One good thing about religion.

[Greco]

By man creating religion he has created a mehanism to keep goverment power at check. Using an imaginery all powerfull entity man tells his goverment that there's something superior to them. This forces the goverment to bend to the combined will of its people. The power of religion lies in its numbers, the more members it has the more political clout it has. The ideology of this religion does not really matter as long as the idea that goverment is inferior to the imagenary entity is included.

Can atheists claim that sort of power? Dont think so. They lack the leverage of the all powerful imagenary entity. Maybe we need God after all to protect us from our selfs. I think religion was a stroke of genius.

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by Greco
Can atheists claim that sort of power? Dont think so. They lack the leverage of the all powerful imagenary entity. Maybe we need God after all to protect us from our selfs. I think religion was a stroke of genius.

Although you've got an interesting idea, there are some problems with it.

You cite the mechanism of restraint as being the belief of the people. Thus any belief of the people should be useable. There is nothing special about god in this respect. A belief in non-theistic morality should serve just as well, as would a belief in witches or fey folk. Marxism also posits similar principles.

 

[everneo]

But marxism is a failure. Any system that does not care about individual's personal and social life, with proper balance, would fail. marxism put society first completely neglecting the individual. the irony was instead of giving power to the society , the practical marxism ended up in a few individuals holding the fate of entire society.

Capitalism is the reverse extreme. Atleast marxism, in principle, would not indulge exploiting religious, sectarian, racist passions. Capitalism exploits anything and everything. Both of them work on materialism as the basic, though capitalism talks of God, blah.

Atheism got the worst of these two.

Religion had been held as the reason for many wars. But war mongers have no religion, remember. They use peoples' passion for the religion, under the pretext of 'religion is under threat'. Crusades, Jihads and what not. Is it a few individuals' mistake or religions' mistake..? Religions have drawbacks, such as holding a narrow view, tend to get instituitionalised, creating a priviledged calss of clergy etc. But they give, through the fear and faith in God, the stability for the individual and the society which is the first requirement for progress in all fields. Jesus gave the 'society' some sort of conscience that love is not all that bad. Could you imagine a western society without Jesus and his message of love..! Not a pleasing scenario.

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by everneo
But marxism is a failure. Any system that does not care about individual's personal and social life, with proper balance, would fail. marxism put society first completely neglecting the individual. the irony was instead of giving power to the society , the practical marxism ended up in a few individuals holding the fate of entire society.

Capitalism is the reverse extreme. Atleast marxism, in principle, would not indulge exploiting religious, sectarian, racist passions. Capitalism exploits anything and everything. Both of them work on materialism as the basic, though capitalism talks of God, blah.

Atheism got the worst of these two.

Religion had been held as the reason for many wars. But war mongers have no religion, remember. They use peoples' passion for the religion, under the pretext of 'religion is under threat'. Crusades, Jihads and what not. Is it a few individuals' mistake or religions' mistake..? Religions have drawbacks, such as holding a narrow view, tend to get instituitionalised, creating a priviledged calss of clergy etc. But they give, through the fear and faith in God, the stability for the individual and the society which is the first requirement for progress in all fields. Jesus gave the 'society' some sort of conscience that love is not all that bad. Could you imagine a western society without Jesus and his message of love..! Not a pleasing scenario.

Wow, where to start. Have you ever really looked at economics or history? Here's just a few snippets.

Marxism has never been implemented, hence can't have failed. Capitalism makes absolutely no reference to God. Many war mongers (most?) have religion. They do trade on people's passions, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it too.

I'll grant you that religions have had a de facto stabilizing effect in some cases. But that's no reason to believe they're true. All sort of oppression are locally stabilizing.

And yes, I can imagine a western society without Jesus and his message of love. I think it would be far less bigoted, with fewer wars, more motivation for research, and a more equitable distribution of wealth. Of course there's no way to know without trying. But so far Jesus seems to be a piss poor social planner.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by drnihili
Marxism has never been implemented, hence can't have failed.

???

Many war mongers (most?) have religion. They do trade on people's passions, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it too.

They did it for their own sake in the name of religions. When they could not use religion they did it in the name ideology, nationalism.

I'll grant you that religions have had a de facto stabilizing effect in some cases. But that's no reason to believe they're true. All sort of oppression are locally stabilizing.

Like non-implemented(!) seemingly marxist regimes like China, combodia, N-korea etc. Ofcourse religion is not needed for suppression. Their role is different.

And yes, I can imagine a western society without Jesus and his message of love. I think it would be far less bigoted, with fewer wars, more motivation for research, and a more equitable distribution of wealth. Of course there's no way to know without trying.

Seems like a marxist dream. Now you know why "Marxism has never been implemented". Its a materialistic utopian dream with no idea of human psyche. So is atheistic dream with freethoughts incorporated. I am not against free thoughts. But when it teams up with atheism, great, you need not wait to go to hell after death.

