Discussion on religion. (2 Viewers)

[Bodhamilla]

This is just me spitballing. I’m 110% sure other people have thought of to the ideas I’m about to discuss, but I also came up with them (mostly) independently so I’m not gonna bother with any referencing. This piece of litratchure is about religion. It’s just what I think. If you are going to be offended by views contrary to your own (and that’s nothing to be ashamed of), don’t read anymore. This is for the open minded and in that same vein, comment/tear me to pieces as much as you like.

I’m gonna start off by specifying that I’m only going to be discussing religions which at least seem to follow this basic formula:
1. Our existence on earth is supposedly to test our moral fibre
2. Those who are “good” are rewarded by going to heaven
3. Those who are “bad” are punished by going to hell

Far as I know this applies to all of them, but I don’t know...

Before I go on: I think it’s funny that human society, in which for the majority of time women have been oppressed and generally thought of as inferior to men, has (usually) managed to throw up religions in which (surprise, surprise) God, or at least the greatest of the Gods, is male. Therefore, in compensation to the women for the wrongs of my fellow men, I shall refer to God not as He, not even as IT, but as She. That’s how nice I am.

We can’t question anything without first asking WHY She is testing us. I think there is only one reasonable explanation: God wants to create utopian society by admitting only those who get along with each other – good people. There is, of course, the possibility that God is simply bored and wants to mess with us but let’s assume that God is not a prick. (If you can think of other possible reasons for the test, please tell me.)

For all those religions that have omniscient god(s), point number 1 is not needed: God knows who is good and who is bad, so She doesn’t need to test us. Without point number 1, life on Earth is not necessary. So it is unlikely that any religion with a perfect God is correct since there is life on Earth.

For those religions whose God(s) are not perfect (such religions are invariably polytheistic) then point 1 still stands on the assumption that the Gods are not powerful enough to be able to judge an individual’s morality straight off the bat. So they test us. I think there is a HUGE flaw in their test.

a. ALL religions tell you what is right and wrong.

Therefore, the assumption is that human beings are born without a complete sense of morality. (Don’t take this to mean that we are born evil – we just don’t know right from wrong). So far, everything is fair enough. The problem is:

b. ALL religions tell you that the bad are punished and the good are rewarded.

If you want to figure out if someone is good, why would you tell them that they will be rewarded for being good and punished for being bad? The only possible effect of this is to make people who aren’t very good pretend to be good – opening up the possibility of “sneaking” into heaven. And, since God isn’t powerful enough to see whether we are good or not, people really can sneak into heaven this way. So, by telling us about the consequences of our actions, God has failed to make a Utopian society, because some naughty ones will be sneaking in. We can draw two possible conclusions from this:
a. The current religions are wrong OR
b. I’m smarter than God, coz I understand this flaw and She doesn’t.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however implausible, most be correct.” Therefore I think that this argument supports the belief that all current religion are wrong. It doesn’t prove that there is no God – no matter what Richard Dawkins may say you can’t prove that there is not God (actually I’m assuming that he has said something along those lines. I don’t know but he’s such a prat that I wouldn’t put it past him). The only leftover possibilities are:

· There is a God(s) and there is a heaven but to test us properly they haven’t told us
· There is a God(s) and they don’t give a crap about us
· There is a God(s) and they like to torture the vast majority of the world’s population
· There is no God

I don’t think we can get any further into the argument. From here on, we don’t know enough. It done. Over. Inarguable.

But since I, like Richard Dawkins, am a prat, I’d like to stick a few more nails in the coffins of the current religions.

My biggest hangup is they impose a flawed morality. The single most burning example of this is the concept of hell: a person can commit enough sins in a lifetime (roughly 80 years we’ll say) to get them condemned to hell for ETERNITY. What kind of God punishes a finite amount of sin with infinite punishment? A mean one. The Woman is a prick. In fact, we are more moral than God. When someone commits a sin we put them in jail. (Yes, some people are executed, but for now I’m just talking about the not-so-bad sins.) Why do we put them in jail?

· To keep the rest of us safe
· To teach them a lesson.

The second point is the more important. We are teaching them, so they can learn what is right from wrong. As we mentioned before, all religions assume that we aren’t born knowing right from wrong, so they give us the rights and the wrongs to learn. If you condemn someone to eternal punishment after a lifetime

a. You are assuming that, during their lives, they have had sufficient experiences to actually understand the rights and wrongs they have learnt. Thus, they have committed sins understanding full well that they were sins
b. You are not giving them any more chances to learn
c. As we mentioned before, you are punishing them infinitely for finite sin.

