NationStates Jolt Archive

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

I think you underestimate the human ability to rationalize assholiness. *nod*

Accentuated perhaps, caused by no.

LG - not only have you jumped above me in posts, you have stolen my word as well - I must declare war on you I'm afraid.

*throws cleansing bucket of holy water*

Nope, disagree. Used as a excuse for, but not particularly caused by. Humans do well enough to screw themselves over on their own, trying to shift the blame doesn't do anything.

I disagree, imho Christ was probably the most radical anti-establishment figure in history, and I also see him as a key figure in the development of classless theory.

Accentuated perhaps, caused by no.

LG - not only have you jumped above me in posts, you have stolen my word as well - I must declare war on you I'm afraid.

*throws cleansing bucket of holy water*

:eek:

*ducks and vanishes in a cloud of cotton candy scented smoke*

There is correlation, but not causation.

:eek:

*ducks and vanishes in a cloud of cotton candy scented smoke*

:mad:

*turns on pre-prepared cotton candy scented smoke vacuum*

:mad:

*turns on pre-prepared cotton candy scented smoke vacuum*

*sprays the area with marshmallow gunfire and dives behind the couch*

((BTW, my wife bought me a rapid-fire marshmallow gun. She wishes she hadn't. :D ))

*sprays the area with marshmallow gunfire and dives behind the couch*

((BTW, my wife bought me a rapid-fire marshmallow gun. She wishes she hadn't. :D ))

Not a woman who thinks ahead, your wife?

I disagree, imho Christ was probably the most radical anti-establishment figure in history, and I also see him as a key figure in the development of classless theory.

EA: That accounts for one religion and one statement. How about Hinduism? Christianity was the fuel for the Crusades, as well...and has been used to "back up" many hate groups, such as the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church (WBC, infamous for 'godhatesfags.com').

In general: Maybe my wording wasn't succinct enough. I believe that religion is a major contributing factor to all of the things listed in my first post, and without theism, there would be significantly less of all of them.

Religion was first a tool to control large numbers of people (whether or not the ideologies behind religions is true or not, i.e. whether there is a higher power and all that goes with it, is debatable, however). It has since grown out of hand.

Not a woman who thinks ahead, your wife?

SHe thought she had all the possible mischiefs well scouted. ;)

*sprays the area with marshmallow gunfire and dives behind the couch*

((BTW, my wife bought me a rapid-fire marshmallow gun. She wishes she hadn't. :D ))

*Lures LG out with toasted marshmallows and hot chocolate

hides wedgiemaxomatic2000 behind back*

Clearly she didn't appreciate the full implications and sub-clauses of 'I do' when she said those words.

"Wait....I do what?"

*Lures LG out with toasted marshmallows and hot chocolate

hides wedgiemaxomatic2000 behind back*

Clearly she didn't appreciate the full implications and sub-clauses of 'I do' when she said those words.

"Wait....I do what?"

Again, she thought she had all the possible mischiefs well scouted. ;)

Mmm! Hot chocolate! ...

*eyes narrow* Wait a minute....

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

To discriminate religious people for above reason simply promotes more hatreds and discrimination rather than promoting peace.

As long as there are intolerance, there will be prejudice, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. People who are not concern about the basic human rights of others, such as the freedom of beliefs and religion, promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatmongering, and totalitarianism.

If a person isn't open minded enough to let others practice God as they see fit, what position is he/she in to talk about closed-mindedness? I think that whole "blame others for problems that had always existed since the beginning of man kind" is the root of conflicts and discrimination.

As long as there are intolerance, there will be prejudice, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. People who are not concern about the basic human rights of others, such as the freedom of beliefs and religion, promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatmongering, and totalitarianism.

If a person isn't open minded enough to let others practice God as they see fit, what position is he/she in to talk about closed-mindedness? I think that whole "blame others for problems that had always existed since the beginning of man kind" is the root of conflicts and discrimination.

Well said. As stated only moments before in my previous post, perhaps my words weren't quite well chosen.

I will say that I believe that members of organized religion fit the bill of the first quoted paragraph there, however. Using the most well-bashed example of Christianity, we consistently observe intolerance on almost every level - from other religions to basic lifestyle choices in varying degrees of prejudism. That's not to say that a hardcore atheist libertarian can't be prejudiced or intolerant, but my amendment is that organized religions are among the greatest contributors to those things.

