Religious Extremism

[11parcal]

I'm reading a book called The Chrysalids, this book is an amazing example of religious extremism.

How far is one willing to go in the name of God?

For example, in the book, they live after some sort of nuclear holocaust and anyone born different then "The Norm" is executed at birth or, if they are discovered more then a certain time after birth they are exiled to the wastelands where they are sure to die. The people justify this by saying that all those that are not created in the perfect image of God are the children of the devil and must be treated as such.

So really it leads me to believe this quote:

No man will be happier to kill then if they do so in the name of God.

Really this is the main reason I believe religion is disgusting, it causes people to do things that are beyond normal human ethics and morals.

[S.A.M.]

That was the principle of eugenics proposed in the 1930s in scientific communities. Only the church was opposed to it.

[11parcal]

That was the principle of eugenics proposed in the 1930s in scientific communities. Only the church was opposed to it.

It's really not eugenics, there is nothing wrong with these people, some have extra fingers and toes, some are just overly hairy, one even just has unnaturally long arms.

[S.A.M.]

What do you think eugenics is?

[Norsefire]

I'm reading a book called The Chrysalids, this book is an amazing example of religious extremism.

How far is one willing to go in the name of God?

For example, in the book, they live after some sort of nuclear holocaust and anyone born different then "The Norm" is executed at birth or, if they are discovered more then a certain time after birth they are exiled to the wastelands where they are sure to die. The people justify this by saying that all those that are not created in the perfect image of God are the children of the devil and must be treated as such.

So really it leads me to believe this quote:

No man will be happier to kill then if they do so in the name of God.

Really this is the main reason I believe religion is disgusting, it causes people to do things that are beyond normal human ethics and morals.
Normal? It's subjective.


Regardless, their practices are only justified by religion, not created by religion, therefore it is irrelevant. Their practices could have come about or have been justified through any other means.

[11parcal]

Normal? It's subjective.


Regardless, their practices are only justified by religion, not created by religion, therefore it is irrelevant. Their practices could have come about or have been justified through any other means.

The practice was brought on upon finding the only book that was left after the holocaust, The Bible, before then they never did any of that

As for SAM, i believe eugenics is weeding out the mentally and physically handicapped, I do not believe that an extra toe or too much body hair is grounds for death on the base of eugenics, I am not, however trying to support eugenics.

[spidergoat]

Well, religion is fixed by a text, making this theoretical practice a permanent condition. Science, because it is meant to be subject to further analysis and change, would not support such a practice. Although science used to be misinterpreted, we now know many factors that contribute to deformities. Genetic problems can be carried by apparently normal people. Otherwise normal people exposed to radiation can become deformed.

[Simon Anders]

I'm reading a book called The Chrysalids, this book is an amazing example of religious extremism.

So you are basing your concerns about religious extremism no a book of fiction about what happens in a post-Apocalypse world.

Have I got that right?

[Simon Anders]

Well, religion is fixed by a text, making this theoretical practice a permanent condition. Science, because it is meant to be subject to further analysis and change, would not support such a practice. Although science used to be misinterpreted, we now know many factors that contribute to deformities. Genetic problems can be carried by apparently normal people. Otherwise normal people exposed to radiation can become deformed.
This is a strange dichotomy. Science vs. Religion. I can see why some people have this split, but others....?

Science is simply an approach to gaining knowledge it is a methodology. One that religious people can and do use. They use it to make weapons, etc.

Non-theist nations, governments, groups and individuals have used technology and scientists to help them kill, sometimes in great numbers.

Theist nations, governments, groups and individuals have also used science and technology and scientists to kill, sometimes in great numbers.

This is apples and hammers. (ie. oranges, only more so)

People can be extremists.

[11parcal]

So you are basing your concerns about religious extremism no a book of fiction about what happens in a post-Apocalypse world.

Have I got that right?

The book only amplified my concerns, if religion can cause good people to do such horrific things (Of course it is only fiction but look at human history and tell me i'm wrong) then religion is dangerous.

[lightgigantic]

The book only amplified my concerns, if religion can cause good people to do such horrific things (Of course it is only fiction but look at human history and tell me i'm wrong) then religion is dangerous.

Basically religion becomes dangerous when it discards philosophy ... much like science becomes dangerous when it discards a sense of the absolute.

[JDawg]

Religion gives you reason to kill that you would not otherwise have unless you were a sociopath. That is the problem with it. That's one of the problems with it.

But extremism like the kind you see displayed in the book mentioned in the OP...that stuff has existed everywhere, since the beginning of time. Extremism is not a religious invention. The United States used to force black people to sit on the back of the bus; would you not call that extremism? I would. And despite how much more furiously it was followed and enforced in the Bible Belt, religion had absolutely nothing to do with it. Superstition is the more likely culprit. Superstition is brought on by a nasty mixture of fear and lack of understanding. But it's not religion.

[JDawg]

Basically religion becomes dangerous when it discards philosophy ... much like science becomes dangerous when it discards a sense of the absolute.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

[Simon Anders]

The book only amplified my concerns, if religion can cause good people to do such horrific things (Of course it is only fiction but look at human history and tell me i'm wrong) then religion is dangerous.

Sure, in history, during which pretty much everyone was religious, religious excuses and justifications for horrific things occured. As more of the world became less religious in the 20th century, well, horrific things occurred. We have done horrific things and we find reasons, whatever reasons will work.

[lightgigantic]

Science doesn't deal in absolutes.
hence it is required to be controlled by something outside of itself to avoid becoming dangerous .....

[lightgigantic]

Religion gives you reason to kill that you would not otherwise have unless you were a sociopath. That is the problem with it. That's one of the problems with it.

.
seriously dude, what portion of homicide is directly related to religion? (particularly religion that has a prominent sense of philosophy about it)
:rolleyes:

[JDawg]

hence it is required to be controlled by something outside of itself to avoid becoming dangerous .....

...that makes no sense whatsoever. Science is not an entity, it is a method.

seriously dude, what portion of homicide is directly related to religion?