So, obviously any religion that present eternal punishment is morally dubious at best. There are other religions which don’t condone eternal punishment: Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance, both punish a sinner with another life, but a lesser one. I’m sure there are others, but I don’t know. [Edit: apparently this is wrong. While i'm not sure if BlackDragon is correct, I will admit that I dont know enough to decide so just pretend that the following paragraph refers to the reincarnation as a reward/punishment cycle, not the Hindu/Buddhist interpretation.]

This, to me seems fairer: they sin in one life and so they’re punished in the next. Furthermore, they are capable of being good enough in the second life to get themselves a better third life. This allows a nice, gradual punishment/reward learning cycle. People can LEARN exactly what is right and wrong. Very elegant and, while I’m sure that [such] religions have many other moral flaws which render them just as ethically useless as the rest, I don’t really know enough about them to comment. Still, they do still suffer from the major flaw that they tell us about this reward/punishment cycle, so hey, I’m gonna say they’re wrong too.
Discuss J

 

[BlackDragon]

I'm not going to comment on much in that except to say that you are missing the point of both Hinduism and Buddhism. Their metaphysical systems are not based around the punishment of sinners with reincarnation but the idea that reincarnation and the karmic cycle is an inherent part of the way things are for all people. It is not that this cycle exist for a purpose, but merely a part of the way the world is. Moreover, they view the idea of rebirths as pointless and cruel and the goal of Hindu practice is to escape this endless cycle. Meditation is a part of the way of achieve release from the way things are. It is a way of removing yourself from the fruits of your actions as to produce neither good nor bad karma. Producing no karma means you won't get reborn. They wish to escape a world which is viewed as nothing more than an illusion. Learning from your actions and everything you just said hasn't got anything to do with it. It has none of the connotations that you think it does.

P.s. This is the wrong section.

 

[Bodhamilla]

While you sound like you know your stuff and i missed the point of the karmic cycle, you're missing my point. Even if the cycle exists for you to escape it, you are not eternally condemned to the cycle if you gain karma in one life. It's a gradual process by which you work towards the final goal.

 

[BlackDragon]

While you sound like you know your stuff and i missed the point of the karmic cycle, you're missing my point. Even if the cycle exists for you to escape it, you are not eternally condemned to the cycle if you gain karma in one life. It's a gradual process by which you work towards the final goal.

You are completely missing the point of Hinduism, there is nothing to work towards to. You are eternally condemned to the cycle whether you produce good or bad karma. Saying that you are not eternally condemned to the cycle if you gain karma in one life doesn't make sense. It is not a gradual process, there is nothing to be achieved as a part of this cycle. Good acts produce positive karma whilst bad acts produce negative karma. Being reborn in a higher caste because of the accumulation of positive karma is not moral in any sense and gives no benefit to the person. A person can produce so much karma over their lives that they can be reborn even as a god, but this does not help them because to experience any pleasure is to be reborn in a lower caste. It is a circle and nothing more. There is no aim to it. It fits in the first 'truth' of Hinduism "all is dukkha", or 'all is suffering'. This circle has no purpose. It is not apart of the ideas of "right and wrong", or anything like that. You don't gain anything from being in this cycle. There is no ultimate end, no point to reach within the karmic cycle. Stop projecting western concepts onto something that has nothing to do with it.

 

[ilikebeeef]

This is just me spitballing. I’m 110% sure other people have thought of to the ideas I’m about to discuss, but I also came up with them (mostly) independently so I’m not gonna bother with any referencing. This piece of litratchure is about religion. It’s just what I think. If you are going to be offended by views contrary to your own (and that’s nothing to be ashamed of), don’t read anymore. This is for the open minded and in that same vein, comment/tear me to pieces as much as you like.

I’m gonna start off by specifying that I’m only going to be discussing religions which at least seem to follow this basic formula:
1. Our existence on earth is supposedly to test our moral fibre
2. Those who are “good” are rewarded by going to heaven
3. Those who are “bad” are punished by going to hell

Far as I know this applies to all of them, but I don’t know...