I've no problem with allowing the various religions to continue as they will, and must, but I'll speak out against their malignant practices. Just because your holy book says you should think a certain way doesn't mean you're excused if that way of thinking is bigoted (to use an over-used term) or elitist. I don't blame religions entirely for the presence of these things, but they do perpetuate them.

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

Yes, I agree with it.
However, I do not assume that the moment religion disappears, prejudises, unfairness, social dischord, war, social hierarchy, elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism will magically disappear as well. They'll just need new excuses then.

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"I don't agree with your statement, but don't agree with any of your poll options either.

Certain religious beliefs and ways of organising, certainly do lend themselves so well to the things you've pointed out, that while it might be theoretically possible that they don't occur, I consider it a practical impossibility that they won't. I'm sure an exception would exist if it could, since there's been thousands of years for it to happen.

But all that means is that some religious beliefs are a fucking bad idea, and that some ways of organising around them, are fucking bad ideas. It neither means religion nor organised religion are bad per definition.

SHe thought she had all the possible mischiefs well scouted. ;)

Tis a grave mistake to underestimate a Goofball. A mistake that will likely end up with your covered in mud, somehow.

I've no problem with allowing the various religions to continue as they will...

I do, for this reason:

Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

EA: That accounts for one religion and one statement. How about Hinduism? Christianity was the fuel for the Crusades, as well...and has been used to "back up" many hate groups, such as the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church (WBC, infamous for 'godhatesfags.com').

In general: Maybe my wording wasn't succinct enough. I believe that religion is a major contributing factor to all of the things listed in my first post, and without theism, there would be significantly less of all of them.

Religion was first a tool to control large numbers of people (whether or not the ideologies behind religions is true or not, i.e. whether there is a higher power and all that goes with it, is debatable, however). It has since grown out of hand.
You're going about this all wrong, when Constantine converted and became the first Christian Emperor, instantly Christianity became the the state establishment Jesus was against. Formalism and dogmatism took over and the spiritual rather than the material aspects of Christ were emphasized. The difference between the OT and the NT is that in the NT Jesus is a material being, he is just like all of us, and even more symbolically he emphasized works and helping people above meaningless spiritualism not attached to action, Jesus opposed formal orthodoxies. When Jesus said 'the poor shall inherit the earth', he wasn't joking friend, when he drove the merchants out of the temple and told the disciples to distribute wealth based on need, he wasn't joking, Jesus was very radical - and if you like I'll bring up some quotes to prove this.

'Actual existing Christianity' these days is a direct result of right-wing reaction against his socialist ideals, the Catholic church and the broad 'Christian' Right is an attempt to distract from the true social gospel with 'non-issues' like anti- homosexuality and feminism. Jesus is a valuable addition to Marxism because he actually looked to the material conditions of the people and measured them ethically, Jesus in this materialistic way put forward the idea that spirituality wasn't some untouchable sacred thing on this earth, but that it is weighed according to good works to people.

Tis a grave mistake to underestimate a Goofball. A mistake that will likely end up with your covered in mud, somehow.

*holds up book entitled: '1001 Ways to Get Someone Covered in Mud' by Lunatic Goofballs*

:)

In general: Maybe my wording wasn't succinct enough. I believe that religion is a major contributing factor to all of the things listed in my first post, and without theism, there would be significantly less of all of them.
Still no. I don't think it is a major contributing factor beyond that any radical ism leads to all of the above. Again, it's the people who are using religion as their excuse, clearly they would find something else should religion not exist.

Religion works both ways; it can either be good or evil. Yes religion causes holy wars and the like, but it also encourages people to act decently and kind to each other. Because wars make the history books, and being kind to your neighbor doesn't, it's easy to stereotype religion as an oppressive, destructive institution. (Take a look at Catholic saints)

History is one long story about everything bad that's happened to humanity. Of course religion, amoung other things, won't appear in a good light.

Much of my family comes from the deep south, and they're devoutly conservative christian. Despite the intense dislike of christian "theocrats" on this forum, they're very decent, respectable people, who are, in fact, very tolerant towards other viewpoints. I sure as hell like them more than my other relatives.

*holds up book entitled: '1001 Ways to Get Someone Covered in Mud' by Lunatic Goofballs*

:)

Can I have a free signed copy?
>.>
<.<

<snip>
'Actual existing Christianity' these days is a direct result of right-wing reaction against his socialist ideals, the Catholic church and the broad 'Christian' Right is an attempt to distract from the true social gospel with 'non-issues' like anti- homosexuality and feminism.