Have you ever read the Bible, or do you just listen to what your pastor preaches? I'm not saying that the "true" message of any religion is to murder, but if a person needs to find a cause, they can find it in a religious text.

[lightgigantic]

...that makes no sense whatsoever. Science is not an entity, it is a method.
and lo and behold, methods are applied by what?



Have you ever read the Bible, or do you just listen to what your pastor preaches? I'm not saying that the "true" message of any religion is to murder, but if a person needs to find a cause, they can find it in a religious text.
Charles Manson also found a cause to murder in a Beatles song
:o

[11parcal]

Sure, in history, during which pretty much everyone was religious, religious excuses and justifications for horrific things occured. As more of the world became less religious in the 20th century, well, horrific things occurred. We have done horrific things and we find reasons, whatever reasons will work.
Sure the world has started to lose it's religion but the multitude of problems in the world are still related to religion, look at the war on terror, most of the terrorists are from extremist religious cults. And even if you want to look at peaceful things, in this years election there was a HUGE amount of gossip that Obama was a muslim (I'm not sure if this turned out to be true) but why should that matter when choosing a leader?

[JDawg]

and lo and behold, methods are applied by what?


Nice dancing, but that isn't what you were driving at. You said that science needed to be controlled so that it would be become dangerous. Unless you worded it wrong, the implication I took from it was that you were saying science in and of itself is dangerous, and left to its own devices would be dangerous.

Charles Manson also found a cause to murder in a Beatles song
:o

And that's why I said religion gives you cause you wouldn't otherwise have unless you were a sociopath. I never implied that religion was the only cause of persecution or murder on a grand (or even small) scale; I simply meant that it can make otherwise good people do very bad things. And I never said it was the only institution that can claim this. But let's not pretend that it doesn't.

[Simon Anders]

Sure the world has started to lose it's religion but the multitude of problems in the world are still related to religion, look at the war on terror, most of the terrorists are from extremist religious cults.
I am not saying that religion is not involved in violence. It is. It can be used to manipulate people. Ideas and lies can do this, with or without God. There is nothing in the history of the 20th century that says that people are less violent without a belief in God.

[lightgigantic]

Nice dancing, but that isn't what you were driving at. You said that science needed to be controlled so that it would be become dangerous. Unless you worded it wrong, the implication I took from it was that you were saying science in and of itself is dangerous, and left to its own devices would be dangerous.
once again, left to its own devices, exactly who/what will be taking the helm?



And that's why I said religion gives you cause you wouldn't otherwise have unless you were a sociopath. I never implied that religion was the only cause of persecution or murder on a grand (or even small) scale; I simply meant that it can make otherwise good people do very bad things. And I never said it was the only institution that can claim this. But let's not pretend that it doesn't.
you could say that religion is a powerful social influence .... but its the nature of powerful social influences to bear some result (how often does the pursuit of wealth, sex desire, prestige etc etc make ordinarily good people do bad things).

Of course the solution is not to outright diminish a social influence, but see that it is properly regulated.
You could argue that in recent years, we have been doing a remarkably bad job at this.

[11parcal]

I am not saying that religion is not involved in violence. It is. It can be used to manipulate people. Ideas and lies can do this, with or without God. There is nothing in the history of the 20th century that says that people are less violent without a belief in God.

Ideas and lies... sounds a lot like religion... Sure lies can make people do things they wouldn't normally do but there is no more widespread lie then religion. And I believe I read somewhere (Not sure where so I cannot attest to the accuracy of this statement) that 52% of the U.S. prison population are Christians.

[Simon Anders]

Ideas and lies... sounds a lot like religion...
this is getting tiring....
Remember 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq'? Remember the communist regimes? Whatever lies are available will be used.

Sure lies can make people do things they wouldn't normally do but there is no more widespread lie then religion.So you say.

And I believe I read somewhere (Not sure where so I cannot attest to the accuracy of this statement) that 52% of the U.S. prison population are Christians.

OK. Last time I am going to respond to you because you make little sense.
In 2001 79% of the US identified as Christian. This means they would be underrepresented in prisons if your statistic is correct. Look, I'm no fan of Christianity or the other huge organized religions. But I am not a fan of huge organizations in general. The communists did fine with war, killing, oppression, etc. without God.

I'm gonna put you on ignore.

[greenberg]

Sure the world has started to lose it's religion but the multitude of problems in the world are still related to religion

Global warming, pollution, the crisis of the world's economy - all these big problems that we're facing on an everyday basis
- are related to religion?

[11parcal]

Global warming, pollution, the crisis of the world's economy - all these big problems that we're facing on an everyday basis
- are related to religion?

No, but there are many problems religion is causing and has caused in the past, I simply think that organized religion is a bad thing, faith in itself is fine but the Bible should not be considered a non-fiction text and should probably be ignored, morals can be found elsewhere.

[JDawg]

once again, left to its own devices, exactly who/what will be taking the helm?

Left to its own devices? Dude, again, science is not an entity. It is the study of things. People need to employ it for it to be anything at all. There is no leaving it to its own devices. I always find it both funny and frustrating that people who want to damn science don't know the first thing about it. I mean, you are embarrassingly ignorant when it comes to this, as are most like you.


you could say that religion is a powerful social influence .... but its the nature of powerful social influences to bear some result (how often does the pursuit of wealth, sex desire, prestige etc etc make ordinarily good people do bad things).

Of course the solution is not to outright diminish a social influence, but see that it is properly regulated.
You could argue that in recent years, we have been doing a remarkably bad job at this.

One, you could argue that the people who do bad things in the pursuit of wealth, sex, and prestige aren't exactly normal.

There is no way to diminish the influence of religion other than to educate. The smarter we are as a society, the less religious we are. Do you think it's a coincidence that the United States has one of the worst education systems in the Western world and happens to be the most religious nation in the Western world?

All we need to do is stop allowing religious idiots dictate what we can and can't do. We need to laugh Creationists out of the fucking building the second they try to say we should teach their fairy tales in a public school. Until that happens, you've still got Bubba and Barbra-Jean in the Backwoods thinking that Jesus was white, walked on Lake Michigan, and wrote the Star Spangled Banner.

