Religion and scuba

[dfx]

I am not convinced that is true. It was a pretty open secret that Reagan was basically an atheist who papered over it for political reasons. And atheism is far more acceptable now than it was in the early 80s. Sure an openly atheist candidate would struggle today, but I don't think we are that far away. A gay President may take a little longer.

Here, be convinced




They do the same poll every few years or so and things are slowly improving, but it's still a pretty sad picture. Drrich2 here has sufficiently demonstrated how atheists are seen as inherently immoral (that is not to say outright evil) people and how this view is justified entirely through religious doctrine.

The Bible is (in part) a moral code, or at least a record of moral codes (10 commandments, teachings of Jesus, etc.). But that code was written between 2,000 and 2,500 years ago, so it is scarcely surprising that it more closely reflects societal norms of the day. The rules it sought to impose were simple and basic, but in many cases were relatively enlightened in terms of its social background.

People who like to attack the Bible as hypocritical in modern times are shooting at straw men. You have to look at the emphasis of the teachings (love thy neighbour as thyself; do unto others, etc.) rather than the granular rules (prohibition of usury, levels of chastisement appropriate for spouses and slaves).

If it only were so easy. Being a member of a particular religion means that you believe at least some of its claims. The claims made by a particular religion come in a package. Now some people are stronger in their faith and believe more of these claims, others are weaker and only believe only some or fewer of them.

So far so good. Now the claims of a particular religion come in a variety of forms. You're right when you say that some are better and some are worse. Some are excellent, others completely inhumane. We can agree that "love thy neighbour" is a good one, and that claiming that slavery is OK is a bad one. But how do we know this? How can we make this determination? Surely not from the claims and teachings of the religion itself, because after all, it doesn't say that slavery is wrong, it says the exact opposite.

We know that slavery is wrong because of the moral code that our secular society has developed over centuries (and because of other things such as our own moral compass, but these are more difficult to address). We know these things anyway, we don't have to look at religion. In fact, we know these things in spite of what religion (well, this particular one) teaches. So why bother looking at the teachings of religion in the first place? What can it teach us that we don't already know anyway? If we have to look at the teachings of the religion and then determine which ones are good and which ones are bad, why not just skip the middle man and simply do what we already know is good and don't do what we know is bad?

The problem is that the stronger one's religious faith is, the more claims made by the religion are taken as truth, even in the face of contradicting evidence. Luckily our western secular society has put the lid on the slavery issue, but other issues, such as "homosexuality is a sin" are still very much alive and still have power to influence political decisions. And these issues are rooted entirely in religion.

Somewhat luckily for us, most Christians in the western world fall into the "weak faith" category, most of whom have never actually read their holy or only a few bits and pieces there and who are oblivious to the other atrocious claims made by their religion. Every once in a while though, there are people who get the (actually totally logical) idea that if they believe that what it says here, then they should also believe what it says over there, and develop into fundamentalists. This results in (for lack of a better word) abominations like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Of course some religions are better in this regard than others. Islam probably harbours the most harmful ideas of them all, but Christianity isn't far behind. A fundamentalist of Jainism on the other hand would hardly be a problem at all.

And for the record: in the bible slavery is not a mere "granular rule" as you say. "Love thy neighbour" is a single verse, but there are entire chapters dedicated to endorsing slavery.

The whole morality argument is one of the last pillars of religious apologetics, but it's a huge red herring.

 

[dmoore19]

Just a little addition to the atheist president numbers.

As I recall when JFK was elected President there was a very large contingent of folks questioned his ability to hold the office due to his being a Catholic.

As time passes things change.

Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion : NPR

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

The Bible is (in part) a moral code, or at least a record of moral codes (10 commandments, teachings of Jesus, etc.). But that code was written between 2,000 and 2,500 years ago, so it is scarcely surprising that it more closely reflects societal norms of the day. The rules it sought to impose were simple and basic, but in many cases were relatively enlightened in terms of its social background.

It'd be interesting to see how well this one would go over in today's society ...