Religion, rather than spirituality, is exactly what I am talking about. Thus you agree with me? =P I'm talking about the teachings of your local Southern Baptist preacher, not the teachings of Jesus.

I disagree, imho Christ was probably the most radical anti-establishment figure in history, and I also see him as a key figure in the development of classless theory.

To quote some famous dude I can't remember the name of, "since when did Christians follow the teachings of Christ?"

Well said. As stated only moments before in my previous post, perhaps my words weren't quite well chosen.

I will say that I believe that members of organized religion fit the bill of the first quoted paragraph there, however. Using the most well-bashed example of Christianity, we consistently observe intolerance on almost every level - from other religions to basic lifestyle choices in varying degrees of prejudism. That's not to say that a hardcore atheist libertarian can't be prejudiced or intolerant, but my amendment is that organized religions are among the greatest contributors to those things.

I've no problem with allowing the various religions to continue as they will, and must, but I'll speak out against their malignant practices. Just because your holy book says you should think a certain way doesn't mean you're excused if that way of thinking is bigoted (to use an over-used term) or elitist. I don't blame religions entirely for the presence of these things, but they do perpetuate them.

I would not deny that any religion or ideas can be use as a way to promote and perpetuate discrimination, but I would not go as far as to claim religion is the cause. It would have been more legitimate have the post been pointing toward an action rather than a group as big as Christianity, because it will sound pretty unrealistic to claim something like the salvation army to be promoting unfairness and elitism.

Even if two people are reading the same book, they don't necessary interpret it the same way. A book is only a book, it can't promote any moral standpoint by itself. Even among Christianity there are many contradiction among each other as to how the bible should be interpreted. Christians groups today varies greatly from being extreme liberals to extreme conservatives.

That being said, if we want to talk about how something like the absence programs are promoting sexism and discrimination, then certainly it will make a lot more sense.

Religion works both ways; it can either be good or evil. Yes religion causes holy wars and the like, but it also encourages people to act decently and kind to each other. Because wars make the history books, and being kind to your neighbor doesn't, it's easy to stereotype religion as an oppressive, destructive institution. (Take a look at Catholic saints)

History is one long story about everything bad that's happened to humanity. Of course religion, amoung other things, won't appear in a good light.

Much of my family comes from the deep south, and they're devoutly conservative christian. Despite the intense dislike of christian "theocrats" on this forum, they're very decent, respectable people, who are, in fact, very tolerant towards other viewpoints. I sure as hell like them more than my other relatives.


I remember a quote that went something like this :

Everybody can be good or bad. But to make a good man a sinner, that takes religion.

Can I have a free signed copy?
>.>
<.<

The instructions for getting a free copy are covered in Way #428 - it results in you being covered in mud.

Still no. I don't think it is a major contributing factor beyond that any radical ism leads to all of the above. Again, it's the people who are using religion as their excuse, clearly they would find something else should religion not exist.
That's taking religion out of the context of a world that already has it. Imagine the concept of theism being gone, and what do you have left? Secular teachings are based only on observed fact, and data does not lead to the above stated.

Much of my family comes from the deep south, and they're devoutly conservative christian. Despite the intense dislike of christian "theocrats" on this forum, they're very decent, respectable people, who are, in fact, very tolerant towards other viewpoints. I sure as hell like them more than my other relatives.

Both parents hail from Arkansas, Methodist on my mother's side and Baptist on my father's. My mom is quite tolerant (one of my brothers is openly gay, so they routinely swap gay jokes when they chat on the phone), but my dad isn't. I don't take them to be the final word on whether or not their faiths are good or bad in any way, shape, or form.

History is one long story about everything bad that's happened to humanity. Of course religion, amoung other things, won't appear in a good light.
Despite the obvious implication here, history tells of great things being done in the same flat, neutral tone as the travesties that have befallen the race.

I would not deny that any religion or ideas can be use as a way to promote and perpetuate discrimination, but I would not go as far as to claim religion is the cause. It would have been more legitimate have the post been pointing toward an action rather than a group as big as Christianity, because it will sound pretty unrealistic to claim something like the salvation army to be promoting unfairness and elitism.
Point taken. My point, though, is that the religion itself promotes and perpetuates draconic ideologies leading to prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy.