[John99]

All we need to do is stop allowing religious idiots dictate what we can and can't do. We need to laugh Creationists out of the fucking building the second they try to say we should teach their fairy tales in a public school. Until that happens, you've still got Bubba and Barbra-Jean in the Backwoods thinking that Jesus was white, walked on Lake Michigan, and wrote the Star Spangled Banner.

It is probable\possible a good amount of 'fairy tales' are being taught in schools so what difference does it make?

[Carico]

All we need to do is stop allowing religious idiots dictate what we can and can't do. We need to laugh Creationists out of the fucking building the second they try to say we should teach their fairy tales in a public school. Until that happens, you've still got Bubba and Barbra-Jean in the Backwoods thinking that Jesus was white, walked on Lake Michigan, and wrote the Star Spangled Banner.

No, let's not have any "moral watch-dogs". Then humans can be as immoral as they want to be. That would please all immoral people. ;)

[Carico]

I am not saying that religion is not involved in violence. It is. It can be used to manipulate people. Ideas and lies can do this, with or without God. There is nothing in the history of the 20th century that says that people are less violent without a belief in God.

Wars break out when people who are against God oppose people who are for God. War is thus between good and evil. ;)

[11parcal]

No, let's not have any "moral watch-dogs". Then humans can be as immoral as they want to be. That would please all immoral people. ;)

Wars break out when people who are against God oppose people who are for God. War is thus between good and evil. ;)
A lot of the "Morals" In the bible aren't so moral, are you aware that God killed several MILLION people in the the Bible (2,391,421), Satan killed 10.

Not entirely sure where my point is here but think about it, if God could have killed that many people surely the morals in that particular book aren't very good? :shrug:

[spidergoat]

Wars break out when people who are against God oppose people who are for God. War is thus between good and evil. ;)

What side was God on in the Bay of Pigs Invasion? Because I think we lost, which means God is a commie.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Ideas and lies... sounds a lot like religion... Sure lies can make people do things they wouldn't normally do but there is no more widespread lie then religion. And I believe I read somewhere (Not sure where so I cannot attest to the accuracy of this statement) that 52% of the U.S. prison population are Christians.

52%!!!!!!!!!!
At least 85%.

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
once again, left to its own devices, exactly who/what will be taking the helm?
”
Left to its own devices? Dude, again, science is not an entity. It is the study of things. People need to employ it for it to be anything at all. There is no leaving it to its own devices. I always find it both funny and frustrating that people who want to damn science don't know the first thing about it. I mean, you are embarrassingly ignorant when it comes to this, as are most like you.
ever wondered why such people are called "scientists"?
:rolleyes:


“
you could say that religion is a powerful social influence .... but its the nature of powerful social influences to bear some result (how often does the pursuit of wealth, sex desire, prestige etc etc make ordinarily good people do bad things).

Of course the solution is not to outright diminish a social influence, but see that it is properly regulated.
You could argue that in recent years, we have been doing a remarkably bad job at this.
”
One, you could argue that the people who do bad things in the pursuit of wealth, sex, and prestige aren't exactly normal.
same with religion

There is no way to diminish the influence of religion other than to educate.
I would beg to offer that there is no way to diminish corrupted religious principles other than by introducing properly established religious principles

The smarter we are as a society, the less religious we are.
the less religious a society is, the more it rides under the sway of materialistic notions of success

Do you think it's a coincidence that the United States has one of the worst education systems in the Western world and happens to be the most religious nation in the Western world?
actually if you examine the earlier standards of religiosity in america it is quite impressive ... and if you examine the contemporary strands they tend to be quite banal (ie materialistic)

All we need to do is stop allowing religious idiots dictate what we can and can't do.
The question is whether all religious persons are idiots

We need to laugh Creationists out of the fucking building the second they try to say we should teach their fairy tales in a public school. Until that happens, you've still got Bubba and Barbra-Jean in the Backwoods thinking that Jesus was white, walked on Lake Michigan, and wrote the Star Spangled Banner.
the strong presence of nationalism within religiosity is a prime indication of corrupted principles

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

No, let's not have any "moral watch-dogs". Then humans can be as immoral as they want to be. That would please all immoral people. ;)

The Holy Babble is the most immoral book there is.

Wars break out when people who are against God oppose people who are for God. War is thus between good and evil. ;)

Each side of every war believes god is on their side. Prove god was/is on any side of any war.

LightG --- the less religious a society is, the more it rides under the sway of materialistic notions of success

BULLSHIT!!!!!!

The question is whether all idiots are religious.

[lightgigantic]

BULLSHIT!!!!!!


is that your checkmate?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

is that your checkmate?

It should be but probably won't.
You made an ignorant biased ridiculous claim, I called BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! & it's up to you to back it up. I'm confident you will come up with more ignorant biased ridiculous bullshit.

[Carico]

Really this is the main reason I believe religion is disgusting, it causes people to do things that are beyond normal human ethics and morals.

So without God's laws, what is ethical and moral? Whatever desire each person wants to engage in? :confused: Serial killer Eileen Wornos thought she was a good person. :D That's what happens when a person becomes his/her own god.;)

[11parcal]

So without God's laws, what is ethical and moral? Whatever desire each person wants to engage in? :confused: Serial killer Eileen Wornos thought she was a good person. :D That's what happens when a person becomes his/her own god.;)

I'm an Atheist, I haven't read a page of the Bible, I also haven't killed anyone, SURPRISE! Just because I don't have a religion doesn't mean I'm immoral, religion isn't the only thing that can teach morals you know.

[Medicine*Woman]

Wars break out when people who are against God oppose people who are for God. War is thus between good and evil. ;)
*************
M*W: Bullshit.

[Medicine*Woman]

I'm an Atheist, I haven't read a page of the Bible, I also haven't killed anyone, SURPRISE! Just because I don't have a religion doesn't mean I'm immoral, religion isn't the only thing that can teach morals you know.
*************
M*W: Consider the source.

[swarm]

11parcal: I'm reading a book called The Chrysalids, this book is an amazing example of religious extremism.

