' custom or forcing one's idealogy onto others will just cause unecessary conflicts(opinions and even violence). We can disagree in our own heart what is right and what is wrong in terms of religion but we should never force them onto others, rather listen to other side of story and respect them.

The problem is, how far do you want to take this idea that everyones view is equally valid. With subjective matters such as morality, politics, ethics e.c.t its easy because no one can really be wrong as such.

However can you extend this argument to mathematics, evolution and physics. Lots of religions have opinions on matters such as this, and unfortunately there IS a right answer (or at least a sensible/valid one), so in these cases should we respect the opinion that someone that thinks 2+2=5? I agree with you broadly, but when religion (or any philosophical ideology) tries to give an opinion on science, it should be ignored in favor of the scientific method.

[hhforever]

(Original post by QuantumOverlord)
The problem is, how far do you want to take this idea that everyones view is equally valid. With subjective matters such as morality, politics, ethics e.c.t its easy because no one can really be wrong as such.

However can you extend this argument to mathematics, evolution and physics. Lots of religions have opinions on matters such as this, and unfortunately there IS a right answer (or at least a sensible/valid one), so in these cases should we respect the opinion that someone that thinks 2+2=5? I agree with you broadly, but when religion (or any philosophical ideology) tries to give an opinion on science, it should be ignored in favor of the scientific method.

Historically, religion, provides the answers of unexplained phenomenon and as science improved there are things at can be explained through science that conflicted with religion thinking.

A good modern society, imo, view scientific facts as facts. Religion should not interfere with politics and science. Neither should politic nor science interfere with religion.

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by hhforever)
Historically, religion, provides the answers of unexplained phenomenon and as science improved there are things at can be explained through science that conflicted with religion thinking.

A good modern society, imo, view scientific facts as facts. Religion should not interfere with politics and science. Neither should politic nor science interfere with religion.

Fundamentally science will always interfere with religion, so long as religion tries to answer questions about 'how reality works'. The scientific method has developed such that we can form a picture of reality that is the most accurate and most useful possible. You can see why science begins to make religion a little redundant.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

What about when what is normal in one religion conflicts not just with our sensibilities but with our morals and/or laws? What about religions that have teachings about how to treat non-members? I think the original post is just silly and naive.

[hhforever]

Religion's main purpose, imo, is to teach people to be a better person, cultivate moral values and have something to hold on to as faith.

Tell me, what conflicts will there be with science if Religion if all it does is give moral teachings. Whatever conflicts out there in the world regarding religions, are all done by the imperfect humans. Humans who create laws and limitations of what religion should be.

Science provide facts such as the world is round not flat like many thought so in the past. People have to accept FACTS whether its sooner or later. However Science cannot interfere with religion's teaching of humans being kind.

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by hhforever)
Religion's main purpose, imo, is to teach people to be a better person, cultivate moral values and have something to hold on to as faith.

Tell me, what conflicts will there be with science if Religion if all it does is give moral teachings. Whatever conflicts out there in the world regarding religions, are all done by the imperfect humans. Humans who create laws and limitations of what religion should be.

Science provide facts such as the world is round not flat like many thought so in the past. People have to accept FACTS whether its sooner or later. However Science cannot interfere with religion's teaching of humans being kind.

The thing is religion is no better than secular or humanist philosophies at teaching moral values. In fact many of the moral values taught by religions are questionable at best and terrible at worst. For example in Christianinity it is implied or stated directly that women are inferior, slavery is acceptable, homosexuality is a sin, and raping is not a crime if the victim marries the rapist.

It seems to me something a non-theistic moral Philosophie that does not depend on obeying a omnipotent god is a much better way to teach humans to be positive and kind.

[As_Dust_Dances_]

(Original post by QuantumOverlord)
The thing is religion is no better than secular or humanist philosophies at teaching moral values. In fact many of the moral values taught by religions are questionable at best and terrible at worst. For example in Christianinity it is implied or stated directly that women are inferior, slavery is acceptable, homosexuality is a sin, and raping is not a crime if the victim marries the rapist.

It seems to me something a non-theistic moral Philosophie that does not depend on obeying a omnipotent god is a much better way to teach humans to be positive and kind.

The Bible nowhere says women are inferior to men. The Bible does, however, establish a difference in roles between men and women as far as the leadership in the church and its worship, but just because there is a difference in roles, that does not mean one is inferior to the other. Most churches would suffer a great loss to be without the faithful and hard working women of the congregation! Most homes depend heavily on the loving influence of the wife and mother.

[boba]

I think people can coexist with other people who have different views and beliefs to them perfectly happy unless they had beliefs that we find to abhorrent. for example I don't think your example of muslims not eating pork would make a difference to people of other faith's/no faiths willingness to coexist but if there was hypothetically a modern religion that wanted to practi'ce ritual human sacrifice then I don't think they would be accepted.

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by As_Dust_Dances_)
The Bible nowhere says women are inferior to men. The Bible does, however, establish a difference in roles between men and women as far as the leadership in the church and its worship, but just because there is a difference in roles, that does not mean one is inferior to the other. Most churches would suffer a great loss to be without the faithful and hard working women of the congregation! Most homes depend heavily on the loving influence of the wife and mother.