I would like to stress at this point, before someone reads two lines of the thread and goes into a berserker state, that Christianity is not the focus or even the highlight of my statement. In fact, Hinduism is probably the one religion that fits the most of the listed characteristics that I am saying religion promotes.

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.
If you want my opinion, Religion (as in community of belief) is just one example of a broader principle to which many of your things can be attributed. It is an instance of cultural tribalism; the separation of "us" from "them" according to shared ideals. As long as people choose to segregate themselves in order to avoid those who disagree with us, all of those social mishaps will continue to happen.

Can I have a free signed copy?
>.>
<.<


The instructions for getting a free copy are covered in Way #428 - it results in you being covered in mud.

Dammit! :mad:

Now we're even. :p

That's taking religion out of the context of a world that already has it. Imagine the concept of theism being gone, and what do you have left? Secular teachings are based only on observed fact, and data does not lead to the above stated.
Sure, and all those people who died in the Great Leap Forward in secular China didn't actually die. :rolleyes:

ANYTHING can be used to justify hatred, intolerance, and violence, even secular teachings. Like I said, it's isms that are dangerous when taken to extremes and I can keep on going with one secular example after another if you so like.

Religion is not the cause of these things, people are. People fought long before they had organised religion. Take away that, and they will find another excuse to fight. Religion can in some ways be a social tool. It can be used to get a people to fight and destroy others, or it can be used to get them to achieve some beautiful things. The end it achieves is up to the leader, not the tool.

Christianity as an example:
* The crusades
* The inquisition
* The Sistine chapel
* The hanging church
* Sofia church (Istanbul)

Christianity as an example:
* The crusades
* The inquisition
* The Sistine chapel
* The hanging church
* Sofia church (Istanbul)

Is it just me, or is it a constanct source of sadness and disappointment having to realise again and again how many people don't know how to spell Sixtine Chapel? Or Hagia Sophia, for that matter?

Is it just me, or is it a constanct source of sadness and disappointment having to realise again and again how many people don't know how to spell Sixtine Chapel? Or Hagia Sophia, for that matter?
Oh you say tomato... ;)

Is it just me, or is it a constanct source of sadness and disappointment having to realise again and again how many people don't know how to spell Sixtine Chapel? Or Hagia Sophia, for that matter?

I always thought it was 'Sistine'. :(

Sad but true, on my part. *hands up*. But what of the point made in the debate?

Points made in debates kill puppies. Please think of the puppies. :(

Sad but true, on my part. *hands up*. But what of the point made in the debate?

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

The only thing I don't agree with is that religion promotes totalitarianism. That can come with a position of power more than anything else. I agree with everything else you say, though I would go further and say that with religion often comes exclusion and sins based on characterisics that are beyond a person's control - ie: homosexuality.

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

Your poll sucks. I disagree with the statement quite earnestly, but I don't believe religion is the saving grace of the world.

Social hierarchy, discord, war and unfairness all exist in the natural world in the absence of religion.

We will always have a reason for hating and killing each other.

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

Nope I disagree. As long as there are differences (and there will always be) then the capacity for all sorts of shenanigans based on these differences will always be there.

Nationalism, football, money, sex, power, and religion, can all be used to justify attacks from one camp to another.

Why say specifically that only religion can cause strife?

In general: Maybe my wording wasn't succinct enough. I believe that religion is a major contributing factor to all of the things listed in my first post, and without theism, there would be significantly less of all of them.

Granted that this is true, but then the same can be said about football. I read today and yesterday about footie riots in Italy, it is true to say that if there was no footie, I would not have read about some fan being shot by riot police.



Religion was first a tool to control large numbers of people (whether or not the ideologies behind religions is true or not, i.e. whether there is a higher power and all that goes with it, is debatable, however). It has since grown out of hand.

I keep being told this, can you produce what evidence you may have to help me see this as being correct?

I do, for this reason:

What rubbish. People can and do change their beliefs everyday. Should we then ban a way of thought because some people cannot show a modicum of intellectual honesty?

Isn't that like sinking down to the lowest common demnoinator and forcing all to be at that level?

The idea that religion causes social hierarchy is just silly. The vast majority of social animals have hierarchies in their groups.

Religion is an excuse for bad behavior, not the cause of it.

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

i completely disagree.

prejudice, unfairness, social discord, war, social hierarchy, elitism, closemindedness, hate mongering and totalitarianism are inherent in the human brain.

religion sometimes works against those things and sometimes enforces them but without religion (religious beliefs are also a function of the human brain so its silly to posit a religion free world) they would all still exist.

