Christians have a pathetic reason for their existence

[parky76]

Ask a devout Christian why they exist and what their goal in life is, and they will tell you "to go to Heaven".

So what they do in this world, the only life they are guarunteed of having, is irrelevant and worthless?

The only point of living in this world, is to make it to the make believe, un-proven, and possibly BS next one?

And if these Christians are convinced that the next life is a fake, they have no reason to live??

Wow. How sad. How pathetic. One should not need the possibility of another life to come, to justify living a good life in the one they KNOW they have.

[Safe-Keeper]

This is what reading Rapture Ready does to a poor soul...

[quixotecoyote]

Hi. I'm a resident atheist and I do not endorse the OP.

[Wildy]

Have you really only figured that out now?

Look at some of the more fundamentalist religions and you'll see a rather common pattern emerge. The stricter sense of morality is there to supposedly make someone "pure" enough to enter heaven. And the result is basically that these people don't do anything in this life because they are trying to make sure that they are ready for the next one.

Not all Christians are like that, just like not all Christians will give the same response that you said in the OP. People have their own purposes in life, and there will be instances where even the most devout Christian will have a purpose in life that isn't "to go to Heaven".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the more the denomination is like a "death cult" the more likely they are going to think that this life is somewhat pointless.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Hi. I'm a resident atheist and I do not endorse the OP.

Hello, I am a resident Theist, and I also do not endorse the OP.

Nor will I endorse any rabid attempts by other Theists to flame, ridicule, deprecate, or discredit the OP or the OP poster.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Hi. I'm a resident atheist and I do not endorse the OP.

The OP is stereotype, broad brush indictment.

I also do not endorse the OP.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hi, I'm an agnostic and I endorse this product

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[slingblade]

Hi.


Is there cake?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Hi.


Is there cake?

I was to understand that there would be punch and pie.

[MG1962]

Yeah come on parky. I have seen your other threads, you are much better than this

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought you believed in Intelligent design parky?

Originally Posted by parky76

So what they do in this world, the only life they are guarunteed of having, is irrelevant and worthless?

Well, on an objective level, I suppose everyone's lives are irrelevant.

[sleepy_lioness]

I think I'll have a beer.

[bookitty]

You can not define any group by the extremes. Well, I suppose you can, but in that case it might be better to change your sig.

[Vortigern99]

The will to reach or achieve Heaven -- a state of joyful oneness with God -- in the afterlife is meant to shape one's behavior in the here-and-now, toward benevolence, mercy, compassion, etc.

There is nothing "sad" or "pathetic" about a belief system which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior in its adherents.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

The will to reach or achieve Heaven -- a state of joyful oneness with God -- in the afterlife is meant to shape one's behavior in the here-and-now, toward benevolence, mercy, compassion, etc.

There is nothing "sad" or "pathetic" about a belief system which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior in its adherents.

I'm not in favor of labeling any group of people sad and pathetic. I'm not in support of the OP.

That said, I'm not sure that the belief system can be defined simply as that which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior. Further, I think it is far from succesful at that.

[parky76]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Have you really only figured that out now?

Look at some of the more fundamentalist religions and you'll see a rather common pattern emerge. The stricter sense of morality is there to supposedly make someone "pure" enough to enter heaven. And the result is basically that these people don't do anything in this life because they are trying to make sure that they are ready for the next one. .

It seems to me that for the more fundy Christians, their reasons for doing good deeds, donating to charities, being kind to their neighbors, are for very very selfish reasons.

Most fundy Christians only strive to live a moral life so that they can go to heaven. The logical conclusion to that is that if they no longer believed in heaven, they would feel no obligation or personal justification to do nice things, and would go around raping, murdering, and stealing.

See, I am an agnostic. But I surely don't believe in Heaven. But yet, I strive to be as good a person as I can be.

Why do I do this..knowing there is not some perpetual spiritual reward waiting for me?

Cause its the right thing to do, and I would want to be treated the same way. I don't need a reward to be a nice person and a kind human being. Seeing a smile on the face of a child is enough reward for me. Even without a smile, knowing that I did a good thing that helped someone, is all the reward I need.

