Metal Reviews

I will happily refute one by one any defense of religion that you think is valid. The morality question can be easily dealt with- being moral out of fear of punishment is not being moral at all, merely obedient.

imo religion can improve someone's life and make them a more moral person (strong William James), and churches can be a positive force in a community (f. ex: there's a local church that started a local food bank and puts on free dinners for students every Tuesday. And those dinners are one of the happiest places I've been).



a) I don't even think Kant had this strict of a guideline for what counts as a moral action ;-)
b) I know Stefan explicitly mentioned it but none of the religious people I've talked to about the subject have given fear of punishment as a reason for being moral.

People that are religious purely because of "its" own sake are very genuine and extremely kind people. Other genuine human beings like Richard Dawkins who is an atheist is a humanist so his humanity boils from within and not according to the will God and his supernatural powers. The philosopher Immanuel Kant had his categorical imperative which in ethics is one the most complex ethical systems there is, is a different story. He thought doing the right thing was merely a duty done not out of happiness but as a job, thus mandatory. Christianity has the same belief but it doesn't make Kant a Christian nor Christians Kantians. Some very old school religious people possess the same belief as Stefan mentioned. They actually fear God. And in Christianity fearing God is a very good thing.

William James made a very good point which was that religion is purely optional and obviously very personal. Religion gives one limits. Although some of these limitations are very close-minded and were applicable in the time frame they were made. Religion has to evolve with time because if it doesn't then it is not true religion. It's deceitful and wrong. There are some rights and wrongs which are highly debatable and some things that are just inhuman and merely wrong.

So? Plenty of non-religious people have the same attitude towards the law, with fear of persecution being a bigger reason for them not to consider committing criminal acts rather than the common sense that is behind the law.

His point still stands that this isn't morality but obedience. Obedience is fine but you can't champion religion as making people act morally good if all they're doing is being afraid of hell. The point frig fails to understand in this argument is the church and the holy spirit as the body of believers in the sense Paul meant which means that proper Christianity loves one another as a brother in God and not in order to avoid fire and brimstone. Which is a plausible explanation for some individuals' actions.

And +1 to the William James bits but I don't know why other things besides religion can't do that. A conscientious social responsibility would fill the same role.

I did the dicky thing and changed some words, sorry for that. But whatever. I think you can, on the moral side of things, say the same for both in many cases.

Jail is supposed to be rehabilitation, not punishment. Unlike Judgement Day.

But then, most religions clearly state that you can redeem yourself by good actions (bigger than the bad you commited). Isn't it better than jail?

It's a false analogy. God doesn't take you for a learning session if you do something bad and then release you back into the world. The idea behind jail is that you should be able to turn your life around and learn from your mistakes. The idea behind God is that if at the end of the day you've got more negatives than positives on the scale, you're fucked.

But then god gave us freewill. It's up to each and everyone of us to act as we should. In a way, while god treats us like adults, the state treats us like children.

Aye, the free will to do exactly as he says, or else.

Come on, you know it's a rubbish excuse.

Supposed to be rehabilitation. Somehow I just don't think it's seen that way by those who are sent there

Beside the point and irrelevant to the purpose of discussion. What is ethics if not what is "supposed to be"?

What is the value of ethics if they are adhered to for the wrong reasons? You're keen to castigate religion for it; do the same for secular inventions kthx.

I am incredibly critical of the way the prison system is run in most parts of the world, but don't set up a strawman. It is not comparable to the moral function of God, which is inherently punishing. Prison might be punishing rather than rehabilitating in most cases, but it is not inherently so, and if it is, it is due to the failure of those in charge to understand the purpose of the criminal justice system.

I know religious people who just live by their faith, act like decent human beings and don't feel in any way threatened by the wrath of god. They're not living their faith because of fear but because of the moral values they agree on and the reflection on the condition of humanity they say their book conveys.
Fridge, I think you're borderline S&M on the matter, it's either obey or be punished and I feel inclined to think that you'd rather face punishment (and maybe enjoy it) than become obedient.

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/war_in_europe01.shtml

Varg on Breivik

And away we go!

As soon as I heard about the attacks I knew Varg would write something ridiculous on his website.

Kinda sad that was one of my first thoughts really

He's right about freemasonry having nothing to do with being a proper nationalist.