**edit**

ok so i completely agree. there will never be a time without either religion or the list of undesirable human traits so as long as religion exists they will exist. its just not a causal relationship

The idea that religion causes social hierarchy is just silly. The vast majority of social animals have hierarchies in their groups.But if taken as a generalization, it is correct. The only problem with that, is that while some 1,500 fairly distinct religions are practised around the world, only 5 of them are practised by a significant number of human beings. Which of course means the generalization only says something about those 5 religions, and not about religion as a concept.

Even then, falsification of the OP's rather absolutist claim is as easy as mentioning Leo Tolstoy.

EDIT:Religion is an excuse for bad behavior, not the cause of it.I don't quite see how you can say that without at least moving the goalposts, but what the hell.. What is the cause?

What rubbish. People can and do change their beliefs everyday. Should we then ban a way of thought because some people cannot show a modicum of intellectual honesty?

Isn't that like sinking down to the lowest common demnoinator and forcing all to be at that level?

Jeez, why would you assume people always want to ban any form of behaviour they don't really agree with?

I honestly don't think he proposed a ban on belief. The way I understand it, he'd be happy to see ideas promoted in the way blind faith is promoted today. It's often presented as a virtue in and off itself, beliving without or even in spite of proof. People who stop believing or change their beliefs don't really get the hugs-and-cookies treatment by their social environment, I know cause I've been there.
I think if we swapped blind belief for ideas that can be changed when tested and found wrong, we'd be much better off spiritually.

But as someone said, most of religion isn't about spirituality, it's a form of social grouping, creating "us" and "them".

Jeez, why would you assume people always want to ban any form of behaviour they don't really agree with?

Heh Jeez does nobody realise that when a sentance ends with one of these ? It means a question has been asked, and not that a statement has been made. Questions are quite often asked when trying to get a clearer picture of a persons stance.


I honestly don't think he proposed a ban on belief. The way I understand it, he'd be happy to see ideas promoted in the way blind faith is promoted today. It's often presented as a virtue in and off itself, beliving without or even in spite of proof. People who stop believing or change their beliefs don't really get the hugs-and-cookies treatment by their social environment, I know cause I've been there.
I think if we swapped blind belief for ideas that can be changed when tested and found wrong, we'd be much better off spiritually.

I don't know what, if anything, he was proposing, but I certainly disagree with the idea that a belief can't be changed and is in some way unmaluable. In fact the question I asked was relevant to this disagreement; I want to know if he feels that a person can change ideas and not beliefs, then does he also believe that those humans who do have maluable beliefs should be forced into sinking to the mental practices of those that don't?

Remember also that I ask this in the light of his comment about his belief in not letting people live their religious lives.




But as someone said, most of religion isn't about spirituality, it's a form of social grouping, creating "us" and "them".

Again I keep hearing this, but never have I seen one shred of evidence to back it up, do you have some?

I don't know what, if anything, he was proposing, but I certainly disagree with the idea that a belief can't be changed and is in some way unmaluable. In fact the question I asked was relevant to this disagreement; I want to know if he feels that a person can change ideas and not beliefs, then does he also believe that those humans who do have maluable beliefs should be forced into sinking to the mental practices of those that don't?

Remember also that I ask this in the light of his comment about his belief in not letting people live their religious lives.

I think what he was getting at is that people often seem loath to change beliefs. I don't have any data or research on this, so please regard this simply as my personal opinion based on observation.
See, I've been fascinated by the fact that some people seem to have a strong need for belief, and others simply don't, so I've spent a while trying to find out what belief does for people. What are the benefits?
And the benefits of "blind faith" seem to be a certain comfort and peace of mind. Having to question yourself and your beliefs isn't something people in general take to, and finding your beliefs wrong is not a pleasurable experience for most.

Now, ideas, they change rapidly and easily. Just look at fashion, as an example. People think pink looks great today, and will think it's too girly and garish tomorrow.
People used to think our solar system had 4 planets, then 9, and now 8. And they were fairly happy with all of these numbers.
People used to think that 64MB should be enough capacity for everyone... and changed their mind.

Ideas are not structured systems, they float. Beliefs are structured. That doesn't mean they can't change, but it means a lot more effort, work, and uncomfortableness.