As opposed to fundy Christians, who only do good things so they can go to Heaven. Selfish, self-surving bastards.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

The will to reach or achieve Heaven -- a state of joyful oneness with God -- in the afterlife is meant to shape one's behavior in the here-and-now, toward benevolence, mercy, compassion, etc.

There is nothing "sad" or "pathetic" about a belief system which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior in its adherents.

In theory, yes, the Christian religion is one of forgiveness and love. In practice, however, it is far from it. While it is true that all the "sins" one accrues can be forgiven at any time, simply by repenting, it must be said that the religion has been specifically engineered so that it is impossible not to commit a horrible sin every thirty seconds. And the "love everyone" ideal apparently doesn't extend to unbelievers, blasphemers, homosexuals, or anyone else whose beliefs and/or lifestyle choices differ even slightly from the established "way of god".
While I wholly support the idea of establishing a group of any kind that supports morality and love and forgiveness, I do not agree that Christianity is this kind of institution.

[parky76]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I thought you believed in Intelligent design parky?
.

I believe in the possibility of a grand higher power that created the Universe and keeps it going.

That doesn't have anything to do with the Bible or mythical ideas like Heaven, Hell, Valhalla, what have you.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by parky76

Most fundy Christians only strive to live a moral life so that they can go to heaven. The logical conclusion to that is that if they no longer believed in heaven, they would feel no obligation or personal justification to do nice things, and would go around raping, murdering, and stealing.

I don't think most people really buy that. It's a great argument for why religious morality is BS but the religious are still products of sociobiology. They don't get their brains completely washed and dried because they buy into some meme. Dawkins makes this point often. Evolutionary based reciprocal altruism, empathy and other evolutionary stable strategies coupled with social based morality are just as applicable to them as they are to you and I.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm not in favor of labeling any group of people sad and pathetic. I'm not in support of the OP.

That said, I'm not sure that the belief system can be defined simply as that which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior. Further, I think it is far from succesful at that.

I agree that Christianity, or any religion, is a more complicated belief system than a mere summation of its moralizing purpose can convey. A better explanation of religion is that it acts as a social cohesive, dictating what is beneficial and what is harmful to a given society, while assuaging the individual's fear of death.

It would be hard to argue, for example, that any of the 7 Deadly Sins are healthful, helpful or benevolent pursuits. The religious injunctions against such vices as greed, vanity, envy, sloth, etc. exist in order to keep people doing things that are productive, positive and good for society as a whole, rather than engaging in selfish, self-serving endeavors that over time would erode the fabric of society.

(At least, this is the theory and purpose behind religion. I'm not saying that all religions/belief systems/denominations achieve their purposes successfully, across the board, without any snags or unfortunate side-effects. Still, the goals of social cohesion and fear assuaging are noble, IMO, even if a given belief system falls short of its mark.)

But the opening post of this thread misses the entire point that the purpose of Heaven is to keep believers from sinning, ie from committing errors that lead to social decay. This purpose might be paraphrased as: "Be a good, compassionate, merciful person, and you get to spend eternity in joyful unity with God, in Heaven."

IOW, the idea of Heaven does not exist as a separate concept beyond or apart from the conditions and behaviors of one's lifetime. Rather, the attainment of Heaven is contingent upon one's proper, moral behavior during one's life.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by parky76

I believe in the possibility of a grand higher power that created the Universe and keeps it going.

Why, if I may ask?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136056

Before you ridicule these Christian folks, remember your thread linked above shares many of their more wacky views.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

But the opening post of this thread misses the entire point that the purpose of Heaven is to keep believers from sinning, ie from committing errors that lead to social decay. This purpose might be paraphrased as: "Be a good, compassionate, merciful person, and you get to spend eternity in joyful unity with God, in Heaven."

IOW, the idea of Heaven does not exist as a separate concept beyond or apart from the conditions and behaviors of one's lifetime. Rather, the attainment of Heaven is contingent upon one's proper, moral behavior during one's life.

Well, it can do that, but then it depends entirely on what one considers to be proper, moral and good.

