|
Post by twothousandonemark on May 23, 2021 13:25:38 GMT
It's not even that religion proper is bad, it's select humanity's perverted distortion for their own will which makes religion so bad.
If we're all God's children then what's so special about Jesus? lols
If God exists, she did give us brains for truth, logic, & critical scientific thinking. Not so ppl could dive into COVID-19 mosh pits because covered in Jesus' blood.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 23, 2021 14:25:22 GMT
Religion has done a lot of good in the world. It's just the corrupt giving it a bad name I think a survey of world history would show that the amount of good done in the name of religion is outweighed by the bad. So, on balance, we'd have been better off without it.And if we eliminated cancer, people will still die of other maladies. But we'd still better off without cancer.
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on May 23, 2021 14:42:01 GMT
Religion has done a lot of good in the world. It's just the corrupt giving it a bad name I think a survey of world history would show that the amount of good done in the name of religion is outweighed by the bad. So, on balance, we'd have been better off without it.And if we eliminated cancer, people will still die of other maladies. But we'd still better off without cancer. Hard to say. We know societies hostile to faith were the worst committers of human atrocities in history. Faith...like any other noble philosophy...is a very beautiful form of human expression and basis. But like any other philosophy... can be harmful when taken to extremes. However, we must be careful not to let those exceptions or personal bias to falsely use those exceptions for a generalization. We also know that the majority of those who give blood, donate time, give money to charity, have happier marriages, donate more resources to charity, give more blood, and are generally happier are those of faith. Indeed, your example would be better suited if it was addressed to overall intolerance.
|
|
|
Post by zehgerman on May 24, 2021 6:16:24 GMT
Until the 20th century, there was no society without a religion driving it in part if not wholly. And both fascism and communism are absolutist ideologies, therefore not unlike a religion. The so-called "cancel culture" comes directly from either puritanical religion or ideology. It certainly doesn't come from pragmatism. Maybe the problem is absolutist ideologies, not religion. Religions are usually absolutist, I can't think of one right now that isn't. Maybe Buddhism with its absolute reality and relative reality, but that also depends on the branch of buddhism where the two truths doctrine is not always interpretated the same way.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 24, 2021 6:49:47 GMT
'Would we be better off without religion' is a question that can never be answered, because we've arguably never been without religion since the dawn of recorded history.
I don't think you can separate religion from the human race. Every culture has religion, or spiritual beliefs of some kind, for as far back as they can trace.
If you read Mircea Eliade or Joseph Campbell you may stop generalizing religion as simply a means to power and control.
The idea that all the wonder and mystery in the Universe can be explained by science takes as much faith as any religious beliefs.
Materialism is a dead end.
I'll take the optimism of David Bentley Hart over the pessimism of Christopher Hitchens.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 24, 2021 7:57:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2021 13:11:13 GMT
I like to think there's an afterlife, if only to picture Hitchens in it and laughing uproariously at this moment at Cody's lame response.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2021 13:23:20 GMT
'Would we be better off without religion' is a question that can never be answered, because we've arguably never been without religion since the dawn of recorded history. I don't think you can separate religion from the human race. Every culture has religion, or spiritual beliefs of some kind, for as far back as they can trace. If you read Mircea Eliade or Joseph Campbell you may stop generalizing religion as simply a means to power and control. The idea that all the wonder and mystery in the Universe can be explained by science takes as much faith as any religious beliefs. Materialism is a dead end. I'll take the optimism of David Bentley Hart over the pessimism of Christopher Hitchens. Though even Hitchens conceded that as long as humans continued to fear