Again I keep hearing this, but never have I seen one shred of evidence to back it up, do you have some?

Romans against Christians, Christians against Pagans, Western Christianity against Eastern Christianity, Christians against Muslism, Catholics against all sorts of heretics, Protestants against Catholics, Protestants against Puritans... and that's just focusing on Christian history, really ;)

Religion codifies, and that codification is hard to change, especially when it's something an entire society is based upon.

It's against Muslim belief to eat pork. Why? What the hell is that about? It's an example of a belief that doesn't change simply because it's a belief over any form of rational thought.

There are thousand of religious rules, regardless of religion, that remain simply because they are religious in nature - and we can't argue with that can we?

I believe in the propogation of ideas because allowing all form of ideas allows for change, for progress.

Sure, beliefs can change, but that is often more indicative of the plain stupidity of belief as opposed to anything inherent in belief itself.

That's roughly my idea, I may change it given any pointing to illogical aspects of what I say - because it's not my belief that I'll adhere to in the face of all logic.

*holds up book entitled: '1001 Ways to Get Someone Covered in Mud' by Lunatic Goofballs*

:)



Shouldn't that be '1001 Ways to Get Someone Covered in Mud by Lunatic Goofballs' by Lunatic Goofballs?
:p

It's against Muslim belief to eat pork. Why? What the hell is that about? It's an example of a belief that doesn't change simply because it's a belief over any form of rational thought.


At the time that these rules were being codified, people very often got sick from eating pork.

The folks who tended to notice such things were the wise men, the leaders, the ones who had access to more data. In a primitive society, what is the best way to pass on rules about health and safety? Especially to people who have pigs and no other meat? Couch them in religion. Everybody does what God says, so if the religious leaders say "God says don't eat pork" then lots of people don't die from eating pork.

There are thousand of religious rules, regardless of religion, that remain simply because they are religious in nature - and we can't argue with that can we?

Unfortunately, once God has said something, the process of changing that rule, even if the circumstances change (we now know that better cooking prevents people from getting sick) is a long and arduous one. The original reasoning gets lost along the way, and only the rule itself remains... and that is hard to dislodge.


Sure, beliefs can change, but that is often more indicative of the plain stupidity of belief as opposed to anything inherent in belief itself.

Given that the kosher laws were, at the time, literally life savers, the argument that they were somehow stupid is not particularly just. That they have maintained might be argued unnecessary, but again, not stupid. If we were to be plunged back into the dark ages through some global catastrophe, people who are still following kosher laws (even if they don't remember the reasons those restrictions were first placed) are likely to be healthier than those who are not.

Which is not to say that ALL religious rules follow this model. But the trick is to look back at the likely original justification for the rules. Some may make no sense now, but in context, they may well have a basis in the protection of the tribe, the health of the people, the unification of the group... whatever.

The thing to do (and it is often very difficult) is to sort that out and set aside the rules which are no longer useful, and especially the ones which are now actively harmful.

I think what he was getting at is that people often seem loath to change beliefs. I don't have any data or research on this, so please regard this simply as my personal opinion based on observation.
See, I've been fascinated by the fact that some people seem to have a strong need for belief, and others simply don't, so I've spent a while trying to find out what belief does for people. What are the benefits?

Yeah I agree that beliefs are harder to change than 'ideas' but not impossible.


And the benefits of "blind faith" seem to be a certain comfort and peace of mind. Having to question yourself and your beliefs isn't something people in general take to, and finding your beliefs wrong is not a pleasurable experience for most.

People do change their beliefs, and people also question their beliefs, so I can't agree that people in general do not take to questioning their beliefs. It was a remark like this one that prompted my questioning about the lowest common denominator, intellectual honesty and pushing all people(who believe) into this label. I don't think it correct and it is certainly not helpfull.


Now, ideas, they change rapidly and easily. Just look at fashion, as an example. People think pink looks great today, and will think it's too girly and garish tomorrow.
People used to think our solar system had 4 planets, then 9, and now 8. And they were fairly happy with all of these numbers.
People used to think that 64MB should be enough capacity for everyone... and changed their mind.

Heh and people used to think that Jesus was the Abrahamic God's last messenger, then along come Mohamed. Similarly, with the Bhudda, and the Sikh Guru's, are you really trying to suggest that religion is stagnant as doesn't ever change?


Ideas are not structured systems, they float. Beliefs are structured. That doesn't mean they can't change, but it means a lot more effort, work, and uncomfortableness.