It may be seen as moral to try and resist your 'unproper' sexual preference for example, something that isn't a minority event in Christianity.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

In theory, yes, the Christian religion is one of forgiveness and love. In practice, however, it is far from it. While it is true that all the "sins" one accrues can be forgiven at any time, simply by repenting, it must be said that the religion has been specifically engineered so that it is impossible not to commit a horrible sin every thirty seconds. And the "love everyone" ideal apparently doesn't extend to unbelievers, blasphemers, homosexuals, or anyone else whose beliefs and/or lifestyle choices differ even slightly from the established "way of god".
While I wholly support the idea of establishing a group of any kind that supports morality and love and forgiveness, I do not agree that Christianity is this kind of institution.

You're mistaken, IMO, that Christianity is "far from a religion of forgiveness and love". Though you do not appear to believe this, there are many Christians who are sincerely kind and loving. You're free to discount me or reject my observations, but I'm not Christian and I've encountered many kind-hearted Christian people in my lifetime.

Where a Christian person, or any person, falls short of complete benevolence, this is not a failure of their belief system -- it is a failure of the person him or herself. Weakness of morals and lack of accountability are human problems, not just Christian ones. For those who truly accept Christ's admonition to "love your neighbor as yourself", the ideal does indeed extend to "unbelievers", etc. You might not have known any loving Christians, but I have and I do, and I know for a fact that you are making erroneous over-generalizations about them as a group.

The institution of Christianity, conceived of as a monolithic entity, may fail as a shaping force toward personal benevolence and "loving-kindness"; but on an individual, personal, scriptural level, that is the purpose of the faith, and in many cases, though you might reject this as untrue, it actually does work.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

It would be hard to argue, for example, that any of the 7 Deadly Sins are healthful, helpful or benevolent pursuits. The religious injunctions against such vices as greed, vanity, envy, sloth, etc. exist in order to keep people doing things that are productive, positive and good for society as a whole, rather than engaging in selfish, self-serving endeavors that over time would erode the fabric of society.

But consider the harm done by social stigma and obsessive concern for many of these things. I'm sorry but while religion has served the purpose you claim it has come at a very high price.

Quote:

But the opening post of this thread misses the entire point that the purpose of Heaven is to keep believers from sinning, ie from committing errors that lead to social decay. This purpose might be paraphrased as: "Be a good, compassionate, merciful person, and you get to spend eternity in joyful unity with God, in Heaven."

See my post to Parky, I'm skeptical as to the degree in which punishment and reward in the afterlife are effective. I think the greatest argument against them was made by Kant who pointed out that only if the gallows were situated outside of the brothel and each customer knew that he would die upon exiting would sin cease.

Quote:

IOW, the idea of Heaven does not exist as a separate concept beyond or apart from the conditions and behaviors of one's lifetime. Rather, the attainment of Heaven is contingent upon one's proper, moral behavior during one's life.

Whatever good religion served it is now at best anachronistic. The idea of heaven didn't obviate slavery, subjugate and oppression of women, wars, genocide etc..

I've no way of knowing whether or not religion serves as a net good or net evil. I've struggled for years over the idea and have kept up a yearly debate with an associate over the idea. I take the net good side but to be honest my passion has waned and I don't think it will continue.

There are two critically important things to understand about religion as it applies to morality.

• It's not needed.
• It caries a high price and many unintended consequences.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

You're mistaken, IMO, that Christianity is "far from a religion of forgiveness and love". Though you do not appear to believe this, there are many Christians who are sincerely kind and loving. You're free to discount me or reject my observations, but I'm not Christian and I've encountered many kind-hearted Christian people in my lifetime.

Where a Christian person, or any person, falls short of complete benevolence, this is not a failure of their belief system -- it is a failure of the person him or herself. Weakness of morals and lack of accountability are human problems, not just Christian ones. For those who truly accept Christ's admonition to "love your neighbor as yourself", the ideal does indeed extend to "unbelievers", etc. You might not have known any loving Christians, but I have and I do, and I know for a fact that you are making erroneous over-generalizations about them as a group.