Before I go on: I think it’s funny that human society, in which for the majority of time women have been oppressed and generally thought of as inferior to men, has (usually) managed to throw up religions in which (surprise, surprise) God, or at least the greatest of the Gods, is male. Therefore, in compensation to the women for the wrongs of my fellow men, I shall refer to God not as He, not even as IT, but as She. That’s how nice I am.

We can’t question anything without first asking WHY She is testing us. I think there is only one reasonable explanation: God wants to create utopian society by admitting only those who get along with each other – good people. There is, of course, the possibility that God is simply bored and wants to mess with us but let’s assume that God is not a prick. (If you can think of other possible reasons for the test, please tell me.)

For all those religions that have omniscient god(s), point number 1 is not needed: God knows who is good and who is bad, so She doesn’t need to test us. Without point number 1, life on Earth is not necessary. So it is unlikely that any religion with a perfect God is correct since there is life on Earth.

For those religions whose God(s) are not perfect (such religions are invariably polytheistic) then point 1 still stands on the assumption that the Gods are not powerful enough to be able to judge an individual’s morality straight off the bat. So they test us. I think there is a HUGE flaw in their test.

a. ALL religions tell you what is right and wrong.

Therefore, the assumption is that human beings are born without a complete sense of morality. (Don’t take this to mean that we are born evil – we just don’t know right from wrong). So far, everything is fair enough. The problem is:

b. ALL religions tell you that the bad are punished and the good are rewarded.

If you want to figure out if someone is good, why would you tell them that they will be rewarded for being good and punished for being bad? The only possible effect of this is to make people who aren’t very good pretend to be good – opening up the possibility of “sneaking” into heaven. And, since God isn’t powerful enough to see whether we are good or not, people really can sneak into heaven this way. So, by telling us about the consequences of our actions, God has failed to make a Utopian society, because some naughty ones will be sneaking in. We can draw two possible conclusions from this:
a. The current religions are wrong OR
b. I’m smarter than God, coz I understand this flaw and She doesn’t.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however implausible, most be correct.” Therefore I think that this argument supports the belief that all current religion are wrong. It doesn’t prove that there is no God – no matter what Richard Dawkins may say you can’t prove that there is not God (actually I’m assuming that he has said something along those lines. I don’t know but he’s such a prat that I wouldn’t put it past him). The only leftover possibilities are:

· There is a God(s) and there is a heaven but to test us properly they haven’t told us
· There is a God(s) and they don’t give a crap about us
· There is a God(s) and they like to torture the vast majority of the world’s population
· There is no God

I don’t think we can get any further into the argument. From here on, we don’t know enough. It done. Over. Inarguable.

But since I, like Richard Dawkins, am a prat, I’d like to stick a few more nails in the coffins of the current religions.

My biggest hangup is they impose a flawed morality. The single most burning example of this is the concept of hell: a person can commit enough sins in a lifetime (roughly 80 years we’ll say) to get them condemned to hell for ETERNITY. What kind of God punishes a finite amount of sin with infinite punishment? A mean one. The Woman is a prick. In fact, we are more moral than God. When someone commits a sin we put them in jail. (Yes, some people are executed, but for now I’m just talking about the not-so-bad sins.) Why do we put them in jail?

· To keep the rest of us safe
· To teach them a lesson.

The second point is the more important. We are teaching them, so they can learn what is right from wrong. As we mentioned before, all religions assume that we aren’t born knowing right from wrong, so they give us the rights and the wrongs to learn. If you condemn someone to eternal punishment after a lifetime

a. You are assuming that, during their lives, they have had sufficient experiences to actually understand the rights and wrongs they have learnt. Thus, they have committed sins understanding full well that they were sins
b. You are not giving them any more chances to learn
c. As we mentioned before, you are punishing them infinitely for finite sin.

What you said there is excellent.

So, obviously any religion that present eternal punishment is morally dubious at best. There are other religions which don’t condone eternal punishment: Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance, both punish a sinner with another life, but a lesser one. I’m sure there are others, but I don’t know. [Edit: apparently this is wrong. While i'm not sure if BlackDragon is correct, I will admit that I dont know enough to decide so just pretend that the following paragraph refers to the reincarnation as a reward/punishment cycle, not the Hindu/Buddhist interpretation.]