Deuteronomy 22:13-21New International Version (NIV)
¹³ If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her ¹⁴ and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” ¹⁵ then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. ¹⁶ Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. ¹⁷ Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, ¹⁸ and the elders shall take the man and punish him. ¹⁹ They shall fine him a hundred shekels^[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
²⁰ If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, ²¹ she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[tridacna]

It'd be interesting to see how well this one would go over in today's society ...

Deuteronomy 22:13-21New International Version (NIV)
¹³ If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her ¹⁴ and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” ¹⁵ then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. ¹⁶ Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. ¹⁷ Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, ¹⁸ and the elders shall take the man and punish him. ¹⁹ They shall fine him a hundred shekels^[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
²⁰ If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, ²¹ she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Still goes on in many of "today's" societies. Remember that the next time you put gas in your car.

 

[agilis]

Still goes on in many of "today's" societies. Remember that the next time you put gas in your car.

We import far more petroleum from Canada than from anywhere else, close to 40% of all US oil imports.

I'm not sure if there are any adult virgins in Canada.

 

[tridacna]

We import far more petroleum from Canada than from anywhere else, close to 40% of all US oil imports.

I'm not sure if there are any adult virgins in Canada.

Big whoop. And the other 40%? Eh? Are you suggesting that we import no oil from those that treat women as they did in the stone age? Eh?

 

[grf88]

Big whoop. And the other 40%? Eh? Are you suggesting that we import no oil from those that treat women as they did in the stone age? Eh?

That would be one good reason not to import from Saudi Arabia but there are many, many others.

 

[dfx]

Still goes on in many of "today's" societies. Remember that the next time you put gas in your car.

You don't even have to look that far. The long-term aftereffects of these barbaric ideas still linger in the "enlightened" western society. It's no coincidence that Christianity is often correlated with obsession with, or rather anxiety about sex, premarital sex in particular and especially virginity in girls. The idea that an intact hymen somehow increases the value of a female, particularly your own daughter, still leads to perverse rituals like these. Not that I'm suggesting that this is as bad as actually stoning them, but we're also still far from being over this kind of nonsense.

 

[agilis]

You don't even have to look that far. The long-term aftereffects of these barbaric ideas still linger in the "enlightened" western society. It's no coincidence that Christianity is often correlated with obsession with, or rather anxiety about sex, premarital sex in particular and especially virginity in girls. The idea that an intact hymen somehow increases the value of a female, particularly your own daughter, still leads to perverse rituals like these. Not that I'm suggesting that this is as bad as actually stoning them, but we're also still far from being over this kind of nonsense.

You need look no further than the Virgin Mary, who conceived Jesus "without sin". Halachic law does not permita Cohen to marry a non-virgin. And let's not forget the actual meaning of the glass crushed by the groom under the Chuppah. They tell children it has something to do with the destruction of Temple, but that's not so.

 

[Diver0001]

Are you suggesting that we import no oil from those that treat women as they did in the stone age? Eh?

The "stone" age... LOL... I don't know if that was a play on words given the topic but I found it funny.

I guess what you're talking about is Sharia law. Strangely, the Koran contains exactly ... count em ... zero references to stoning. It was a typically Jewish thing but historical references can be found in ancient Greece as well.

As for the actual "stone age": if it interests anyone, the actual stone age was a long time ago. It mostly ended before the stories in the Old Testament occurred. Much of the religious stuff we have today that bothers us were actually "post classical" or "medieval" in origin. Before that we had other systems, like the Greek and Roman pantheons.

For example, Islam arose in the early middle ages. The intriguing thing about religion is that it does not seem to keep abreast of cultural changes and Islam would seem to be particularly stubborn when it comes to resisting modernization. So, to me, the suffering of women we see today acts like a cultural "time capsule" that gives us a window into the treatment of women in 5th century Persia. At the time, it was the norm and got in the various religious texts, because people found it "normal". With our modern cultural norms, of course, it seems (and is) barbaric and unacceptable, to say the least.

R..