The institution of Christianity, conceived of as a monolithic entity, may fail as a shaping force toward personal benevolence and "loving-kindness"; but on an individual, personal, scriptural level, that is the purpose of the faith, and in many cases, though you might reject this as untrue, it actually does work.

Yes, there are nice Christian people. I wasn't saying that there weren't. My entire family is Christian, and they're all nice people (well, my sister's annoying sometimes, but she's nice overall ). But the religion as a whole is less a love-fest than a means of controlling people.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

...

It would be hard to argue, for example, that any of the 7 Deadly Sins are healthful, helpful or benevolent pursuits. The religious injunctions against such vices as greed, vanity, envy, sloth, etc. exist in order to keep people doing things that are productive, positive and good for society as a whole, rather than engaging in selfish, self-serving endeavors that over time would erode the fabric of society.

...

I disagree. Pride and envy can be motivational forces in societies. Pride in one's community can help forge stronger bonds between members of that community. Being "too proud to beg" can keep members of that community active and productive in the larger sense. Sure, envy over what others have can lead to theft or other "bad" behaviors, but it can also lead to self-improvement and "good" competition, particularly in capitalist societies.

Your broad brush condemnation of various characteristics of human nature (Seven Deadly Sins) is almost, but not quite, as short-sighted as the broad brush condemnation of Christianity shown in the OP.

[hamelekim]

Originally Posted by parky76

Ask a devout Christian why they exist and what their goal in life is, and they will tell you "to go to Heaven".

So what they do in this world, the only life they are guarunteed of having, is irrelevant and worthless?

The only point of living in this world, is to make it to the make believe, un-proven, and possibly BS next one?

And if these Christians are convinced that the next life is a fake, they have no reason to live??

Wow. How sad. How pathetic. One should not need the possibility of another life to come, to justify living a good life in the one they KNOW they have.

Well that's nice calling other people sad and pathetic. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror...

In any case, the answer they should give is that they are looking forward to the return of Jesus and his eternal kingdom on earth. Where Christians will be rules with Christ for all eternity, giving glory to God, and being in the presence of God for all eternity.

Being that God is love, and you know how you feel when you are in love, it will be an eternity of joy and happiness.

Yes when a Christian dies they go to Heaven, but when Jesus returns he will raise up the dead and give them new incorruptible bodies.

You either live for yourself or you live for God. If you don't believe in Christianity then you live for yourself.

If you don't believe in Christianity then what do you use to define what is good and bad? There is no universal morality that is somehow defined by the very nature of existence, outside of God. So arguing that they should do good in the life they have now is meaningless because definitions of good differ depending on your belief system.

If you believe in Jesus you will want to God's will. Unless you are doing God's will nothing you do is good, defined by God. If you feed millions of starving children, yet reject Jesus, it counts and nothing before a perfect and holy God.

So your argument is really meaningless because it depends on everyone having the same morals and the same belief in why those morals are right.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I disagree. Pride and envy can be motivational forces in societies. Pride in one's community can help forge stronger bonds between members of that community. Being "too proud to beg" can keep members of that community active and productive in the larger sense. Sure, envy over what others have can lead to theft or other "bad" behaviors, but it can also lead to self-improvement and "good" competition, particularly in capitalist societies.

Your broad brush condemnation of various characteristics of human nature (Seven Deadly Sins) is almost, but not quite, as short-sighted as the broad brush condemnation of Christianity shown in the OP.

Thanks Houk,

You know, I wasn't indoctrinated with the 7 and I really didn't think much about them. Having read your post I took the time to look them up. I would hope that as a society we have made some social progress since the 4th and 6th centuries. I don't think psychologists and sociologists think much of treating these things as "sin". Further they are different problem that call for different aproaches. And I agree with you that pride and envy shouldn't even be on any list for blanket condemnation. I would add despair (depression I guess).

