Yup, sorta like telling the above that what they were doing wasn't democratic.
Might land you in a secular Gitmo as a terrorist supporter. :shrug:
Red Herring. Please try to stay on the subject at hand.
Imagine no heaven
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Red Herring. Please try to stay on the subject at hand.
I think death squads define a democratic state as much as an inquisitor defines Christianity. You are free to disagree.
This individualism culminated in the doctrine of the immortality of the individual soul, which was to enjoy hereafter endless bliss or endless woe according to circumstances. The circumstances upon which this momentous difference depended were somewhat curious. For example, if you died immediately after a priest had sprinkled water upon you while pronouncing certain words, you inherited eternal bliss; whereas, if after a long and virtuous life you happened to be struck by lightning at a moment when you were using bad language because you had broken a bootlace, you would inherit eternal torment. I do not say that the modern Protestant Christian believes this, nor even perhaps the modern Catholic Christian who has not been adequately instructed in theology; but I do say that this is the orthodox doctrine and was firmly believed until recent times. The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured that these infants went to Heaven. No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals, and the metaphysical separation of soul and body has had disastrous effects upon philosophy.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/has_reli.htm
Yes, yes, and the Soviets didn't really understand Marxism, nor did Pol Pot. That they used Marxist dogma to justify their actions is the important part. That they were certain of being correct, and any attempt to use reason would be deemed counter revolutionary heresy is what was important to understand if you were to survive their reigns of terror. Anything can be harmful if the ideas are held dogmatically. But the underlying nature of democratic societies is to soften dogma, and to educate people that you can never be certain of being right. Religious dogma's lesson is that you are correct, and your opponents are wrong. And how do you appeal to reason when the source of the dogma are conflicting interpretations of creation myths that are thousands of years old?
I would not defend any mad man who would do such a thing but just because that site makes such a claim does not mean it actually happened or it was not an isolated incident. I believe the point SAM is making is that religion is just a ruse for acts such as this. That is even if it is accurate.
What about the people under communism? What was the effect on the people, how did it affect their priorities and attitudes towards other people? How did they feel about communism?
What country? At what point in history? My point is that the communist governments were almost a form of theocracy. You had a book of holy scripture that was accepted dogmatically. Critical thinking was discouraged, and even dangerous. Any form of deviation from generally accepted "truth" was heresy, and persecuted. Conservatives were in control, and freedom of expression (artistically or sexually) was not allowed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The situation is a bit different now, wouldn't you say ? Another revolution would be very hard to set in motion, regardless of motivation.kadark said:
I can't even find the man's name, just recall his face and the sentiments. It's not just one man, though (and keep in mind the risks run by anyone who speaks out against the religious leaders of Iran. Advocates of secular political rule, especially democratic, have been assassinated even in foreign countries ex Bakhtiar).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/w...75755669e0989c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E1DE1330F93AA35753C1A9609C8B63
SAM:
No, by claiming that there is only one true god, and the religious leader(s) have the authority to interpret his will and dictate the actions of his followers.
As I explained, virtually all religions create an "in group" and an "out group". Either explicitly or implicitly, they condone the persecution of people of other faiths. You don't need to look far to find examples throughout history.
Even with a single faith there are factions. A good example is the Sunni-Shia split of Islam that is causing so much bloodshed in the middle east right now.
You're wrong. The justice system does not create an in-group and an out-group. An overarching principle of justice is that people are not persecuted for "status offences" - i.e. being who they are. They are punished for crimes.
The "crime" of daring to believe in another religion, of the thousands that exist, rather than the One True Religion (whichever one that is designated to be) is of a fundamentally different nature than the types of crimes recognised by all justice systems regardless of the religion that is dominant in the nation.
How can different people reach your "one goal" via mutually contradictory paths? At what stage does truth enter the picture? You can't pretend that all religions are really just aspects of the same thing. Religions flatly and blatantly contradict each other at the most fundamental level. (One obvious example: how many gods are there?)
Has it ever worried you that your relatives all believe mutually contradictory things? Have you ever felt the need to try to "convert" the Hindus or the Christians to Islam, for example? Isn't it your religious duty to try?
Self-declared prophets exist everywhere at any given time in history. Occasionally, perhaps once or twice in every thousand years, one of them is in the right place at the right time, such that the political and social inclinations of a people find a close match to the teachings of the prophet. Those prophets gain willing followers who believe that their present lives will be improved if they follow the leader.
Prophets, in turn, can become martyrs after death, particularly if they are perceived as having been persecuted by members of a hated out-group. Mythologies are constructed after the death of the prophet, in which fact is mixed with fiction and the prophet's exploits are exaggerated and given a "holy" patina. The prophet is held up as a role model to be emulated by all. Word spreads, particularly when there is an agreed "holy text" to help spread it. In this way, new religions are born.
None of this affects my previous point, that the primary predictor of a person's religious beliefs are the beliefs of his parents. Religion becomes a tradition, as well as a way of reinforcing group loyalties and defining a ready-made "out-group".