No, it is an example of an author’s imagination. Your treating it as an example of religious extremism would seem to be the same faulty reasoning that the religious employ when thinking their myths represent some sort of insight into reality.

There are plenty of examples of both secular and religious extremism. Personally I think religion makes a handy excuse for those who think they need one, but it is just a reflection of an inherent flaw in the beast, not the book.

[swarm]

JDawg: Religion gives you reason to kill that you would not otherwise have unless you were a sociopath.

The urge to kill is prerational and significantly predates reason. You don’t need a reason to kill, though many seem to enjoy backfilling their actions with comforting justifications.

I think perhaps the most damning effect of religion is like nationalism and racism it makes it easy to create hated outsiders. Primates find it very easy to kill outsiders.

[swarm]

Carico: So without God's laws, what is ethical and moral?

It’s the same with or without any particular set of “god’s laws.” What is ethical and moral is what we agree is ethical and moral. Just as it has always been.

That's what happens when a person becomes his/her own god.

Mormonism is a good example of what happens, and is still happening. They disagreed about the morality of polygamy, and some of them still do. They started by moving outside of the control of the group who disagreed with them. Then they conformed, for the most part. Groups of them which still disagreed splinter off from time to time and run afoul of the more powerful group which disagrees with those practices.

To continue their practice they must either act in secret or find a place where they either have sufficient power to act on their beliefs or the surrounding populations are more accepting of polygamy, like maybe some Muslim countries.

[spidergoat]

So without God's laws, what is ethical and moral? Whatever desire each person wants to engage in? :confused: Serial killer Eileen Wornos thought she was a good person. :D That's what happens when a person becomes his/her own god.;)

One desires to follow God's laws. If one desired to follow a different, equally good set of laws, what's the difference?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

So without God's laws, what is ethical and moral? Whatever desire each person wants to engage in? :confused: Serial killer Eileen Wornos thought she was a good person. :D That's what happens when a person becomes his/her own god.;)

Do you preach to animals?

[Adstar]

I'm reading a book called The Chrysalids, this book is an amazing example of religious extremism.

How far is one willing to go in the name of God?

For example, in the book, they live after some sort of nuclear holocaust and anyone born different then "The Norm" is executed at birth or, if they are discovered more then a certain time after birth they are exiled to the wastelands where they are sure to die. The people justify this by saying that all those that are not created in the perfect image of God are the children of the devil and must be treated as such.

So really it leads me to believe this quote:

No man will be happier to kill then if they do so in the name of God.

Really this is the main reason I believe religion is disgusting, it causes people to do things that are beyond normal human ethics and morals.

You have got to be joking right????

You read a Sci-fi novel and then you use it to attack faith as if it where a real historical account.

Science Fiction is well FICTION look it up in a dictonary some time.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You have got to be joking right????
You read a Sci-fi novel and then you use it to attack faith as if it where a real historical account.
Science Fiction is well FICTION look it up in a dictonary some time.

He's using it as an example.
As if you know the difference between fiction & nonfiction.

[Adstar]

He's using it as an example.
As if you know the difference between fiction & nonfiction.

Yeah i know the differeance between fiction and nonfiction.

His example is Fiction.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Yeah i know the differeance between fiction and nonfiction.
His example is Fiction.

You obviously don't.

[11parcal]

11parcal: I'm reading a book called The Chrysalids, this book is an amazing example of religious extremism.

No, it is an example of an author’s imagination. Your treating it as an example of religious extremism would seem to be the same faulty reasoning that the religious employ when thinking their myths represent some sort of insight into reality.

There are plenty of examples of both secular and religious extremism. Personally I think religion makes a handy excuse for those who think they need one, but it is just a reflection of an inherent flaw in the beast, not the book.

You have got to be joking right????

You read a Sci-fi novel and then you use it to attack faith as if it where a real historical account.

Science Fiction is well FICTION look it up in a dictonary some time.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I'm using the book as an example, I realize it's fiction but tell me faith hasn't caused people to do things far worse then what I've indicated happens in the book?

[JDawg]

ever wondered why such people are called "scientists"?
:rolleyes:

You can make your little quip and put up your little emoticon, but it doesn't change the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.


same with religion

Not true. Religion prays on the weak, while the things you mentioned are goals of a different kind, and appeal to a different kind of person.


I would beg to offer that there is no way to diminish corrupted religious principles other than by introducing properly established religious principles


I have to disagree. We have seen it in other Western societies. The better the education, the less religious the population.


the less religious a society is, the more it rides under the sway of materialistic notions of success

Oh! Oh haahahahahahah! You really had me going for a second there! Wow! Ohhh...sigh...wow. For a second, I almost thought you were serious! But there's no way you don't realize that the United States, which is arguably the most materialistic society on the planet, is also the most religious Western nation in the world. There's no way you didn't know that! Wow. Good one, dude!


actually if you examine the earlier standards of religiosity in america it is quite impressive ... and if you examine the contemporary strands they tend to be quite banal (ie materialistic)

I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.


The question is whether all religious persons are idiots

That's not the case at all. And that's not the question, either. When I say we need to educate folks, I don't mean make them less stupid, I mean give them information. Let the know what the stars are and how they got there. Tell them about planetary formation and how we figure out the ages of things. You know, stuff that helps them more fully understand the world they live in (and on).



the strong presence of nationalism within religiosity is a prime indication of corrupted principles

But the blueprints are in the holy texts, man. Jews were the Chosen Ones in the Old Testament, and all the tribes fought each other, which paints a clear picture of tribalism, which is just nationalism on a smaller scale. It's always been there, and I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that this is a new thing.

No, let's not have any "moral watch-dogs". Then humans can be as immoral as they want to be. That would please all immoral people.

Well, I'm for that. But it won't happen unless we stand up to them. As it is now, faith gets a pass because it's considered "sacred" despite the fact that people use it to blatantly promote hatred and intolerance. We need to stop making it OK to say "I'm religious" in the public forums.

It is probable\possible a good amount of 'fairy tales' are being taught in schools so what difference does it make?