It's the 21st century. I think it time to let the notion of "sin" go. It might have served a purpose at one time but it's anachronistic.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I disagree. Pride and envy can be motivational forces in societies. Pride in one's community can help forge stronger bonds between members of that community. Being "too proud to beg" can keep members of that community active and productive in the larger sense. Sure, envy over what others have can lead to theft or other "bad" behaviors, but it can also lead to self-improvement and "good" competition, particularly in capitalist societies.

I'm rather a fan of lust, myself...

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by hamelekim

Well that's nice calling other people sad and pathetic. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror...

I thought you were supposed to love your neighbour?

Quote:

In any case, the answer they should give is that they are looking forward to the return of Jesus and his eternal kingdom on earth. Where Christians will be rules with Christ for all eternity, giving glory to God, and being in the presence of God for all eternity.

Evidence?

Quote:

Being that God is love, and you know how you feel when you are in love, it will be an eternity of joy and happiness.

Evidence?

Quote:

Yes when a Christian dies they go to Heaven, but when Jesus returns he will raise up the dead and give them new incorruptible bodies.

Evidence?

Quote:

You either live for yourself or you live for God. If you don't believe in Christianity then you live for yourself.

Several famous Atheists have proven this statement wrong.

Quote:

If you don't believe in Christianity then what do you use to define what is good and bad? There is no universal morality that is somehow defined by the very nature of existence, outside of God.

It's worth remembering that when students study morality they do not turn to the Bible but instead read from actual moral philosophers like Kant, Aristotle etc. This is because the Bible is a mess of contradictions with no reasoned arguments when it comes to specifying what is good and evil.

There is an innate sense of good and bad programmed into Humanity. They will feel it is right to save their child from death because it carries their genes within them. But there is no objective morality, that is true.

Quote:

If you believe in Jesus you will want to God's will. Unless you are doing God's will nothing you do is good, defined by God.

Like stoning non-virgins to death on their wedding night?

Quote:

If you feed millions of starving children, yet reject Jesus, it counts and nothing before a perfect and holy God.

What a cruel and jealous God. It's certainly not worth following.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by hamelekim

Well that's nice calling other people sad and pathetic. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror...

Now reread your statement, but I would like you to imagine that I am saying it.
It's a delicious, vicious (and nutritious!) cycle.

Quote:

In any case, the answer they should give is that they are looking forward to the return of Jesus and his eternal kingdom on earth. Where Christians will be rules with Christ for all eternity, giving glory to God, and being in the presence of God for all eternity.

Isn't that exactly the answer they did give?

Quote:

Being that God is love, and you know how you feel when you are in love, it will be an eternity of joy and happiness.

Wait, you mean that sicky, anxious, simultaneously hot-and-cold obsession? Urgh.
And, anyway, please give a source for "God is love".

Quote:

Yes when a Christian dies they go to Heaven, but when Jesus returns he will raise up the dead and give them new incorruptible bodies.

You have yet to prove this.

Quote:

You either live for yourself or you live for God. If you don't believe in Christianity then you live for yourself.

What if you're Jewish? Or Muslim? Christians don't have a corner on the morality market.

Quote:

If you don't believe in Christianity then what do you use to define what is good and bad? There is no universal morality that is somehow defined by the very nature of existence, outside of God. So arguing that they should do good in the life they have now is meaningless because definitions of good differ depending on your belief system.

This is nonsense. By your own argument, Christianity does not provide an acceptable basis for a moral system ("definitions of good differ depending on your belief system").
In any case, we define good and bad by our own standards. However, this does not mean that we define outlandish behavior as "good". Thievery, murder, and their ilk are all still bad. Because, you see, we hold ourselves to our own moral standards.
And, though you will deny it, this is exactly what Christians (and other theists, for that matter) do as well. You can say that the Bible - or God - is the ultimate source of morality, but in the end you decide what you will and will not do.

Quote:

If you believe in Jesus you will want to God's will.

No. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Quote:

Unless you are doing God's will nothing you do is good, defined by God. If you feed millions of starving children, yet reject Jesus, it counts and nothing before a perfect and holy God.

Then this god is not perfect and holy. In fact, I would say that he's an egomaniacal control freak who deserves to be dethroned.

Quote:

So your argument is really meaningless because it depends on everyone having the same morals and the same belief in why those morals are right.