This, to me seems fairer: they sin in one life and so they’re punished in the next. Furthermore, they are capable of being good enough in the second life to get themselves a better third life. This allows a nice, gradual punishment/reward learning cycle. People can LEARN exactly what is right and wrong. Very elegant and, while I’m sure that [such] religions have many other moral flaws which render them just as ethically useless as the rest, I don’t really know enough about them to comment. Still, they do still suffer from the major flaw that they tell us about this reward/punishment cycle, so hey, I’m gonna say they’re wrong too.
Discuss J

The thing here is, this interpretation of reincarnation would be incorrect because if we did "make mistakes" in our "previous life", we would not remember them in the "life after" and hence will not learn from them.

 

[Zaza101]

· There is a God(s) and there is a heaven but to test us properly they haven’t told us
· There is a God(s) and they don’t give a crap about us
· There is a God(s) and they like to torture the vast majority of the world’s population
· There is no God

This might answer some things if you believe it. (note that i didnt write this, its copied from the net - from http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/clarke/near_end.html)

Some who read this article may wonder, "How can a good and peace-loving God allow innocent people to suffer? If he controls everything why does he allow war and natural disasters to destroy thousands of people, including innocent women and children?"
Originally the world was good but this idyllic, peaceful condition was shattered when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. All their descendants have sinned, and the whole world has been affected by man's sin (Romans 5:12; 8:18-22). Ultimately suffering, war, disease, natural disasters and death have resulted from our sin. It is only because God is forbearing and merciful that any of us is not quickly destroyed. This is the first step towards understanding why God allows suffering. This corrects a basic misunderstanding that some people are fundamentally 'innocent'.

I did edit out a lil bit from my post, because i didn't realize that it wasn't directly connected to the post

 

[ilikebeeef]

What is the point of allowing someone to be hurt and then healing them?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure natural disasters were around before people were around...

 

[Zaza101]

What is the point of allowing someone to be hurt and then healing them?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure natural disasters were around before people were around...

well i haven't really thought enough to answer that, but the way i see it is:

Science and religion don't mix that well together, Science can be proven and Religion requires you to just believe.

 

[BlackDragon]

well i haven't really thought enough to answer that, but the way i see it is:

Science and religion don't mix that well together, Science can be proven and Religion requires you to just believe.

Its not that they don't mix well its that they are non-overlapping magisteria.

 

[Bodhamilla]

The thing here is, this interpretation of reincarnation would be incorrect because if we did "make mistakes" in our "previous life", we would not remember them in the "life after" and hence will not learn from them.

Good point. So the only way a reincarnation cycle can serve to make you a better person and get you into heaven is if you know you are being rewarded/punished. In which case the original flaw present in all religions is present once again and its a bad test of goodness. Looks like reincarnation is out (and to satisfy BlackDragon, I dont mean the Hindu or Buddhist concepts.)

 

[Bodhamilla]

Some who read this article may wonder, "How can a good and peace-loving God allow innocent people to suffer? If he controls everything why does he allow war and natural disasters to destroy thousands of people, including innocent women and children?"
Originally the world was good but this idyllic, peaceful condition was shattered when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. All their descendants have sinned, and the whole world has been affected by man's sin (Romans 5:12; 8:18-22). Ultimately suffering, war, disease, natural disasters and death have resulted from our sin. It is only because God is forbearing and merciful that any of us is not quickly destroyed. This is the first step towards understanding why God allows suffering. This corrects a basic misunderstanding that some people are fundamentally 'innocent'. '

I'm still a little foggy on the whole quoting biznezzzzz so i'll settle for copy and pasting when i'm lost. I tried to stay away from attacking particular religions (with the exceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. But hey, apparently I was all wrong about them so I'm sure the Hindu's and Buddhists out there will forgive me. Besides, what's a Buddhist gonna do, huh? Be peaceful at me? Bring it - sorry, I digress)

Annnyywayyy, while the moral flaw in punishing someone for the sin their ancient ancestor commited should be obvious to all, I'm not gonna dewll on the point, just because that quote really doesn't address any of my points. I'm not questioning why there is suffering in the world. In fact, if you really want a hardcore test of people's goodness, you put them in a world designed to bring out the worst in people. Anybody left over must be damn good (oxymoron, anyone?).