death and the unknown, religion would continue to have a place in our species' existence. I tend to doubt that there'll ever be a time when everything can be boiled down to a 'scientific' explanation, and I can agree that there's more (or at any rate, there should be more) to religion than simply as a tool for dominance; but unfortunately in our age--and for many ages past--it's generally been employed as just that. Until we can get to a point in our collective ethical evolution where we could possibly get beyond this, I can overall agree that religion is a substance that should be used with caution and very carefully watched. It has a highly innate tendency to turn toxic too much of the time, and I don't think we're at a point yet of being able to handle that tendency well. I'm not in favor of banning religious belief outright--I don't take to that sort of thought-policing very well, no matter how good the rationales might be for employing it--but I could wish that there were some more effective means for curbing the all-too-frequent human susceptibility to having that sort of belief take on dangerously lunatic manifestations.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on May 24, 2021 13:35:08 GMT
There is one very simple test that everyone should apply to their beliefs, whether that's religious, philosophical or even political. "Does my belief system make me hate other people?" If the answer is yes, especially if you think they deserve to be hated, then your belief system is malignant, and it's bad for you and for society. Get a new philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 24, 2021 14:17:18 GMT
Probably, though it should be noted that Hitchens was a disgusting war monger whose foreign policy views weren't really any different form a typical Christian neoconservative. I mean did he really disagree with Bush Jr (a devout Christian) on anything when it came to foreign policy? Not really someone I would consider a bastian of rational thinking.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on May 24, 2021 21:47:11 GMT
There is one very simple test that everyone should apply to their beliefs, whether that's religious, philosophical or even political. "Does my belief system make me hate other people?" If the answer is yes, especially if you think they deserve to be hated, then your belief system is malignant, and it's bad for you and for society. Get a new philosophy. True and I would add just one thing. Does it make me hate them or does it make me want to help them in ways that I think are okay but are bad for their health.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 24, 2021 23:21:20 GMT
There is one very simple test that everyone should apply to their beliefs, whether that's religious, philosophical or even political. "Does my belief system make me hate other people?" If the answer is yes, especially if you think they deserve to be hated, then your belief system is malignant, and it's bad for you and for society. Get a new philosophy. That question cannot make any dent on those who have been taught that the response is, "We hate the sin, not the sinner."
|
|
|
Post by mystery on May 25, 2021 1:02:22 GMT
There is one very simple test that everyone should apply to their beliefs, whether that's religious, philosophical or even political. "Does my belief system make me hate other people?" If the answer is yes, especially if you think they deserve to be hated, then your belief system is malignant, and it's bad for you and for society. Get a new philosophy. That question cannot make any dent on those who have been taught that the response is, "We hate the sin, not the sinner." Most people aren't self aware enough to answer that question truthfully. They only see the hatred and flaws within other people, but not within themselves. I wish that we as a society would be more self critical, to hold ourselves to higher standards, rather than being so intensely preoccupied by how other people may think or behave. In my philosophy, all hatred is wrong. Full stop. I love the quote by Abraham Lincoln, "I don't like that man. I must get to know him better." That's absolutely true. If you understand someone, then you cannot hate them. Clearly, society is sorely lacking in understanding these days. It's so much easier to hate than to understand.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on May 25, 2021 6:29:10 GMT
If you really didn't care you could have replied with the simple truth: "I can't name a single one."
Instead you choose to throw around media invented and related buzzwords. That reeks of integrity!