Right back at ya, bub.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by hamelekim

In any case, the answer they should give is that they are looking forward to the return of Jesus and his eternal kingdom on earth. Where Christians will be rules with Christ for all eternity, giving glory to God, and being in the presence of God for all eternity.

If you like that sort of thing. I'm serious. What kind of BS is that? Is that the best that human imagination can do? Bronze age people came up with an idea for utopia and you believe it will make you happy. Why? Certainly not based on that description. I don't want to rule with anyone. Rule what?

Quote:

Being that God is love, and you know how you feel when you are in love, it will be an eternity of joy and happiness.

How can you be happy knowing that others weren't saved? Will god erase your memories or do you become some kind of Stepford Wife?

Quote:

You either live for yourself or you live for God. If you don't believe in Christianity then you live for yourself.

I live for family. My wife and children. I served a two year mission teaching people about living for god and I honestly have no idea what that even means.

Quote:

If you don't believe in Christianity then what do you use to define what is good and bad?

Believing in Christiantiy doesn't help. There is far to many differning opinions as to what is good and bad.

I like the golden rule. We know that people are by and large born with empathy and a sense of morality. Christian sociopaths like Dennis Rader still commit attrocity even if they believe.

Quote:

So your argument is really meaningless because it depends on everyone having the same morals and the same belief in why those morals are right.

No, your argument is meaningless because we can prove that Christianity doesn't gurantee morality and we know that non-Christians are as likely to be moral as Christians.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by parky76

It seems to me that for the more fundy Christians, their reasons for doing good deeds, donating to charities, being kind to their neighbors, are for very very selfish reasons.

So?

What is wrong with Win/Win solutions?

Quote:

See, I am an agnostic. But I surely don't believe in Heaven. But yet, I strive to be as good a person as I can be.

Why do I do this..knowing there is not some perpetual spiritual reward waiting for me?

Apparently, so you can feel smug and superior to those with whom you disagree.

I also do not endorse the OP.

ETA: "Christians" have the same reason for their existance that any other human being has- once apon a time, a man stuck his tallywhacker in a lady's who-ha long enough to deposit his seed, yadda yadda yadda.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

It would be hard to argue, for example, that any of the 7 Deadly Sins are healthful, helpful or benevolent pursuits. The religious injunctions against such vices as greed, vanity, envy, sloth, etc. exist in order to keep people doing things that are productive, positive and good for society as a whole, rather than engaging in selfish, self-serving endeavors that over time would erode the fabric of society.

First you need to support your premises: that "selfish" and "self-serving" inherently "erode the fabric of society", and the one where people are bees in a hive who's only actions should be for the "good for society as a whole". As I see it, any action that is "productive" or "positive" for someone tends to have a negative impact for someone else. This is a world of finite resources, you do realise?

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by RandFan

But consider the harm done by social stigma and obsessive concern for many of these things. I'm sorry but while religion has served the purpose you claim it has come at a very high price.

See my post to Parky, I'm skeptical as to the degree in which punishment and reward in the afterlife are effective. I think the greatest argument against them was made by Kant who pointed out that only if the gallows were situated outside of the brothel and each customer knew that he would die upon exiting would sin cease.

Whatever good religion served it is now at best anachronistic. The idea of heaven didn't obviate slavery, subjugate and oppression of women, wars, genocide etc..

I've no way of knowing whether or not religion serves as a net good or net evil. I've struggled for years over the idea and have kept up a yearly debate with an associate over the idea. I take the net good side but to be honest my passion has waned and I don't think it will continue.

There are two critically important things to understand about religion as it applies to morality.

• It's not needed.
• It caries a high price and many unintended consequences.

You may be correct in that some or even many people no longer need religion to keep them "in line" in a moral or ethical sense, neither to assuage their fear of death. But the fact remains that some or many people do still need it for these purposes. An atheist may shake his/her head at the implicit sadness of this -- that a theist needs what are essentially lies (or at least symbolic truths masked by mythopoeic imagery) as a guide to how to live their lives -- but it's just human nature. That some of us are ready to move away from metaphysical answers toward a purely scientific explanation of the universe is no guarantee, nor compunction, that the remainder of the species must immediately follow suit.