It seems to me that a belief is nowt more than a well thought out idea, and both are susceptible to change.



Romans against Christians, Christians against Pagans, Western Christianity against Eastern Christianity, Christians against Muslism, Catholics against all sorts of heretics, Protestants against Catholics, Protestants against Puritans... and that's just focusing on Christian history, really ;)

Heh but this is just a list of religion against religion and does not answer the question. Can you show me anything to back up this claim that religion is meant to be a social control mechanism?

At the time that these rules were being codified, people very often got sick from eating pork.

The folks who tended to notice such things were the wise men, the leaders, the ones who had access to more data. In a primitive society, what is the best way to pass on rules about health and safety? Especially to people who have pigs and no other meat? Couch them in religion. Everybody does what God says, so if the religious leaders say "God says don't eat pork" then lots of people don't die from eating pork.



Unfortunately, once God has said something, the process of changing that rule, even if the circumstances change (we now know that better cooking prevents people from getting sick) is a long and arduous one. The original reasoning gets lost along the way, and only the rule itself remains... and that is hard to dislodge.


Given that the kosher laws were, at the time, literally life savers, the argument that they were somehow stupid is not particularly just. That they have maintained might be argued unnecessary, but again, not stupid. If we were to be plunged back into the dark ages through some global catastrophe, people who are still following kosher laws (even if they don't remember the reasons those restrictions were first placed) are likely to be healthier than those who are not.

Which is not to say that ALL religious rules follow this model. But the trick is to look back at the likely original justification for the rules. Some may make no sense now, but in context, they may well have a basis in the protection of the tribe, the health of the people, the unification of the group... whatever.

The thing to do (and it is often very difficult) is to sort that out and set aside the rules which are no longer useful, and especially the ones which are now actively harmful.


I think you've just perfectly illuminated why ideas are preferable to beliefs.
The idea that pork is bad for you could be updated without problems in societies that hadn't turned it into a belief.

EDIT:I don't quite see how you can say that without at least moving the goalposts, but what the hell.. What is the cause?

The usual. Anything ranging from carelessness to deliberate maliciousness. Motives can range from desire to obtain wealth to revenge for perceived wrongs.

Just like religion doesn't create morality, religion doesn't create immorality or immoral behavior. Religion may condone, support, or encourage bad behavior, but only because the people who have made the religion want it to do so.

We see this all the time. Some badly-behaved asshole switches to a more radical church because that church is prepared to tell him that God is totally on board with blowing things up or killing heretics or whatever the badly-behaved asshole has decided he wants to do. He's looking for an excuse to act like a jackass, and he'll pick whichever religion provides the excuse he wants.

We also see this, more commonly, in how people love to cherry-pick passages from religious texts. People who want to hate on fags will find two or three passages that seem to possibly indicate that God hates fags. People who want to hate women can find passages for that. People who hate blacks find passages for that. Religion is just the enabler.

lol inturnet atheists

Yeah I agree that beliefs are harder to change than 'ideas' but not impossible.

Nobody said it was impossible.
But I'd venture a guess that more people have died for something they believed in than for an idea they had.


People do change their beliefs, and people also question their beliefs, so I can't agree that people in general do not take to questioning their beliefs. It was a remark like this one that prompted my questioning about the lowest common denominator, intellectual honesty and pushing all people(who believe) into this label. I don't think it correct and it is certainly not helpfull.


Again, I wasn't making an absolute statement. Of course beliefs change. They just take a lot longer, are more uncomfortable to change, and changing them ususally comes with some form of social stigma. Ask any Saudi who secretly believes Buddah was right after all... ;)


Heh and people used to think that Jesus was the Abrahamic God's last messenger, then along come Mohamed. Similarly, with the Bhudda, and the Sikh Guru's, are you really trying to suggest that religion is stagnant as doesn't ever change?

And the moment they changed beliefs, they turned onto the others. Remember the scene in the life of Brian where Brian's followers kill the hermit for attacking Brian (after Brian had stepped on his foot and endangered his juniper bushes)?
How many people would turn on someone who prefers purple when pink is in fashion? How many were killed when Bill Gates said 64MB should be enough for everyone and was proven wrong?


It seems to me that a belief is nowt more than a well thought out idea, and both are susceptible to change.

Yes, you could say that. An idea would be there first, it would then get formulated and propagated as a belief, and then structured and bound as defined religion.
Each stage makes change a little more difficult.