I think there are Buddhist communities that aren't corrupt. Probably lots of communities in many religions worldwide. It would take hours and hours (years?) to make a proper assessment of them all, then you'd have to start again because many could have become corrupt while you were researching. I certainly don't think of 'corruption' when I read Joseph Campbells accounts of native North-American spiritual practices or when I read Mircea Eliade. Only a simpleton generalizes large groups of people, or thinks 'All religion is bad'. That asshole wasn't worth the time. He's a race-warrior who believes in CRT and exhibits completely tribal thinking. Some Buddhists are "bad". In Myanmar they're preaching hate and violence against the minority Muslim population there... www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 25, 2021 10:06:41 GMT
I think there are Buddhist communities that aren't corrupt. Probably lots of communities in many religions worldwide. It would take hours and hours (years?) to make a proper assessment of them all, then you'd have to start again because many could have become corrupt while you were researching. I certainly don't think of 'corruption' when I read Joseph Campbells accounts of native North-American spiritual practices or when I read Mircea Eliade. Only a simpleton generalizes large groups of people, or thinks 'All religion is bad'. That asshole wasn't worth the time. He's a race-warrior who believes in CRT and exhibits completely tribal thinking. Some Buddhists are "bad". In Myanmar they're preaching hate and violence against the minority Muslim population there... www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306 I know. Overall, Buddhists aren't very violent as a group though.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on May 25, 2021 20:08:11 GMT
Probably, though it should be noted that Hitchens was a disgusting war monger whose foreign policy views weren't really any different form a typical Christian neoconservative. I mean did he really disagree with Bush Jr (a devout Christian) on anything when it came to foreign policy? Not really someone I would consider a bastian of rational thinking. Exactly. One may have defended it with Christian language and the other with atheistic, but both Bush and Hitchens supported the War on Terror, a conflict that killed 100,000s and displaced millions.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on May 25, 2021 20:25:35 GMT
There is one very simple test that everyone should apply to their beliefs, whether that's religious, philosophical or even political. "Does my belief system make me hate other people?" If the answer is yes, especially if you think they deserve to be hated, then your belief system is malignant, and it's bad for you and for society. Get a new philosophy. Depends what you mean by "hate" I guess. You can have empathy for even the worst people in the world. Even (Godwin's Law Alert!) Hitler was a victim of his genes, his upbringing and the material conditions around him. But there are people who do horrible things and people who support them doing these things and I think it is a good thing to oppose such people and condemn them.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on May 25, 2021 21:23:26 GMT
Until the 20th century, there was no society without a religion driving it in part if not wholly. And both fascism and communism are absolutist ideologies, therefore not unlike a religion. Fascism and communism are basically reactions to the failures of capitalism to deliver for the working class. The former removes the working class' political power while dividing them into a privileged segment and a scapegoated segment, turning the two against one another. The latter encourages the working class to overthrow the bourgeois. Both employ ideals of course (as do those political stances that reject both options like liberalism and conservativism), but at heart they are driven by material conditions, not ideology. And they ought to be judged on what they deliver, not on whether they are absolutist.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on May 25, 2021 22:24:59 GMT
Fascism and communism are basically reactions to the failures of capitalism to deliver for the working class. The former removes the working class' political power while dividing them into a privileged segment and a scapegoated segment, turning the two against one another. The latter encourages the working class to overthrow the bourgeois. Both employ ideals of course (as do those political stances that reject both options like liberalism and conservativism), but at heart they are driven by material conditions, not ideology. And they ought to be judged on what they deliver, not on whether they are absolutist. Though not spiritual, "Big C" Communism as it has existed in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc is an absolutist ideology with a specific dogma depending on the dictatorship ruling it. The USSR was pretty adaptable to be honest, to the extent that left-wing critics of it would often accuse its leaders of opportunism. Was that due to ideology though? Take for instance the Kronstadt Rebellion - was that crushed because the Communists didn't like Anarchists questioning Marxism or because of fear it would spark a larger revolt which could fracture the Soviet Union and thereby lead to victory for the White Army? Whether you agree or disagree with the Bolshevik's actions there, saying they were driven primarily by ideology or dogma avoids the central issues at play. It's like saying George Bush was motivated to launch the War on Terror due to his Christian beliefs, but ignoring the profits it gave to his buddies, the greater control it gave the US over the Middle East, and the approval boost it (at least initially) gave Bush's government.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on May 25, 2021 22:46:32 GMT
Authoritarian regimes use ideology and religion as a means of will to power and control. It doesn't matter if the leadership believes it or not. But then there are the true believers who do think their particular belief system is the only one and it is locked into set doctrine. I would agree here, but I think it's true of all regimes. Look how the US bombs the crap out of the Middle East, sanctions countries and installs thuggish puppet governments all in the name of "Democracy". Look at how it denies US citizens healthcare and worker's rights because doing so is an affront to "Freedom" and "The American Dream". The US government no doubt knows it's all bullshit but relies on a certain chunk of its citizenry being true believers.
|
|