No, by claiming that there is only one true god, and the religious leader(s) have the authority to interpret his will and dictate the actions of his followers.
As I explained, virtually all religions create an "in group" and an "out group". Either explicitly or implicitly, they condone the persecution of people of other faiths. You don't need to look far to find examples throughout history.
Even with a single faith there are factions. A good example is the Sunni-Shia split of Islam that is causing so much bloodshed in the middle east right now.
You're wrong. The justice system does not create an in-group and an out-group. An overarching principle of justice is that people are not persecuted for "status offences" - i.e. being who they are. They are punished for crimes.
The "crime" of daring to believe in another religion, of the thousands that exist, rather than the One True Religion (whichever one that is designated to be) is of a fundamentally different nature than the types of crimes recognised by all justice systems regardless of the religion that is dominant in the nation.
How can different people reach your "one goal" via mutually contradictory paths? At what stage does truth enter the picture? You can't pretend that all religions are really just aspects of the same thing. Religions flatly and blatantly contradict each other at the most fundamental level. (One obvious example: how many gods are there?)
Has it ever worried you that your relatives all believe mutually contradictory things? Have you ever felt the need to try to "convert" the Hindus or the Christians to Islam, for example? Isn't it your religious duty to try?
Self-declared prophets exist everywhere at any given time in history. Occasionally, perhaps once or twice in every thousand years, one of them is in the right place at the right time, such that the political and social inclinations of a people find a close match to the teachings of the prophet. Those prophets gain willing followers who believe that their present lives will be improved if they follow the leader.
Prophets, in turn, can become martyrs after death, particularly if they are perceived as having been persecuted by members of a hated out-group. Mythologies are constructed after the death of the prophet, in which fact is mixed with fiction and the prophet's exploits are exaggerated and given a "holy" patina. The prophet is held up as a role model to be emulated by all. Word spreads, particularly when there is an agreed "holy text" to help spread it. In this way, new religions are born.
None of this affects my previous point, that the primary predictor of a person's religious beliefs are the beliefs of his parents. Religion becomes a tradition, as well as a way of reinforcing group loyalties and defining a ready-made "out-group".
And? Everyone works within parameters of some kind or the other. Ultimately the function of religion is to create a cohesive community, its rarely the religious who fight each other. Look at the example of the Archbishop asking to assmiliate sharia into the UK system, or the rabbi and imam who put forth a peace plan before Israel. The ones who create disharmony are the ones who want power and hold it way above faith.
Does this mean that by opposing religion, you implicitly or explicitly condone the persecution of all theists?
Thats because they are different political factions. The patriots killed the loyalists too.
Crimes? What are crimes? Perhaps they are genetically susceptible to these weaknesses. In that case, should they be punished? Justice is as arbitrary a concept as any other. After all, there is an implicit belief in the morality of an action without any logical reason why it should be so. Is animal behaviour regulated for theft, rape or murder? Nothing is wrong in and of itself. Its a subjective assessment, not an objective one.
Like having one language for official use in a country? Does that not discriminate against those who speak other languages? Perhaps everyone should be free to make up their own. There are reasons why assimilation is more difficult when there is a culture of intolerance.
Based on what? You're a physicist, you should know that matter is subject to perception and perception itself is based on biology, which is based on matter. If you cannot see red or green, it does not mean they do not exist. Using narrow definitions of truth will limit only your vision.
No why should it? Everyone is free to choose how they want to practise their beliefs.
Except of course, that Muslims have increased by a billion in a thousand years in all corners of the world, and many previous practices have been consigned to the dust of history.
Clearly, it is not all as straightforward as that.
If you can see red or green, it does not mean they are fundamental properties of the universe, and those who cannot see them are blind to reality - even an aspect of reality.SAM said:
And if you regard the redness or greenness as a property of the outer world, rather than your perception of it, you are going wrong - there may or may not be penalties for that, down the road.
But it is often the religion - and the manipulable type of "cohesive community" it creates, one already pledged to defending nonsense with violence - that is most handy for power to invoke, when it becomes time to have the "cohesive community" serve its purpose in power's eyes.SAM said:
Last edited:
Thats an analogy. You can apply it to the fact that everything we perceive is just that.
SAM
Historically, that is far from being true. Religions have mostly been used to control people. Sure, religions can create "cohesive" communities. As I said, they mostly create an in-group and an out-group, such that the people who are "in" feel a group bond. There is certainly cohesion within a religious group, but religion actively discourages cohesion between groups. And from time to time, factional disputes arise even in major religions, leading to schisms. We see that in today's multitude of Christian variants, and in Islam.
You have a very modern point of view on religion. The history is religion shows that whenever and wherever they have had power, they have engaged in violence and suppression, both of their own members and people perceived as "infidels".