The God in the quote puts us in a world of suffering and then, based on our performance in said world (after scaling and normalising the results - its all quite complicated), gives us admission into heaven or condemns us to hell. Question: Why put us in the world? Thats what my discussion was...discussing

 

[Durga]

Bodhamilla, while I don't agree with religion, your argument is overly simplistic, and I have no doubt that a person with a basic understanding of theology could refute your argument.

Also, why are you under the impression Dawkins is a prat? Have you read The God Delusion? From your post it doesn't seem like you have. Nowhere in the book does he say there is absolutely no God, because the notion of a deity that is invisible and intangible is unfalsifiable. You can never prove that there is no God, and you can never prove that there is one. What Dawkins does do however, is to analyse the existence of God with probability. After a chapter of his argument, he concludes that their is almost certainly no God, and saying that you cannot completely disprove God is the exact same as saying you cannot completely disprove an invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn. You would do very well to read his argument.

Blackdragon, religion and science ARE overlapping magisteria. The three Abrahamic religions all have supreme deities that are capable of completely bypassing the laws of physics, which is clearly scientific territory. Also, questions like "did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead?" are also scientific questions, and religion and science overlap quite frequently. Do you really think that if these questions were answered by science, in religions favour, that the two would be non-overlapping magisteria? You can bet that they wouldn't be! The only reason that the 'non-overlapping magisteria' argument is popular is because there is no clear evidence for religion.

 

[BlackDragon]

Blackdragon, religion and science ARE overlapping magisteria. The three Abrahamic religions all have supreme deities that are capable of completely bypassing the laws of physics, which is clearly scientific territory. Also, questions like "did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead?" are also scientific questions, and religion and science overlap quite frequently. Do you really think that if these questions were answered by science, in religions favour, that the two would be non-overlapping magisteria? You can bet that they wouldn't be! The only reason that the 'non-overlapping magisteria' argument is popular is because there is no clear evidence for religion.

Of course much religious debate concerns concepts and supposed phenomena that are completely against the laws of nature and thus can be proved and disproved with science. I was refering to the fact that any deistic concept inherent in itself does not overlap with anything which we can physically measure in the world. It is the theistic belief system that overlaps, but these are two vastly different things. Theism is ridiculous.

 

[Durga]

Of course much religious debate concerns concepts and supposed phenomena that are completely against the laws of nature and thus can be proved and disproved with science. I was refering to the fact that any deistic concept inherent in itself does not overlap with anything which we can physically measure in the world. It is the theistic belief system that overlaps, but these are two vastly different things. Theism is ridiculous.

I absolutely agree, although I don't think overlap is the best word, because it implies ALL of religion. The problem is science, and human discovery, will probably never be able to disprove the deistic concept, and religious nutjobs will always jump in and say, we cannot disprove it, ergo, god exists.

 

[BlackDragon]

I absolutely agree, although I don't think overlap is the best word, because it implies ALL of religion. The problem is science, and human discovery, will probably never be able to disprove the deistic concept, and religious nutjobs will always jump in and say, we cannot disprove it, ergo, god exists.

Yep, and they confuse arguments. They argue for the deistic god that exists simply as a first cause and then bridge the gap from this to their theistic idea that they could know the mind of god. There is no bridge between a first cause and a god choosing to sacfrice a man in ancient palestine. Moreover, they do so whilst discounting the thousands of other religions that have claimed the same thing and somehow view their theistic views as special.

 

[jessjackowski]

I’m gonna start off by specifying that I’m only going to be discussing religions which at least seem to follow this basic formula:
1. Our existence on earth is supposedly to test our moral fibre
2. Those who are “good” are rewarded by going to heaven
3. Those who are “bad” are punished by going to hell

Far as I know this applies to all of them, but I don’t know...

What religions are you referring to with your 3-point "basic formula". Because if Christianity is one of them.....you're waaaaaaaayyy off the mark.

 

[Bodhamilla]

Bodhamilla, while I don't agree with religion, your argument is overly simplistic, and I have no doubt that a person with a basic understanding of theology could refute your argument.

That i bother posting these thoughts on the net shows i'm willing to listen to a discussion on it, but if you're going to just say "It's wrong" without attempting, at least, to show me why I'm wrong, then you're just being a pain in the ass. I get the impression you're a person of science. So, peer review me, baby. And please don't take this as sounding bitter in tone: seriously, refute my arguments so that i may advance in my thinking.

Also, why are you under the impression Dawkins is a prat? Have you read The God Delusion? From your post it doesn't seem like you have..