None of those other "fairy tales" are being taught in biology class. If we want to teach religious history, that's fine. But teach it in the same manner we teach Greek and Roman mythology....as mythology.

[lightgigantic]

It should be but probably won't.
You made an ignorant biased ridiculous claim, I called BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! & it's up to you to back it up. I'm confident you will come up with more ignorant biased ridiculous bullshit.
already done

“
Do you think it's a coincidence that the United States has one of the worst education systems in the Western world and happens to be the most religious nation in the Western world?
”
actually if you examine the earlier standards of religiosity in america it is quite impressive ... and if you examine the contemporary strands they tend to be quite banal (ie materialistic)

[lightgigantic]

JDawg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
ever wondered why such people are called "scientists"?

”
You can make your little quip and put up your little emoticon, but it doesn't change the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.
Ok then

Left to its own devices? Dude, again, religion is not an entity. It is the practice of things. People need to employ it for it to be anything at all. There is no leaving it to its own devices. I always find it both funny and frustrating that people who want to damn religion don't know the first thing about it. I mean, you are embarrassingly ignorant when it comes to this, as are most like you. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2039804&postcount=27)

So why talk of religion being dangerous?
:rolleyes:


“
same with religion
”
Not true. Religion prays on the weak, while the things you mentioned are goals of a different kind, and appeal to a different kind of person.
Yes I see

Mahatma Gandhi is weak
Abraham Lincoln is weak etc
etc etc

yet a person who succumbs to lust,wrath, avarice, etc is not weak but simply a different kind of person


“
I would beg to offer that there is no way to diminish corrupted religious principles other than by introducing properly established religious principles
”
I have to disagree. We have seen it in other Western societies. The better the education, the less religious the population.
All you see in western countries is the progressive corruption of religious principles at the hand of capitalist driven morality (IOW "better education" = "better opportunity for economic advancement")

“
the less religious a society is, the more it rides under the sway of materialistic notions of success
”
Oh! Oh haahahahahahah! You really had me going for a second there! Wow! Ohhh...sigh...wow. For a second, I almost thought you were serious! But there's no way you don't realize that the United States, which is arguably the most materialistic society on the planet, is also the most religious Western nation in the world. There's no way you didn't know that! Wow. Good one, dude!
If you use religiosity as it is commonly (and contemporarily) practiced in america as the yard stick for religiosity, I think I can see where you are coming from


“
actually if you examine the earlier standards of religiosity in america it is quite impressive ... and if you examine the contemporary strands they tend to be quite banal (ie materialistic)
”
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.
I take it examining journals and writings of famous american writers (eg Thoreau) of yesteryear is not something you've considered

“
The question is whether all religious persons are idiots
”
That's not the case at all. And that's not the question, either. When I say we need to educate folks, I don't mean make them less stupid, I mean give them information. Let the know what the stars are and how they got there.
I take it you mean let them know the latest ideas on how they got there, since the story keeps getting radically revised about every 20 years

Tell them about planetary formation and how we figure out the ages of things. You know, stuff that helps them more fully understand the world they live in (and on).
Its not clear how this is going to greatly advance their cause - I mean face it, many people (regardless whether they apparently "know" about their world or not) simply get drunk and embrace a toilet bowl on the weekend
:o



“
the strong presence of nationalism within religiosity is a prime indication of corrupted principles
”
But the blueprints are in the holy texts, man. Jews were the Chosen Ones in the Old Testament, and all the tribes fought each other, which paints a clear picture of tribalism, which is just nationalism on a smaller scale. It's always been there, and I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that this is a new thing.

SB 10.84.13 One who identifies his self as the inert body composed of mucus, bile and air, who assumes his wife and family are permanently his own, who thinks an earthen image or the land of his birth is worshipable, or who sees a place of pilgrimage as merely the water there, but who never identifies himself with, feels kinship with, worships or even visits those who are wise in spiritual truth—such a person is no better than a cow or an ass.

[swarm]

11parcal I'm using the book as an example, I realize it's fiction but tell me faith hasn't caused people to do things far worse then what I've indicated happens in the book?

That is irrelevant. Look I'm basically sympathetic to your position but you can't dis religion based on examples culled from sci fi. If you think faith has caused people to do worse, do the leg work and find the real examples, though you may have trouble with the "caused" part of that claim. Usually people go with it inspired people to do worse.

But bottom line is blaming real people for the actions of fictitious people is a strict no-no. Real blame, real people, real examples - keep it real dude!

[JDawg]

Yes I see

Mahatma Gandhi is weak
Abraham Lincoln is weak etc
etc etc

yet a person who succumbs to lust,wrath, avarice, etc is not weak but simply a different kind of person


The difference between religion and the things you mentioned is that religion is an institution, while the others are not. You can't go to Greed Church. You can't attend Lust Academy. You can't earn a Doctorate in Avarice. Those things may be temptations, but they are not the same as religion. Religion actively seeks members, as it is core to their existence. And those who believe it fully are either afraid or ignorant. And I don't mean that in a bad way.

All you see in western countries is the progressive corruption of religious principles at the hand of capitalist driven morality (IOW "better education" = "better opportunity for economic advancement")

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. There have been mistakes made in the world when it comes to how to maintain your capitalist economy, but they had nothing to do with religious principals. And your "better religious principals" nonsense would only make things worse. The best option is to forgo religious altogether.

Once it is gone, we can take responsibility for our actions rather than blaming some evil spirit for them. Why walk with a crutch when you don't need one?

If you use religiosity as it is commonly (and contemporarily) practiced in america as the yard stick for religiosity, I think I can see where you are coming from


And what's wrong with that? We have some of the most extreme religious institutions in the world here. One of the Vice Presidential candidates had "all witchcraft" excised from her at her church just a year ago. So again, we are one of the most religious societies in the world, and most definitely number one among Western societies.

I take it examining journals and writings of famous american writers (eg Thoreau) of yesteryear is not something you've considered

Great answer. No substance whatsoever.

I take it you mean let them know the latest ideas on how they got there, since the story keeps getting radically revised about every 20 years

Really? So the Theory of Evolution was only introduced 20 years ago? Wow, I had no idea...

