*************
M*W: Consider the source.
Religious Extremism
- Thread starter 11parcal
- Start date
M*W: Consider the source.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
So without God's laws, what is ethical and moral? Whatever desire each person wants to engage in?Serial killer Eileen Wornos thought she was a good person.
One desires to follow God's laws. If one desired to follow a different, equally good set of laws, what's the difference?
So without God's laws, what is ethical and moral? Whatever desire each person wants to engage in?
Do you preach to animals?
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
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
You obviously don't.
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?
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.
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 have to disagree. We have seen it in other Western societies. The better the education, the less religious the population.
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!
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.
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).
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.
Carico said:
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.
John99 said:
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.
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)
JDawg
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.
So why talk of religion being dangerous?
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
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.
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.
So why talk of religion being dangerous?
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
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")
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
I take it examining journals and writings of famous american writers (eg Thoreau) of yesteryear is not something you've considered
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
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
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.
Last edited:
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!
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!
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.
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?
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.
Great answer. No substance whatsoever.
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?
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.
Ah yes, the anti-education mantra approved by God.
Jdawg
where are you living?
venus?
“
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
“
you are not aware of issues of wrath,etc being institutionalized outside of a religious context?
So any knowledge-based institution that doesn't seek to increase it's membership or distribute its knowledge appears more praiseworthy in your eyes?
my capitalist economy?
where are you living?
venus?
placing an emphasis on welfare before issues of capital loss and gain appears to be a surefire way to cause greater world suffering?
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)
“
you don't find very good examples there ... or perhaps more correctly, it is easier to find bad examples there
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
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
and you accuse me of 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?
“
well I guess you could be a well educated cow or ass ....
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.
Religion isn't a knowledge-based institution. It's a myth-based institution.
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.
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.
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.
Such as?
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.
Again, give me one example.
It's not a misrepresentation.
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.
Jdawg
“
(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")
its begging the question.
discussing what is the most probable cause is specifically the issue at hand
“
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
its also not a doctrine of religion either
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)
capitalism does have social implications - namely that all things (moral prerogatives included) are subservient to issues of capital.
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)
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.
you doubt that moral imperatives being subservient to capitalistic ones has implications for a legal system?
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
materialistic driven christianity (faith=$ in your pocket etc etc)
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")
the idea that any phenomena can be materially reduced is always a good one to start on
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
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
Registered Senior Member
"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.
Yes, and this book of fiction proves it.