But so far Jesus seems to be a piss poor social planner.

His intention was not to piss-off as a social planner. Why do you think so.?

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by everneo
???

What's your question?

They did it for their own sake in the name of religions. When they could not use religion they did it in the name ideology, nationalism.

Interesting thesis. Can you provide any evidence for it?

Like non-implemented(!) seemingly marxist regimes like China, combodia, N-korea etc. Ofcourse religion is not needed for suppression. Their role is different.

Seems like a marxist dream. Now you know why "Marxism has never been implemented". Its a materialistic utopian dream with no idea of human psyche. So is atheistic dream with freethoughts incorporated. I am not against free thoughts. But when it teams up with atheism, great, you need not wait to go to hell after death.

Your argument gives the impression that your views on social theory and psychology are driven primarily by a desire to prove theistic conclusions rather than a desire to find out the truth in these areas. WHile you may find that approach personally comforting, it is unlikely to lead to productive discussion. But no matter, my point was merely that the societal role you assign to religion has as a matter of fact been filled by other things also. Beyond that, your theory is structurally similar to other theories. Marxism was just an exmple of one such.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by drnihili
What's your question?

Its obvious. You said "Marxism has never been implemented, hence can't have failed." I thought USSR and the eastern bloc etc were marxist countries that implemented marxism.

Interesting thesis. Can you provide any evidence for it?

Hitler thought himself as God. Stalin hide behind his ideology. Crudsades and Jihads where cycles of revenge under the guise of religious wars. US nuked Japan not in the name of religion. Current skirmishes and war cries have deep rooted resentment than love for religion. just for sample.

Your argument gives the impression that your views on social theory and psychology are driven primarily by a desire to prove theistic conclusions rather than a desire to find out the truth in these areas. WHile you may find that approach personally comforting, it is unlikely to lead to productive discussion.

Thread is asking one good thing about religion. What else I am supposed to do.? Theistic conclusions were not that bad was my point.

But no matter, my point was merely that the societal role you assign to religion has as a matter of fact been filled by other things also. Beyond that, your theory is structurally similar to other theories. Marxism was just an exmple of one such.

But religions survived longer than theories like marxism. I find atheism is marxism plus freethoughts without its economic aspects&ideals, loosely, as against religions. As i first said both individuals and society to be taken care of in a balanced manner. Do you think anyother system is capable of doing so..? happy to know that.

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by everneo
Its obvious. You said "Marxism has never been implemented, hence can't have failed." I thought USSR and the eastern bloc etc were marxist countries that implemented marxism.

No, they are/were not implementations of Marxism. Try reviewing some social/economic theory and a bit of history.

Hitler thought himself as God. Stalin hide behind his ideology. Crudsades and Jihads where cycles of revenge under the guise of religious wars. US nuked Japan not in the name of religion. Current skirmishes and war cries have deep rooted resentment than love for religion. just for sample.

I asked for documentation, not a mere restatement of your opinion. It's obvious that you have a less than adequate grasp on social history. Try to actually find some evidence that most leaders did not believe in the religious basis they gave for wars. I already know what your opinion is. I'm asking what reason you have for your opinions, not a clarification of them.

Thread is asking one good thing about religion. What else I am supposed to do.? Theistic conclusions were not that bad was my point.

Ok

But religions survived longer than theories like marxism. I find atheism is marxism plus freethought without its economic aspect&ideals. As i first said both individuals and society to be taken care of in a balanced manner. Do you think anyother system is capable of doing so..? happy to know that.

There are many other systems that do a much better job than religion. Religion's track record is actually pretty poor except in very small communities. But small communities tend to be communitarian regardless of the religious focus.

Beyond that, since you are willing to believe that the bad things done by leaders have nothing to do with religion, why do you think that the good things they do have anything to do with religion? It seems like you're just picking and choosing based on what supports your conclusion and dismissing the rest.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by drnihili
No, they are/were not implementations of Marxism. Try reviewing some social/economic theory and a bit of history.

I am not going to ask any documentation in support of your revelations.

I asked for documentation, not a mere restatement of your opinion. It's obvious that you have a less than adequate grasp on social history. Try to actually find some evidence that most leaders did not believe in the religious basis they gave for wars. I already know what your opinion is. I'm asking what reason you have for your opinions, not a clarification of them.

Documentation of what..? You see, i am not submitting any thesis for your review. I don't have any thesis as of now. I gave a gist of historical facts. If you have, or as you pretend to have, adequate grasp of social history, refute me rather than telling me what amount of grasp i have on social,cultural blah blah histories.

There are many other systems that do a much better job than religion. Religion's track record is actually pretty poor except in very small communities. But small communities tend to be communitarian regardless of the religious focus.

Enlighten me, few examples will do, i don't need any truck locad of supporting documentations, even if there are.

Beyond that, since you are willing to believe that the bad things done by leaders have nothing to do with religion, why do you think that the good things they do have anything to do with religion?