Leaving aside your obvious (and intentional) mischaracterization, am I to understand that you think it's better to believe Bronze Age myths about creation than to make an attempt to learn the most probable cause?

Its not clear how this is going to greatly advance their cause - I mean face it, many people (regardless whether they apparently "know" about their world or not) simply get drunk and embrace a toilet bowl on the weekend

So keep the people stupid is your motto? That's your solution? Oh, no, that can't be it, because in your world, they'd have to be indoctrinated to the strict religious code you have deemed proper. So when it comes to arguing how that would help them, you're on some "it'll save the world" bullshit, but when I offer up an alternative, you're all "Why bother? They're all drunken losers anyway"

Awesome game you're playing there.

SB 10.84.13 One who identifies his self as the inert body composed of mucus, bile and air, who assumes his wife and family are permanently his own, who thinks an earthen image or the land of his birth is worshipable, or who sees a place of pilgrimage as merely the water there, but who never identifies himself with, feels kinship with, worships or even visits those who are wise in spiritual truth—such a person is no better than a cow or an ass.

Ah yes, the anti-education mantra approved by God.

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg

Yes I see

Mahatma Gandhi is weak
Abraham Lincoln is weak etc
etc etc

yet a person who succumbs to lust,wrath, avarice, etc is not weak but simply a different kind of person
”
The difference between religion and the things you mentioned is that religion is an institution, while the others are not. You can't go to Greed Church. You can't attend Lust Academy. You can't earn a Doctorate in Avarice.
you are not aware of issues of wrath,etc being institutionalized outside of a religious context?
:confused:

Those things may be temptations, but they are not the same as religion. Religion actively seeks members, as it is core to their existence. And those who believe it fully are either afraid or ignorant. And I don't mean that in a bad way.
So any knowledge-based institution that doesn't seek to increase it's membership or distribute its knowledge appears more praiseworthy in your eyes?
:confused:


“
All you see in western countries is the progressive corruption of religious principles at the hand of capitalist driven morality (IOW "better education" = "better opportunity for economic advancement")
”
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. There have been mistakes made in the world when it comes to how to maintain your capitalist economy, but they had nothing to do with religious principals.
my capitalist economy?
where are you living?
venus?

And your "better religious principals" nonsense would only make things worse. The best option is to forgo religious altogether.
placing an emphasis on welfare before issues of capital loss and gain appears to be a surefire way to cause greater world suffering?

Once it is gone, we can take responsibility for our actions rather than blaming some evil spirit for them. Why walk with a crutch when you don't need one?
accepting responsibility is hardly something cultivated in materialistic society ... if you don't believe me just do a cursory study of litigation issues in your local area (assuming that you aren't living on venus)

“
If you use religiosity as it is commonly (and contemporarily) practiced in america as the yard stick for religiosity, I think I can see where you are coming from
”
And what's wrong with that?
you don't find very good examples there ... or perhaps more correctly, it is easier to find bad examples there

We have some of the most extreme religious institutions in the world here. One of the Vice Presidential candidates had "all witchcraft" excised from her at her church just a year ago. So again, we are one of the most religious societies in the world, and most definitely number one among Western societies.
I can see that the religious ideology of america has brainwashed you into thinking that just because it is the #1 economic/military authority in the world it is also the #1 religious authority

“
I take it examining journals and writings of famous american writers (eg Thoreau) of yesteryear is not something you've considered
”
Great answer. No substance whatsoever.
:o

“
I take it you mean let them know the latest ideas on how they got there, since the story keeps getting radically revised about every 20 years
”
Really? So the Theory of Evolution was only introduced 20 years ago? Wow, I had no idea...
that's the point
there are certain theories that require constant rehashing just to remain propped up ... which wouldn't be such a bad thing if they kept their "theory" status

Leaving aside your obvious (and intentional) mischaracterization, am I to understand that you think it's better to believe Bronze Age myths about creation than to make an attempt to learn the most probable cause?
and you accuse me of misrepresentation?

“
Its not clear how this is going to greatly advance their cause - I mean face it, many people (regardless whether they apparently "know" about their world or not) simply get drunk and embrace a toilet bowl on the weekend
”
So keep the people stupid is your motto? That's your solution? Oh, no, that can't be it, because in your world, they'd have to be indoctrinated to the strict religious code you have deemed proper. So when it comes to arguing how that would help them, you're on some "it'll save the world" bullshit, but when I offer up an alternative, you're all "Why bother? They're all drunken losers anyway"

Awesome game you're playing there.
my point is that with or without this supposed great knowledge that you are advocating, you remain lodged in the same activities as persons who don't have it, so what is the real gain?

“
SB 10.84.13 One who identifies his self as the inert body composed of mucus, bile and air, who assumes his wife and family are permanently his own, who thinks an earthen image or the land of his birth is worshipable, or who sees a place of pilgrimage as merely the water there, but who never identifies himself with, feels kinship with, worships or even visits those who are wise in spiritual truth—such a person is no better than a cow or an ass.
”
Ah yes, the anti-education mantra approved by God.
well I guess you could be a well educated cow or ass ....

[JDawg]

you are not aware of issues of wrath,etc being institutionalized outside of a religious context?


I don't buy into the "deadly sins", first of all, so talk in terms we can both jive with. If you want to talk about hate, or anger, the only examples I can think of are nationalistic. You've even see John McCain run the last week of his campaign on the "fear foreigners like Obama" stump, feeding into all of that baseless fear and ignorance of the voter. But that's about it. And even then, it isn't in the doctrine.

So any knowledge-based institution that doesn't seek to increase it's membership or distribute its knowledge appears more praiseworthy in your eyes?

Religion isn't a knowledge-based institution. It's a myth-based institution.

my capitalist economy?
where are you living?
venus?

I didn't mean "your" in the direct sense. I admit, though, that I was hoping you'd have added something substantive there, rather than simply pointing out my grammatical error.

placing an emphasis on welfare before issues of capital loss and gain appears to be a surefire way to cause greater world suffering?

