Philosophy Now Forum

Melchior wrote:How can you even ask such a question?

Is that a genuine question?

Immanuel Can wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:This question isn't one that can be answered sensibly, because it assumes all "religions" are the same.

Which "religion"? What "boons"? What "banes?" Until those questions are addressed, there's simply no way to generalize at all.

The purpose of many questions is not to arrive at a specific answer but to explore the question and to encourage people to think about possible answers.

Maybe.

But philosophers know that looseness of language is likely to lead to error, which is why they are so particular about terms in premises. Your question forces on your respondents a false assumption: namely, that "religions" is a single collective noun that refers to something intelligible. So if they answer in the way you ask them to, they have to be wrong before they begin. If they would prefer to be right, they have to call into question the premise you supplied them.

Which I did, and still do: it isn't the factually correct way to frame the question. But if you want to reframe, that's perfectly good philosophical practice, and also a better way to proceed.

What you have described is a very limited approach to philosophy and IMO represents but a small subset of philosophy and is one that I consider to be ultimately insignificant.

In my opinion, philosophy has become insignificant via the wankers that live their 'philosophy' through the writings of past philosophies, without the slightest degree of originality or thought outside of the square that they are subscribed to.

A_Seagull wrote:What you have described is a very limited approach to philosophy and IMO represents but a small subset of philosophy and is one that I consider to be ultimately insignificant.

Actually, I didn't "describe" any "subset of philosophy" at all. What I pointed out was that the question, as written, was undecipherable.

Immanuel Can wrote:After all, nobody knows what "religion," in the required sense, is.

Simple enough: a bit of dressing up, pointless dietary restrictions, talking to your invisible friend, an unhealthy obsession with bodily functions, with a bit of cruel and unnecessary genital mutilation thrown in.

Immanuel Can wrote:And depending on which "religion" one picks, one gets wildly different answers. There are some "religions" that have had magnificent effects, and some that have had awful effects, and some that have had a mix. So how can one possibly generalize?

Allowing for the fact that there is not a single effect that can be attributed solely to religion, there is no religion which has not had awful effects.

Immanuel Can wrote:It's a bit like asking, "Has science been a boon or bane to mankind?" Does one look at vaccines and hygiene, or at transportation and communications, or at nuclear warheads, super-viruses, factories of death and air pollution? Or does one pretend it's all the same?

Same thing really; the benefit of science relies upon it being used wisely.

Immanuel Can wrote:It's just an absurd question, really.

Makes sense to me.

attofishpi wrote:In my opinion, philosophy has become insignificant via the wankers that live their 'philosophy' through the writings of past philosophies, without the slightest degree of originality or thought outside of the square that they are subscribed to.

Like Christianity. Actually, the benefit I see from being enough of a wanker to at least read about past philosophies, is that it provides some protection from believing any one of them.

Immanuel Can wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:What you have described is a very limited approach to philosophy and IMO represents but a small subset of philosophy and is one that I consider to be ultimately insignificant.

Actually, I didn't "describe" any "subset of philosophy" at all. What I pointed out was that the question, as written, was undecipherable.

What you actually meant was that you were unable to decipher it.

A_Seagull wrote:What you actually meant was that you were unable to decipher it.

I can quite happily say what I mean...
...rather unlike the author of the question, actually.

Religion is a BANE because it brings you someone like Immanuel Can

nuff said

Immanuel Can wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:What you actually meant was that you were unable to decipher it.

I can quite happily say what I mean...
...rather unlike the author of the question, actually.

Communication is a two way street, what is interpreted is not always what the speaker said or thought they said.

religion is a political power tool. And people saw that people would buy into religion very easily. So instead of discarding religion they used it to organize people.
Its a vehicle of prejudice to use to champion causes.
People had to survive religion. Atheism is the new religion again and now it is being used as political power.
The day everyone admits they are agnostic we will all be more honest.
Religion is just providing answers when the truth is no one has any answers to what reality is.
And science should stick to what it does best and that is manipulating reality not answering what it is. Scientism and atheism are the new religions stepping into the realm of answering questions it has no business involving itself in to control the masses.

A_Seagull wrote: Communication is a two way street, what is interpreted is not always what the speaker said or thought they said.

In this case, the asker didn't give enough information to be "interpreted" at all.

Taken as worded, the question requires the respondent not to know of any difference between a Hassidic Jew, a Hutterite and a Hindu, between a or between a Wiccan and a Wahabi.

osgart wrote:The day everyone admits they are agnostic we will all be more honest.

Why would this be more "honest"? Is it your assumption that there's some special reason that nobody can possibly know what an agnostic doesn't know? Why would that be?

Religion was supposed to be no vices and no wickedness. "Do not sin," Jesus said.
And the Highest Religion was supposed to be listening to our Higher Consciousness, for it guides us towards the right way of things. "Listen to what the Spirit says to you."
And this way following religion or highest religion, we would walk the right way in life and reach Heaven from this Hell here called earth.
Religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism etc., are propaganda/fake, just to make money, name, fame, power using the name of God.

Beauty wrote:Religion was supposed to be no vices and no wickedness. "Do not sin," Jesus said.
And the Highest Religion was supposed to be listening to our Higher Consciousness, for it guides us towards the right way of things. "Listen to what the Spirit says to you."
And this way following religion or highest religion, we would walk the right way in life and reach Heaven from this Hell here called earth.
Religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism etc., are propaganda/fake, just to make money, name, fame, power using the name of God.

The trouble with something as vague and diffuse as "listen to the spirit", means ignoring reason and following your heart however black or distorted it is. It's what Hitler did, and what every child molester and murdered does. That inner voice without regard to social rules and moral advice.