country and religion

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by ethernos, Sep 8, 2017.

  1. ethernos Registered Member

    if common enemy doesn't do we unite the world....turning our back on religion and country may not solve everything .,,,,
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Considering the mindset, lifestyle, priorities, values, and overwhelming binding beliefs of today's society it would appear on the surface that a global unification is nowhere near in site. At this point, based on continuous observation, I cannot see any other way to alter the current self-destructive path of the global society than that of an extraordinary event taking place.
    ethernos likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    A hydrogen bomb isn't "inherently" dangerous either. It's only dangerous if some nut sets it off.
    ethernos likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    From Kx000 Post 13
    While I do not have much respect for politicians, religious folks often seem to be fanatics who want to impose their views on others, while politicians are only trying to convince folks to vote for them.

    It seems difficult to imagine a culture or government without individuals similar to or very much like politicians. Anarchy does not seem like a workable basis for a culture.

    I can readily imagine a culture/government without religion.
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Do we really want to 'unite the world'?

    It seems to me that there really are different cultures, different ways of conceptualizing things and different goals and purposes. As humanity moves into an unknowable future, it experiences cultural evolution analogous to biological evolution. Somehow pushing/forcing everyone into adopting some homogeneous unity doesn't seem to me to be the best future for the planet. I favor the cultural equivalent of biodiversity. Human history is an ongoing experiment and we don't really know what's going to work out best (or even what the word 'best' means in actual cases).

    I'm more a believer in cultural diversity, where different visions and traditions are able to coexist. ('Diversity is one of those pious things that everyone says they support, while working as hard as they can to make it impossible.)

    Perhaps the best way to promote diversity is by having a variety of countries, each with its own artistic and intellectual traditions, it's own history and ways of doing things, and (yes) sometimes its own religious traditions as well.

    The problem with homogenizing the human race into some idealistic global... something, is that it's always assumed that Western Euro/American assumptions will become the world's new culture. Everyone will be expected to embrace democracy, the emancipation of women, gay-rights, and all the rest of it. But why? Why not Shariah law instead? Why not follow God's revealed social order?

    So instead of trying to make everyone the same (which typically means remaking everyone else in our own image) we need to accept that some countries out there, and some countries' cultures, some of the ways-of-living that other people prefer, are going to look very different than what we might personally favor.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2017
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Or take the other approach: instead of choosing between making everyone the same or allowing whatever anyone "prefers" (whose preferences count?), we adopt the liberal point of view:

    We specify a few features or characteristics of setups we will not allow, a limited and clearly defined set regardless of anyone's "preference", and forbid coercion in any other respect. We are confident that a great diversity of ways of living will remain, with these few features disallowed.

    Because as a government it's a form of totalitarianism, and itself disallows many "ways of living" that people under its authority prefer. It's self-contradictory, in other words, to equip Sharia religious edicts with physical coercion under the principle of "what people prefer".

    Nothing in US law prevents anyone from living according to Sharia prescriptions, for example. But if they are made US law, people will be prevented from living otherwise - as they are, in Saudi Arabia. So that is forbidden, in the US, on liberal principles.
  10. ethernos Registered Member

    i think God's rule were for past when people were given different hierarchy .....Potter's son a potter,king's son a king.....but if it were to be applied now,to would not work out with our level of understanding we'd be trying to king ourselves....if all man were equal in God's eyes.he would not have created such systems.i think at that time people were always fighting...,so he might had to built a system to seperate other...rule change and still change with time....cultural diversity is also what i believe in but it is much more different subject.for example take india said to be the most culturally diversed nation.but still united as a,i think that's what the world should be cultural difference,individuality but still united as a whole world.but how do we do it without warring each other.I'm sure that day will come but can we do it without war??
  11. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    Religion has no basis in reality and that's why it needs to die.

    Religion instills false hope and a false sense of optimism in people and that's why it's dangerous because religion is totally out of touch with the cruel world that we live in.

    The fact is that we live in a cruel universe that doesn't give a damn about us.

    Also humanity is not that successful socially, technologically and scientifically.

    Our science is still very primitive and there are tons of things that we still don't know yet.

    I could bet millions of dollars that there are alien civilizations somewhere out there in the universe who are far more successful than we are right now.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2017
    ethernos likes this.
  12. ethernos Registered Member

    i don't mind dying carrying a false hope.

Share This Page