Bad things done in the name of religions. Do good is the theme of the religions. Where is the confusion..?

It seems like you're just picking and choosing based on what supports your conclusion and dismissing the rest.

I don't think so. Anyway, you are free to pick and choose what supports your argument. But so far you were demanding this and that from me but on your part you just declare some vague statements.

 

[drnihili]

The original description of religion's effect on society was as a grass roots phenomena. It exerts it's force based on the beliefs of the people, not of the leaders. This is the same direction of influence as in Marxist theory. The countries you cite as examples of marxism exhibit an opposite direction of influence and hence are not Marxist. You may as well cite examples of Christian tyrants as a failure of religion.

And yes, you have submitted a thesis. You claimed that war mongers have no religion. Subsequently you clarified that as the thesis as meaning that War were carried out for personal reason of the leaders rather than for religious reasons. I've asked for evidence to support your claim, you've merely reiterated it. The Old Testament is full of cases where war was commanded by God. Are you meaning to include those leaders in your thesis?

 

[EvilPoet]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions.
It is the opium of the people." -Karl Marx

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by drnihili
The original description of religion's effect on society was as a grass roots phenomena. It exerts it's force based on the beliefs of the people, not of the leaders. This is the same direction of influence as in Marxist theory. The countries you cite as examples of marxism exhibit an opposite direction of influence and hence are not Marxist. You may as well cite examples of Christian tyrants as a failure of religion.

Marxism proposed social changes through political power. Political power of the oppressed class/proliteriate but what happened was the society got a more powerful oppressor.
Religions, in principle, do not express any political ambitions.
Christian tyrants obviously went against what Jesus was advocating. Tyrants of any religion do not represent that religion's teachings. As such the failure of marxism was in no way relate to the assumed failure of religions.

And yes, you have submitted a thesis. You claimed that war mongers have no religion. Subsequently you clarified that as the thesis as meaning that War were carried out for personal reason of the leaders rather than for religious reasons. I've asked for evidence to support your claim, you've merely reiterated it. The Old Testament is full of cases where war was commanded by God. Are you meaning to include those leaders in your thesis?

You only first remarked my comments as an interesting thesis. I have no thesis. I have expressed my opinion. I said 'for their own sake', not 'personal reasons' for all cases. I will elaborate them a little bit. If you take this as a thesis its not my mistake. This is just common sense, IMO.

And in the case of Hitler and Stalin they indeed had personal stake as any megallomaniac would have on war and mass murder. They hid it behind nationalism and idealogy. As for the US it had its vested interest to prove the world of its superiority by demonstrating the nuke power. Religions had no rule in these large scale murders and destructions.

Crusades and Jihads were meaningless wars in contrary to what their respective religions were telling them. Whoever spearheaded them for whatever reasons ( either for pride or revenge or committment to fellow rulers or misunderstanding of their faith) they dragged religion in the bloody compaigns.

Christianity as a major religion in the west had Jesus as the pivot. What for the OT wars is not as significant as the message delivered by Jesus.

 

[drnihili]

Ok, I'll admit you have me thoroughly confused now. What precisely do you see as the difference between an opinion and a thesis?

OUr views of history and social theory are so radically different as to apparently make conversation difficult if not impossible, so I'm not going to pursue that avenue any further.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Hitler thought himself as God.

He did? Do you have a quote or link or something? I thought he was a christian that happened to believe the jews should be exterminated.

 

[everneo]

It was a sarcastic remark. What i meant is Hitler thought himself destined by God to lead Germany and at sometimes to eliminate Jews.! What a psychopath thinks of himeself is difficult for anyone to say.

Psychopathic God : Adolf Hitler by G.L.Waite.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Didn't realize you were being sarcastic, I was also .

Seriously though, sure I can see some benefits that have come from religion when looked at in detail. But from a macro level it is hard for me to find a benefit that wouldn't have likely come from a non-religious idealogy in religion's place. It is hard to say because we will never know what the world might look like minus religion...we can only guess through our biases.

But back to the hitler thing...don't you think religion is dangerous - in that it can be a dangerous spark for fanatics? I mean, you blame all the wars and stuff on fanatics not the religion. But without religion would the fanatic exist? Doesn't hitler's intense hatred of jews seem suspect considering he was a christian? Don't you think religion had at least a bit to do with it? I mean they killed his savior after all, eh?

 

[everneo]

Same thing can be said of Stalin, Khmer Rouge-Polpot& co. inflicted millions of deaths. Anyone with sane mind can do that..? Fanatics are loose-canons, neither religion nor ideology can have control over them. Hitler targeted not only jews. his victims list includes communists, non-aryan races, his adversories, his critics and goes on. I don't insist religions are all perfect. despite drawbacks they are effective becasue they have appeal to God.
Remove God, the religion is dead. IMO that is not possible.