We should!
Religious family kills grandpa.
- Thread starter jayleew
- Start date
How? Elaborate please. If I say "a lot of killing is happening in this world only because of we are human", would that make any sense to you? Wouldn't you want to know how? Or more precisely, if I found a case of people killing each other, and specifically a family incident -just to fit our case-, but none of them are religious, would you step back from your claim? Or would you say "Oh, there must be something religious inside of these people", just to support your claim?
I am asking again, more clearly, how do you find religion as the reason in this particular example? Could or could not be other elements get involved other than, as much as, alongside or totally outside of the religion?
Do you know "when we are going to stop handing out the "it could happen to anyone" shit? When we see that there is no other reason left around other than religion. If people stop killing and/or harming each other completely, and only those who kill or harm each other left as religious, that time we might stop saying "it could happen anyone" shit. Until that time, "it could happen anyone" and it could happen because of the other reasons as much as religion.
Do you think irrational thinking only comes or originates from religion? Don't non-religious people think irrationally? Organised religions emerged in human history around -maximum- 10 thousand year ago. There were probably some belief systems before that time, but we can not call them "religion" -especially "organized" religion- only because of the fact that there wasn't any agricultural civilization to feed this type of cultural product. So can you tell me before religion emerged, humanity was completely rational? Or for today, can you claim that people who live under less or no religious regimes/social systems act totally rational?
Are you claiming that murdered grandpa was less religious than his killers? And where is your hypothetical society where "there is no difference"? How is that possible? Two people can kill each other for many reasons. As it is free to assume without showing any evidence, I can easily claim that people who has minimum difference can kill each other too. And reason for that? Just to make a "difference"...
And this is the hit paragraph of the underlying logic of your argument: Read this paragraph of yours twice. I'll help you:
"We don't know exactly what the underlying cause of the argument was" you say... This was exactly what I was claiming: We don't know! Simple as that. So when we don't know something, we can either make a deeper search, try to find other elements involved, or simply don't make any judgement just for the sake of supporting our "belief".
"It really isn't the point", you say... Really? What is the point then? You give us the point:
The point is it is another example of religious folks killing because the argument started because of their irrationality. you say... So all I understood from your argument is this -I'll rephrase it:
"It doesn't matter what is the real underlying reasons behind this incident. The point is, we saw "Church Channel" in the news, so we must use opportunity to attack religion and use this incident to prove how irrational religious people are." Is that what you offer?
Excuse me, but this approach is what I call "irrational"...
If this was the case, religious people would easily kill one another and wiped out their own population. Yet they are there as billions. So your argument is not based on facts, but false assumption. You simply ignore the "human" factor and other factors that make a human being irrational, violent or ignorant. You categorically dismiss the level of education, economic and social reasons, individual differences and many other condition.
I might be thinking it from the wrong way, but if you don't change your logic and use the same assumptions again and again, you will not change the way you explain it. And I will not change my interpretation, no matter how many times you try. But if you come up with some evidence or a different logic other than "if religious therefore necessarily violent"...
Again, "Religion may or may not have been the direct cause, but..." But let's don't miss this chance to blame religion anyway, is that it? No, it doesn't work like that...
Read something about Dr. Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Last edited:
So in a certain community (mexico), certain social values were at the fore (religion).
Then a certain collective (La Familia) came along and utilized the authority of these social values to assert a questionable agenda.
:shrug:
Not social (secular) values, religious values, but yes. Just like the Catholic Church which preceeded them. I assert that religion was invented exactly for this purpose, to give the aura of the divine and therefore legitimacy to the group that invents (or reinvents) it.
huh?
religion isn't composed of social values
(I mean isn't it a favorite atheistic argument that the whole theistic shtick is a social/cultural phenomena and can therefore be memefied?)Or is it simply that your social values are so diametrically opposed to theism that you seek to put an extra distance between them by prohibiting the use of "social values" int his circumstance?
so once again ...
What is a society without value systems?
What is a value system without a symbol of authority?
What is a symbol of authority without a person(s)/institution/collective to wield it?
:shrug:
What street gang is exploiting the secular values of Democracy to impose their will on the people?
Huh?
You think the police force, the army, politics, economic development trusts, school teachers, social workers, heads and spokespersons for research bodies or even parents are inherently non-secular?
I mean even your attempts to champion the cause of secularism are attempts to place certain social authorities in the lime light.
A value system without symbols of authority is a value system that doesn't exist. (after all, exactly who/what is going to establish or exemplify the values)
If they are imposing their will on people, they are imposing their values ... which may or may not be supportive, diametrically opposed or have nothing whatsoever to do with secular takes on democracy
(although democracy is arguably a transcendental doctrine that goes beyond the designation of the body. Whatever material analysis one utilizes - by height, by intelligence, by strength, etc - we all give different results, so there is no means to establish a uniform basis for all people being equal)
It's got nothing to do with authority. Secular values might require an administrator, but no one would be silly enough to worship them.
One doesn't require worship in order to be an authority ... although its the nature of a position of authority that it be surrounded by specific etiquette (etiquette for both the person/collective holding the position as well as persons outside it)
For instance, wearing a specific coloured headband in some places can get you killed by rival street gangs (regardless whether you are a gang member or not)
But it does require worship of the institution of Authority that makes people vulnerable to tyrants. That's what comes from taking your marching orders from the church authority for centuries. That's what comes from accepting a kingly figure in heaven whom you may not question.
try again
marching orders/issues one can not question can be received from a host of sources
it doesn't even require worship
For instance the police can knock down your door at 3am and drag you away for a prison sentence, regardless of your views.