Heh but this is just a list of religion against religion and does not answer the question. Can you show me anything to back up this claim that religion is meant to be a social control mechanism?

Ah, but I never said that this is what it's MEANT to do. I said this is what it turned out to work best as.
Don't imply a desinger, religions follow Darwinian rules in that respect ;)

Point taken. My point, though, is that the religion itself promotes and perpetuates draconic ideologies leading to prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy.

I would like to stress at this point, before someone reads two lines of the thread and goes into a berserker state, that Christianity is not the focus or even the highlight of my statement. In fact, Hinduism is probably the one religion that fits the most of the listed characteristics that I am saying religion promotes.

But wouldn't over generalizing also cause prejudices and discrimination. When anyone reads something like "religion cause harms", it is no surprise that it will extend to Christianity or any other religion as well. Hatred is inevitable when someone sense that their believe have been target for something they are not.

Also, by claiming that religion cause war, wouldn't that be "unfair" to all those people who use religion as a tool to promote peace and social harmony? Because a causation literally means

if person A is [religious], there's a higher risk that he/she will be [insert harms here]

Which I find very problematic, just try replacing religious with a skin color or gender and you see why it gets people all fire up.

I will still stick to my first response, intolerance is the root behind discrimination. This can be promoted through religion, nationalism, and culture, to things like democracy, human right, equality, freedom, liberty, etc. And I would not charge a gun for murder over the guy who fires it.

*sprays the area with marshmallow gunfire and dives behind the couch*

((BTW, my wife bought me a rapid-fire marshmallow gun. She wishes she hadn't. :D ))

... where can I get one!

Because God (or rather, the lack of God) knows we haven't had enough of 'em already! =D

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.

Refutation? Also, in case it wasn't quite clear, the poll question is: "Do you agree with the statement I made beginning with 'As long ...'?"

Well, I praise religion, but for untraditional reasons. Machiavelli said: "There is no surer sign of the decline of a nation, then to see divine worship neglected."

But he praised Roman paganism, and said "the closer you are to the Catholic church, the farther you are from God."

So basically I support it as a unifier, but not as a means to appease Gilfig. Like Machiavelli said, it motivates well.

As long as there is religion, there is going to be prejudism, unfairness, social dischord, war, and a social hierarchy. Religion promotes elitism, closed-mindedness, hatemongering, and totalitarianism.
As long as there is religion? How about as long as there are people? Thats more accurate.

Prejudice is not caused by religion. No matter what the state of spiritual affairs are, only people are prejudiced. No religion itself is prejudiced, only the people; they extend these powerful messages to condone their views and ideas.

Unfairness is determined by the person, and so is fairness. Fortunately, its what the people believe and in most cases its not instituted in the justice system (when it is, it is of course unfair, because you cannot apply religion to politics. See, religion relies on a very voluntary system to work, nowadays.). Otherwise, it might be considered unfair, but its only unfair if you think it is. Religion doesn't have enough political power over someone to negatively influence them without actually converting them.

I'm afraid organized religion can do nothing to promote social discord, due to the structured nature and frowning upon of such behavior as 'rioting', 'murder', 'killing', and 'cheating', and such. It does not condone anti-establishment sentiments. This I am sure of... otherwise no nation would allow its existence, regardless of its regard to 'freedom of religion'. If that freedom is causing harm to the state, it stops being a belief and begins being a threat.

War is started by humans, and there has been no religiously justified war. They've happened, yes, and they may or may not have been inevitable, but the concept of war evokes a powerful message, and (at least by Christianity) cannot be actually justified by faith.

Social hierarchy is established by society and not by religion. It is easy to enforce with religion, but religion is not the root cause of it. Hinduism, however, may perhaps fit... but not religion as I know it.

Elitism is only caused by people, not by religion. Come on... elitism?

Closed mindedness is a state of mind, and not indoctrinated, but rather the result of thinking that you are always right and are never exposed to those who think differently. In fact, there is a lot of closed mindedness, especially in politics.

Hatemongering is done by zealots who will monger hate about anything, but may have found the outlet with religion.

Totalitarianism is instituted by those who want to rule at the expense of others. As for religion causing it? Christian anarchists fail to see the totalitarian aspects of Christianity.

I do realize that Christianity is not the subject, but its the religion I know best, and to make a statement such as 'Religion causes _____' Christianity is naturally included.