You're either a very discerning reader or you can...read...considering i readily admitted to not knowing much about his writings ("actually I’m assuming that he has said something along those lines. I don’t know... ")

Nowhere in the book does he say there is absolutely no God, because the notion of a deity that is invisible and intangible is unfalsifiable. You can never prove that there is no God, and you can never prove that there is one. What Dawkins does do however, is to analyse the existence of God with probability. After a chapter of his argument, he concludes that their is almost certainly no God, and saying that you cannot completely disprove God is the exact same as saying you cannot completely disprove an invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn. You would do very well to read his argument.

I did only mean that stab at Dawkins half jokingly. I am well aware that he is a man of science, and therefore probability. but from watching his ridiculous and frankly annoying arguments with religious people on tv, he's clearly a prat. clever, but a prat. and besides, this discussion isn't about probabilities. My arguments are on the basis of morality, not science. Whether or not God exists is outside the realm of moral arguments.

Blackdragon, religion and science ARE overlapping magisteria. The three Abrahamic religions all have supreme deities that are capable of completely bypassing the laws of physics, which is clearly scientific territory. Also, questions like "did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead?" are also scientific questions, and religion and science overlap quite frequently. Do you really think that if these questions were answered by science, in religions favour, that the two would be non-overlapping magisteria? You can bet that they wouldn't be! The only reason that the 'non-overlapping magisteria' argument is popular is because there is no clear evidence for religion.

agreed. now why couldnt you be nice and constructively criticise me like this? it makes me sad...but i'm staying right away from this sort of science vs religion argument because it goes nowhere. all a religious person has to say is it's meant metaphorically and bam, you got nothing (neither do they, but remember they don't need anything - they only need faith.) The only fair way to approach the question of whehter or not to believe it is to discuss the one thing that fundamentalists and moderates agree on - that it provides a system of morality.
Edit: once again, i'm assuming that's the major ground semi-believers and radicals hold, so if i'm wrong correct me, but its definitely at least one of the major common territories

 

[Bodhamilla]

What religions are you referring to with your 3-point "basic formula". Because if Christianity is one of them.....you're waaaaaaaayyy off the mark.

Once agian, while i specifically said that i wasn't aiming at any particular religion, you are only helping anyone if you support what you are saying. Explain to me why this doesnt apply to Christianity. I'll even give you a template to save you time:
Me: Good people go to heaven.
You:
Me: Bad people go to Hell
You:
Me: Which afterlife you go to is based on how you do while on Earth, so existence on Earth is to test your moral fibre.
You:

Seriously, please expand my knowledge on this. Take BlackDragon - he said i was wrong about Hinduism and Buddhism, but he showed me why, in his opinion, it was wrong.
Edit: I'm sorry if referring to heaven and hell seemed to take aim at christianity - its just an easy way of saying good people get rewarded and bad people get punished, but i'm sure you are insightful enough to gather that much

 

[BlackDragon]

The only fair way to approach the question of whehter or not to believe it is to discuss the one thing that fundamentalists and moderates agree on - that it provides a system of morality.

I firmly disagree with you here. Religion does not provide a system of morality, but rather it redressed those moral instincts that are innate in us but does so in a ridiculous manner. There is an easy way to understand the fact that religion does not provide us with a moral system but rather encourages us to act against it.. It is impossible to think of a moral act that a believer could do that a non-believer could not. However, it is possible to think of many immoral acts that believers could do that non-believer could not. Religion provides us with nothing new. It is a perversion of that which exists.

 

[Bodhamilla]

I firmly disagree with you here. Religion does not provide a system of morality, but rather it redressed those moral instincts that are innate in us but does so in a ridiculous manner. There is an easy way to understand the fact that religion does not provide us with a moral system but rather encourages us to act against it.. It is impossible to think of a moral act that a believer could do that a non-believer could not. However, it is possible to think of many immoral acts that believers could do that non-believer could not. Religion provides us with nothing new. It is a perversion of that which exists.

It seems, then, that you firmly agree with me. My whole argument has been that the morality of religion isn't exactly Godlike. I dont agree with their morality at all. I'm saying the one thing that Osama bin laden and a well educated muslim will agree on is that their religion provides a system of morality. (at least so they think) So its the only way in which we can talk to both groups equally. If we start literally interpreting religious texts, we can't address the moderates adequately.