Or even in a less dramatic scenario, if you want suggest that your boss's wife has the sexual prowess of a mule, you could be out on the unemployment queue in a moment
IOW if an authority doesn't have the ability to over-ride or influence the general gamut of social constructs from its vantage point, it can't be an authority.
IOW if the police couldn't take people to face charges, they wouldn't be effective as a police force.
Or if your boss couldn't fire you for being a jerk, he wouldn't be an effective boss
As for religious institutions, they function much like an emissary of a king.
IOW if you had an emissary that couldn't mediate between a ruler and his subjects of interest, you wouldn't have an effective emissary.
Similarly if you have a religious institution that cannot transparently operate out of the needs, interests and concerns of god, you have a dysfunctional or at the very least, compromised, religious institution.
To suggest that all social constructs that enable tyranny to manifest should be disbanded is kind of like thisargument for a solution against pedophilia
Last edited:
Why would God pick ineffective or corrupt emissaries?
its more the case of why do certain communities favor ineffective emissaries, or why effective emissaries become victim to dysfunctionalism.
You are making an assumption with your claims and stereotyping me with a few idle comments.
What I am talking about is the mind of a religious person. The danger is not religion, but the mind of a follower. Now, not everyone, but some. "So what?" you ask. There are many different types of minds, but the ones I'm focusing on are the irrational person who steps into religion and the rational person who makes a choice to be irrational and believe in a god. Both of these may become irrational (or more irrational in the case of the disturbed individual) for a variety of reasons, none of which may have anything to do with their religious beliefs. So far, I am saying these individuals are no different than anyone else in the world.
Now, let's introduce religious teachings. They encourage irrational thinking. The teachings also encourage the believers to trust their thoughts and to approve specific ones as messages from their god. Their scriptures teach them to stand fast to their beliefs in the face of persecution. So, if they "received" a message to kill, they are more apt to do it than a person who is rational and would consider their thoughts before killing.
This incident is an example of irrationality in action, i'm sure we all agree to that. My point is that the family was religious enough to want to watch gospel programs over sports. Due to their irrationality, they allowed a killing. It could have been over turnips, it doesn't matter. The point is they were irrational to kill, and whether of not they were irrational before or after they believed in god isn't the point. The point is that being religious did not save them from evil, in fact because of the way religion teaches (what and how) it maybe made them more able than they were, or able period, to be irrational.
You still might say this is a random incident. Yes, it is, but what gives credence to it possibly being because of religion is the vast cases we have today.
You misunderstand that I am not saying this is the one example that proves religion is dangerous. I can't prove it. I'm saying tack this up on the side that it is. If anything, we have to walk away with a maybe. And that is enough cause for concern of the whole issue since time began.
I say we are getting close to the time where we cannot turn a blind eye and remain ignorant of the dangers of religion. It is an issue worth exploring because the church I attented was hurt many times by the pastor's wife. Her irrationality allowed her to do harm without seeing the harm done.
Because they were irrational and religious.baftan said:
baftan said:
No, it just makes things worse by being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
baftan said:
True, so why add just another reason to kill each other?
THere are many influences on an individual that contribute, and religion is one of many. It is not the root of all evil, but worth a cautionary flag.baftan said:
baftan said:
What this topic boils down to is:
The point of this thread is not to blame religion. It is a wakeup call for those who might insist that religion is completely blameless. There are many atrocities done in history in the name of religion, and there are wars going on today because of religious differences. On a much smaller scale there are people in the churches and folks in the communities that are being harmed sometimes.
The greatest harm can result from the best intentions. Terry Goodkind
When it comes to religion, they sometimes do harm without even knowing it. This is because of their irrational thoughts spawned by the notion that gods talk to humans.
Personally, I am calling for at least the reformation of all religions to recognize this possibility, explore it, and take action to fix it so we humans do not have another opprotunity to be irrational.
I mean that religion is not the cause. I mean it didn't help this religious family, and perhaps made it worse because religious are taught to ignore some thoughts like doubt. And they are encourage to act fervently to other thoughts they deem as messages from god.
The whole point of religion is to become a better person. What we have here is religion with egg on its face.
Religious people are dangerous because of the way they think, because of religious teachings. I never said religion was the cause of this crime. Irrational thought was the cause. It was a human error, period. So, let's think prevention: how can we change the way people think? Well, we can't have freelance religion running amuck. It teaches people to search from within, what is perceived as holy or a message from their god. It teaches ignorance of doubt, when it comes to ending a life, you better doubt it alot. These are but two problems with religious teachings resulting in a greater chance of people be irrational.
The topic does not say "Religious people kill." If anything, it would be "Irrational people kill." The reason it says "Religious family kills grandpa." is this is an example of the failure of religion, but more importantly, it is worth noting that religious teachings tend to make humans slip into irrationality, something we want to avoid especially when it comes to life and death situations.
Last edited:
This is my point. Of all the human atrocities in history. If these religious people had been more rational, the evil might have been avoided. Or at least if these irrational people did not have inspiration from religious teachings, the evil might have been avoided.