As to "whether or not religion serves as a net good or net evil", which seems to be at the heart of this debate, it's difficult to quantify one's opinion one way or the other. I have a sense that religion on the whole serves a net good, but where is my data toward this conclusion? It's admittedly subjective, and probably informed by a degree of confirmation bias... exactly as the opposite conclusion -- that religion as a whole serves a net evil -- is informed. At this point we're only debating personal, subjective opinion, and that rarely leads anywhere productive.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

But the fact remains that some or many people do still need it for these purposes.

I don't think that is in evidence but I'm happy to accept that you believe that it is so.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with your post.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I disagree. Pride and envy can be motivational forces in societies. Pride in one's community can help forge stronger bonds between members of that community. Being "too proud to beg" can keep members of that community active and productive in the larger sense. Sure, envy over what others have can lead to theft or other "bad" behaviors, but it can also lead to self-improvement and "good" competition, particularly in capitalist societies.

Your broad brush condemnation of various characteristics of human nature (Seven Deadly Sins) is almost, but not quite, as short-sighted as the broad brush condemnation of Christianity shown in the OP.

What we're running into here is largely a semantic problem, and a lack of clarity on my part. My "broad brush condemnation of various characteristics of human nature" only appears to be so, because I summarized my points very quickly, and did not endeavor to clarify or expound on them. Allow me, then, to explain more thoroughly.

You're absolutely correct that at their core, each of the 7 so-called Deadly Sins or vices is a good/productive/positive/motivating force. Lust in the sense of sexual desire keeps the species going, and keeps life-partners bonded together. Envy and greed, as you've noted, can stimulate productivity. Sloth in the sense of restfulness is a reward at the end of a hard day's or week's work.

It's when these forces dominate one's life that they spin out of control, and become detriments on both an individual and societal basis. Pride in this context, for example, does not mean satisfaction in a job well done, or in the beloved qualities of one's nation or people. It means a feeling of superiority or supremacy over "lesser" persons, nations, peoples, etc., to the point of self-delusion. As to vanity, of course it behooves a person to have good grooming and a concern for one's appearance, but at worst this drive can become obsessive and self-centered. Lust if not controlled can have destructive effects on one's marriage, and so on.

These matters are more complex than a simple across-the-board condemnation of a certain word or idea can convey. Language is a limited tool, after all, and a list of 7 Things You Should Not Let Dominate Your Life* (*with addenda, explanations and clarifications) is simply not as handy and user-friendly as a list of 7 single-word Deadly Sins. In short, the list is not intended to condemn pride as a social cohesive or motivating force; rather, it condemns pride as a delusion of supremacy.

I hope this clarifies my point, but I'll be glad to expound on it where necessary.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

It's when these forces dominate one's life that they spin out of control, and become detriments on both an individual and societal basis.

...

I hope this clarifies my point, but I'll be glad to expound on it where necessary.

For myself I found that it did clarify. However I would like to make the point that I think the idea of "sin" anachronistic in the 21st century.

I don't see the point of calling a woman with postpartum depression a sinner. Social stigma still has some value and I question whether we will ever completly get rid of it. However I think it much healthier to see these issues outside of a religious context. Science, particularly psychology and other social sciences have a far better likelyhood of reaching broad based consensus and finding better solutions to these problems than simple social stigma.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

It's when these forces dominate one's life that they spin out of control, and become detriments on both an individual and societal basis.

These matters are more complex than a simple across-the-board condemnation of a certain word or idea can convey.

No it isn't- what you are saying boils down to the only "sin" being immoderation. Not only is being to "prideful" detrimental, so is being too humble. One can be too angry, and one can be too meek. One can be too passionate, and one can be too apathetic.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

No it isn't- what you are saying boils down to the only "sin" being immoderation. Not only is being to "prideful" detrimental, so is being too humble. One can be too angry, and one can be too meek. One can be too passionate, and one can be too apathetic.

And one can be too pious.