I explained a little about why Islam grew in its early years, above. What I didn't say was that it was fundamentally militaristic from the start. Arabia was at the time separated into small tribes, and no particular tribe had great power or lands. Then along came Mohammed and started conquering tribes left, right and centre. Islam came to be seen as a powerful force - join it and you stood to gain land and power. Success breeds success, and the time was ripe. Conquered peoples, of course, were all given an ultimatum - convert to Islam or be annihilated.
Not at all. Why would you think that?
How many wars have been fought for atheism?
Is this retreat to an extreme relativism really the best you can do in defending your faith?
You say that justice is arbitrary, but in fact all societies agree that certain things are wrong, in a way that they do not agree about any of the major tenets of religious beliefs. Good logical reasons can be given for making some actions a crime, based on social good. The same cannot be said of commands such as "have no other gods except me".
I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.
Again, we see an extreme form of relativism.
Red and green exist objectively as particular frequencies of light. A recipe can be written down that will instruct a person exactly how to observe the colour green and to verify its existence, whether or not he or she is colour blind. Thus, red and green are NOT mere matters of perception. There is some real content to "red" and "green", beyond what we make up with our "narrow definitions".
I would be interested to learn what you would consider to be a "wide" definition of "truth"? Do you wish to completely throw away the "real world", so that everybody has his or her own personal truth, and nobody's truth can be shown to be superior to anybody else's truth? I can't believe you really think that. There is a real world out there, not just a subjective one.
If somebody told you that his "truth" told him that he could keep an unmodified passenger plane flying indefinitely without fuel, would you sign up to go on the demonstration flight, because his truth is as valid as anybody else's? I don't think you would.
What if they believe that all Jews should be killed, as Hitler did? (Oops. [enc]Godwin's law[/enc] is invoked. I lose...)
Fundamentally, it is. Islam has been a political religion from the start. Jesus may have said his kingdom was not of this world, but Mohammed never said any such thing.
The spread of Islam has been as much or more about politics and power than about the word of God.
Historically, that is far from being true. Religions have mostly been used to control people. Sure, religions can create "cohesive" communities. As I said, they mostly create an in-group and an out-group, such that the people who are "in" feel a group bond. There is certainly cohesion within a religious group, but religion actively discourages cohesion between groups. And from time to time, factional disputes arise even in major religions, leading to schisms. We see that in today's multitude of Christian variants, and in Islam.
You have a very modern point of view on religion. The history is religion shows that whenever and wherever they have had power, they have engaged in violence and suppression, both of their own members and people perceived as "infidels".
I explained a little about why Islam grew in its early years, above. What I didn't say was that it was fundamentally militaristic from the start. Arabia was at the time separated into small tribes, and no particular tribe had great power or lands. Then along came Mohammed and started conquering tribes left, right and centre. Islam came to be seen as a powerful force - join it and you stood to gain land and power. Success breeds success, and the time was ripe. Conquered peoples, of course, were all given an ultimatum - convert to Islam or be annihilated.
Not at all. Why would you think that?
How many wars have been fought for atheism?
Is this retreat to an extreme relativism really the best you can do in defending your faith?
You say that justice is arbitrary, but in fact all societies agree that certain things are wrong, in a way that they do not agree about any of the major tenets of religious beliefs. Good logical reasons can be given for making some actions a crime, based on social good. The same cannot be said of commands such as "have no other gods except me".
I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.
Again, we see an extreme form of relativism.
Red and green exist objectively as particular frequencies of light. A recipe can be written down that will instruct a person exactly how to observe the colour green and to verify its existence, whether or not he or she is colour blind. Thus, red and green are NOT mere matters of perception. There is some real content to "red" and "green", beyond what we make up with our "narrow definitions".
I would be interested to learn what you would consider to be a "wide" definition of "truth"? Do you wish to completely throw away the "real world", so that everybody has his or her own personal truth, and nobody's truth can be shown to be superior to anybody else's truth? I can't believe you really think that. There is a real world out there, not just a subjective one.
If somebody told you that his "truth" told him that he could keep an unmodified passenger plane flying indefinitely without fuel, would you sign up to go on the demonstration flight, because his truth is as valid as anybody else's? I don't think you would.
What if they believe that all Jews should be killed, as Hitler did? (Oops. [enc]Godwin's law[/enc] is invoked. I lose...)
Fundamentally, it is. Islam has been a political religion from the start. Jesus may have said his kingdom was not of this world, but Mohammed never said any such thing.
The spread of Islam has been as much or more about politics and power than about the word of God.
Muhammad said himself, "love of the Earth is the root of all evil". That should count for something. Also, he said: “The world is forbidden to those of the life to come; the life to come is forbidden to those of this world”.
After the Rightly Guided Caliphs, your statement is kind of true. Still doesn't take away from the religion - just those who preferred the power over the book (Qur'an).
Actually freedom is deciding wheter or not what you are told is for you. Saying a person is not free just becuase they happen to agree with what a relision does is as nonsensical as saying the only feminists are career women.
And you are free to take the knowledge that there is a heaven and do with it what you will. You might note that it takes more than being a good person to get inot heaven. Getting into heaven is a concious choice and can be made at any time.