This is bordering on sexism, obviously I'm not saying you are sexist, I'm sure you are not! But the bible is, and I think its influence that women are supposed to be just wifes and mothers is harmful. And it is true that rape is not treated as a serious crime in the bible, and that it is often seen as the womens fault! Putting sexism asside, there are countless other very questionable incidents in the bible, for example the 10th commandment, which says coveting each others possessions is harmful. A small extension on this is the fuel for competition and capitalism, ergo the 10th commandment is very harmful technologically and economically. Still I diverge of the point of morality, in the 10 commandments returning to my example the first 3) are not even about morality and refer to worshiping a god. 4) is okay mostly, but to me is too dubiously close to the arranged marriage concept of honor. 5) is good except that it should be 1) and that God himself has broken this numerous times (far more incidentally than Satan), 6) and 7) are good but should not be so concrete as to allow the odd exceptional circumstance. 8) is very good for most situations, but occasionally in some cases lying is arguably the kindest and most moral thing to do. 9) and 10) I have already commented on their dubiousness, they also bring out the scary Sci-fi thought police type ideas.


Also don't you think this is a little sexist?

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."

Compare this to say richard dawkings 10 commandments, which come out of secular humanism and have the benefit of modern day context. I think moral philosophy is a very good thing, but I don't think it should be tied to religion.

[As_Dust_Dances_]

(Original post by QuantumOverlord)
This is bordering on sexism, obviously I'm not saying you are sexist, I'm sure you are not! But the bible is, and I think its influence that women are supposed to be just wifes and mothers is harmful. And it is true that rape is not treated as a serious crime in the bible, and that it is often seen as the womens fault! Putting sexism asside, there are countless other very questionable incidents in the bible, for example the 10th commandment, which says coveting each others possessions is harmful. A small extension on this is the fuel for competition and capitalism, ergo the 10th commandment is very harmful technologically and economically. Still I diverge of the point of morality, in the 10 commandments returning to my example the first 3) are not even about morality and refer to worshiping a god. 4) is okay mostly, but to me is too dubiously close to the arranged marriage concept of honor. 5) is good except that it should be 1) and that God himself has broken this numerous times (far more incidentally than Satan), 6) and 7) are good but should not be so concrete as to allow the odd exceptional circumstance. 8) is very good for most situations, but occasionally in some cases lying is arguably the kindest and most moral thing to do. 9) and 10) I have already commented on their dubiousness, they also bring out the scary Sci-fi thought police type ideas.


Also don't you think this is a little sexist?

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."

Compare this to say richard dawkings 10 commandments, which come out of secular humanism and have the benefit of modern day context. I think moral philosophy is a very good thing, but I don't think it should be tied to religion.

I wasn't at all trying to be sexist, infact for all I'm Catholic I don't necessarily consider everything right about the Church myself and I agree maybe they do need to update their views for the 21st Century, especially around the topic of homosexuality. I don't think though that the Bible influences women just to be wives and mothers, it really depends on how people interpret it and a lot of views today are merely influenced from scientific explanations, hence the fact that Religion isn't considered as important today as it was many years ago. I understand that some Biblical references may appear or seem slightly sexist but at the time it was considered morally right, but even today there is still feminism, in some countries women are still treat like slaves to their husbands. As much as I would like and it 'could' be possible, I don't think that there will ever be complete equality in this world.

[Aoide]

It is a nice idea but as others have said it simply dosn't work. Many religions have rules which don't only affect their followers but other people too. For example the Quran says people who leave islam should be killed and is a view held by many muslims. How can you be accepting and respectful of this view while also supporting the rights of non muslims?

[Perseveranze]

Whether religion existed or not, we still would have issues co-existing with others. It's almost like human nature, wars will still happen, people will still fight, you'll still have discrimination (especially racism) etc.

So I don't think it's necessarily concentrated towards religion here. It's just a fact of people generally being more tolerant to allow others to live in peace.

[Kiss]

(Original post by QuantumOverlord)
so in these cases should we respect the opinion that someone that thinks 2+2=5?

Oh but 2+2 always makes a 5, Winston. Sometimes it makes a 4, others a 6. It is whatever the party needs it to be

[WhatsHisFace]

While I agree that religions should tolerate one another, I think avoiding discussion altogether is anti- progressive. It would be less so if religions had more lenient doctrines, however one's religious views strongly affect their decision making. Most of today's religion emphasizes objective morality, albeit rather self- contradictorily. That means in order to support their beliefs, they must be against certain social issues (abortion, euthanasia, family planning, ect.). You cannot co- exist with a religion when it exists in the realm of one's society, since it is society that dictates the laws which govern everyone. It may be fine and dandy that you're anti- abortion, but just because it doesn't jive with your religion doesn't mean you have any right to punish someone for doing so.

But maybe my opinions just a product of my caraaazy athiesm...

[AntisthenesDogger]

No you can't.