I'm all for helping my fellow man, but religious "welfare" programs are bandaids, not solutions. Even Mother Theresa didn't actually help the poor, she simply fed them. Even your Lord teaches you to teach your brother how to fish...your religious institutions don't do that.

And of course, it's fantasy to assume that in a free country people wouldn't be allowed to pursue happiness. For a lot of people, happiness includes having a bunch of nice things, and there's nothing wrong with that.

accepting responsibility is hardly something cultivated in materialistic society ... if you don't believe me just do a cursory study of litigation issues in your local area (assuming that you aren't living on venus)

As opposed to what? Throwing stones at women who show too much skin, or raping them in the street and getting away with it? And being "materialistic" has nothing to do with the legal system. Nobody said it was perfect, but it's the best one. You'd rather a priest sit behind the bench? No thanks. It's been tried before, and the result is Iran.

you don't find very good examples there ... or perhaps more correctly, it is easier to find bad examples there

Such as?

I can see that the religious ideology of america has brainwashed you into thinking that just because it is the #1 economic/military authority in the world it is also the #1 religious authority

Excuse me, enough of the bullshit. I haven't been brainwashed, and since I've never accused you of such a thing, perhaps you could refrain from using it against me. The bottom line is that we don't have to be the authority to be the most religious.

that's the point
there are certain theories that require constant rehashing just to remain propped up ... which wouldn't be such a bad thing if they kept their "theory" status

Again, give me one example.

and you accuse me of misrepresentation?

It's not a misrepresentation.

my point is that with or without this supposed great knowledge that you are advocating, you remain lodged in the same activities as persons who don't have it, so what is the real gain?


That's not true. The more religious the area, the more extreme the intolerance and racial violence. See the south, where segregation may not officially exist...but...

They also happen to be the most religious. And of the most educated areas, like the more densely-populated areas of the country, there is less religious fervor, and less intolerance. So if we can spread the knowledge to those areas that don't have it (remember, they forced a school district in Alabama to include an "insert" asking strawman questions about evolution) then our people won't hate simply because of religion, and our leaders won't make decisions based on religion.

It is far better than what you suggest, a theocracy, which would simply result in more hatred and less social freedoms.

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg
“
you are not aware of issues of wrath,etc being institutionalized outside of a religious context?
”
I don't buy into the "deadly sins", first of all, so talk in terms we can both jive with. If you want to talk about hate, or anger, the only examples I can think of are nationalistic.
bodily identification has many outlets - my family, my people, my race, my country, my profession, my gender, etc etc .... all of which can easily become vehicles for wrath, avarice, envy etc etc


You've even see John McCain run the last week of his campaign on the "fear foreigners like Obama" stump, feeding into all of that baseless fear and ignorance of the voter. But that's about it. And even then, it isn't in the doctrine.
its also not a doctrine of religion either

“
So any knowledge-based institution that doesn't seek to increase it's membership or distribute its knowledge appears more praiseworthy in your eyes?
”
Religion isn't a knowledge-based institution. It's a myth-based institution.
regardless of your opinions, it is still an institution that seeks to impart knowledge (your opinion of the value of that knowledge isn't in question)

“
my capitalist economy?
where are you living?
venus?
”
I didn't mean "your" in the direct sense. I admit, though, that I was hoping you'd have added something substantive there, rather than simply pointing out my grammatical error.
capitalism does have social implications - namely that all things (moral prerogatives included) are subservient to issues of capital.

“
placing an emphasis on welfare before issues of capital loss and gain appears to be a surefire way to cause greater world suffering?
”
I'm all for helping my fellow man, but religious "welfare" programs are bandaids, not solutions. Even Mother Theresa didn't actually help the poor, she simply fed them. Even your Lord teaches you to teach your brother how to fish...your religious institutions don't do that.

And of course, it's fantasy to assume that in a free country people wouldn't be allowed to pursue happiness. For a lot of people, happiness includes having a bunch of nice things, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I guess problems arise when the so-called nice things captivate our sense of nostalgia so that they can assume a materialistic standard (eg - confusing issues of functional familyhood with purchasing a particular car, wash powder, etc)

“
accepting responsibility is hardly something cultivated in materialistic society ... if you don't believe me just do a cursory study of litigation issues in your local area (assuming that you aren't living on venus)
”
As opposed to what? Throwing stones at women who show too much skin, or raping them in the street and getting away with it?
as opposed to religious principles properly applied, which can install in one a sense of obligational duty instead of a greed to bleed the earth dry.

And being "materialistic" has nothing to do with the legal system.
you doubt that moral imperatives being subservient to capitalistic ones has implications for a legal system?
:confused:

Nobody said it was perfect, but it's the best one. You'd rather a priest sit behind the bench? No thanks. It's been tried before, and the result is Iran.
a leader (generally) arises to power by the power of their supporters - I think any positive change has to come from the bottom up as opposed from the top down

“
you don't find very good examples there ... or perhaps more correctly, it is easier to find bad examples there
”
Such as?
materialistic driven christianity (faith=$ in your pocket etc etc)

“
I can see that the religious ideology of america has brainwashed you into thinking that just because it is the #1 economic/military authority in the world it is also the #1 religious authority
”
Excuse me, enough of the bullshit. I haven't been brainwashed, and since I've never accused you of such a thing, perhaps you could refrain from using it against me. The bottom line is that we don't have to be the authority to be the most religious.
then I think you should provide an analysis of what constitutes successful religious principles as opposed to religious principles alloyed with materialistic undercurrents - if you want to launch a criticism of theism, it would be in your interest to avoid judging a genre by its worst stereotype.

(BTW - if you want to avoid loaded terminology, you should think twice before using statements like "am I to understand that you think it's better to believe Bronze Age myths about creation than to make an attempt to learn the most probable cause")

“
that's the point
there are certain theories that require constant rehashing just to remain propped up ... which wouldn't be such a bad thing if they kept their "theory" status
”
Again, give me one example.
the idea that any phenomena can be materially reduced is always a good one to start on

“
and you accuse me of misrepresentation?
”
It's not a misrepresentation.
am I to understand that you think it's better to believe Bronze Age myths about creation than to make an attempt to learn the most probable cause

its begging the question.
discussing what is the most probable cause is specifically the issue at hand
:rolleyes:

“
my point is that with or without this supposed great knowledge that you are advocating, you remain lodged in the same activities as persons who don't have it, so what is the real gain?
”
That's not true. The more religious the area, the more extreme the intolerance and racial violence. See the south, where segregation may not officially exist...but...

They also happen to be the most religious. And of the most educated areas, like the more densely-populated areas of the country, there is less religious fervor, and less intolerance. So if we can spread the knowledge to those areas that don't have it (remember, they forced a school district in Alabama to include an "insert" asking strawman questions about evolution) then our people won't hate simply because of religion, and our leaders won't make decisions based on religion.

It is far better than what you suggest, a theocracy, which would simply result in more hatred and less social freedoms.
my point is that a population actually concerned with religious issues (which may not include persons who are apparently religious) naturally gravitates towards finding leadership that is similarly inclined, and that such populations naturally work towards issues of social welfare/emancipation. In the absence of such an ideology, people simply engage in issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending - they may pursue these in an expensive car on 4 wheels, but its not a grand change from a dog who has the same pursuits on 4 legs. Whether or not one has a coherent vision of how empirical reductionists accept the world to be doesn't bring anything new to the table.

[mynameisDan]

"Really this is the main reason I believe religion is disgusting, it causes people to do things that are beyond normal human ethics and morals."

Yes, and this book of fiction proves it.

[mynameisDan]

"I'm using the book as an example, I realize it's fiction but tell me faith hasn't caused people to do things far worse then what I've indicated happens in the book?"

Personally, I haven't read the book, but I suggest your next book be a book on logic.

[11parcal]

"Really this is the main reason I believe religion is disgusting, it causes people to do things that are beyond normal human ethics and morals."

Yes, and this book of fiction proves it.

"I'm using the book as an example, I realize it's fiction but tell me faith hasn't caused people to do things far worse then what I've indicated happens in the book?"

Personally, I haven't read the book, but I suggest your next book be a book on logic.

Glad to see attacks on religion using fiction are completely futile :rolleyes: seriously, would you rather know of the non-fiction?

Here try this: The Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade) A holy war. Still not convinced? How about the French wars of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion)? Or maybe the Thirty years war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years_War)

This is what I was talking about when I said religion disgusts me, the book only made me further realize how much religion can corrupt the minds of otherwise good people.

[swarm]

11parcal the book only made me further realize how much religion can corrupt the minds of otherwise good people.

Look you are preaching to the choir here, but "'realizing' how much religion can corrupt the minds of otherwise good people" based on a work of fiction is fallacious. Its no different than hating people because the bible says they killed your fictional savior.

[Adstar]

I'm using the book as an example, I realize it's fiction but tell me faith hasn't caused people to do things far worse then what I've indicated happens in the book?

I am not going to try and say that religion has not been used as a tool to make people do worse then what your book indicated.

But i will say that my Faith, as a follower of the teachings of the Messiah Jesus has prevented me from carrying out such wrongdoings. It has made me an extreme pacifist to the extent that i would not resist such wrongdoings if they where perpetrated on me. My faith has made me as harmless as a dove.


Matthew 10
16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

My faith has made me as harmless as a dove.

Matthew 10
16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.


If only that were true. If only you were a wise harmless sheep.

[mynameisDan]

Glad to see attacks on religion using fiction are completely futile :rolleyes: seriously, would you rather know of the non-fiction?

Here try this: The Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade) A holy war. Still not convinced? How about the French wars of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion)? Or maybe the Thirty years war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years_War)

This is what I was talking about when I said religion disgusts me, the book only made me further realize how much religion can corrupt the minds of otherwise good people.


You are a sad brainwashed individual. Let me straighten you out so you can think clearly again. Of all the wars fought in all of history, only 6% can be attributed to religion. And out of those 6%, 3% can be attributed to Islam. This means that religion plays a very small role in war.

Now I can write a book describing some very ugly things the religionists have done and frighten you. But the truth is, through out history, people of all types have done horrific things to other people because it is apparently in the nature of people to do horrific things. Trying to blame religion or faith for this is illogical and likely in your case, self serving.

If we want to bring a rational balance to this discussion, we must contrast the non religionist (atheists) to the religionist. And if we do this the contrast is staggering! Atheists have tortured, maimed, starved and killed more people than all of the wars in all of history! So why a bunch of atheists would want to open this can of worms in defense of their ridiculous faith is beyond me. But hey, what do I care if they want to play into the hands of the theists!

In addition, Christianity has brought many wonderful benefits to this world including modern science, the first written constitutional republic, hospitals, charity etc.. As hard as you try, you cannot find anything positive which atheism has brought to the world. Now of course, this has nothing to do whether there is a God or not (there is). But it does show the complete bankruptcy of the atheist philosophy.

[11parcal]

If we want to bring a rational balance to this discussion, we must contrast the non religionist (atheists) to the religionist. And if we do this the contrast is staggering! Atheists have tortured, maimed, starved and killed more people than all of the wars in all of history! So why a bunch of atheists would want to open this can of worms in defense of their ridiculous faith is beyond me. But hey, what do I care if they want to play into the hands of the theists!
Well why don't you give me some examples of these horrible things Athiests have done.

In addition, Christianity has brought many wonderful benefits to this world including modern science, the first written constitutional republic, hospitals, charity etc.. As hard as you try, you cannot find anything positive which atheism has brought to the world. Now of course, this has nothing to do whether there is a God or not (there is). But it does show the complete bankruptcy of the atheist philosophy.
The only reason this was all created through religion is because at the time it was created it was near illegal NOT to be religious.

[Adstar]

Originally Posted by Adstar
My faith has made me as harmless as a dove.

Matthew 10
16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.


If only that were true. If only you were a wise harmless sheep.

Well i must admit i am sometimes very unwise but such is life as a human being, But it is true that is a physical sense i am harmless as a dove, my faith is very much about not taking any part in any physical combat, period,

But i can fight with Words


Hebrews 4:
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Do you preach to animals?