|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
 
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:26 PM
Posts: 1,871,
Visits: 5,838
|
|
I don't believe that religion is a bad thing, or indeed, something it's possible to educate out of people, because it's a human need. I do believe that gullibility is a bad thing, and indeed, is something it's possible to educate out of people. I'd rather focus on educating people to recognize when they're being fed a line (e.g. "Go to war against the heathen / war to preserve Western Civilization / war for the sake of the tribe / war for the sake of the nation-state / war FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN!) than focus on convincing them that religion is a "bad thing".
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
I'm not convinced it is a human need myself, plenty of people cope very well without out. And surely it's the gullibility/being fed a line aspect of it that does make it bad?
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:26 PM
Posts: 1,871,
Visits: 5,838
|
|
I disagree. Most non-religious people either have a near-religious faith in something else (usually science or a particular political belief system), or else are depressed and/or troubled in some way. Non-religious people are in the minority anyway, worldwide.
Yes, the fact that people sometimes misuse religion is a Bad Thing. But you can misuse anything -- politics, sex, half-bricks, heroin. That doesn't mean we should ban everything. Unless you're Tony Blair of course, in which case banning everything is a logical extension of the position that the peons are too ignorant and irresponsible to be trusted with control over their own lives -- but I'd be surprised if you were arguing that too.
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Ian Sturrock (6/3/2007)
I disagree. Most non-religious people either have a near-religious faith in something else (usually science or a particular political belief system), or else are depressed and/or troubled in some way. Non-religious people are in the minority anyway, worldwide.I'm not sure them being in a minority changes the argument does it? As for "Near-religious faith" I think it all boils down to how you define faith etc. I think alot of people conflate passion for faith: Hence the whole "Dawkins believes in science" line that get's touted alot. Personally I think there is a difference between rational "faith" (my car will be where I left it) and irrational faith (it won't be there, angels in a dream told me it's been stolen). I'm not sure what counts as "religion" in the context you mean to allow for all the good happiness vibes that would seem to be apparent. From what you've said alot of it seems to be to do with social interaction more than anything else. Unless you're Tony Blair of course, in which case banning everything is a logical extension of the position that the peons are too ignorant and irresponsible to be trusted with control over their own lives -- but I'd be surprised if you were arguing that too. Never said we should ban it... just question it. Just like we should question everything, really. Except Dawkins, clearly, he is god.
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:26 PM
Posts: 1,871,
Visits: 5,838
|
|
You're not questioning it, though; you're repeating your position that Religion Is A Bad Thing. Questioning everything is great, but constructive criticism is generally more helpful than passionate attack.
Surely if the majority of humans feel the need for religion, it can be acknowledged as a human need? Most people feel the need for sex; just because some don't, doesn't mean it isn't a human need.
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
| I do question it though; just so far since my move to atheism I just haven't found a compelling enough argument to move back to theism. And while I appreciate the "It's good for you" argument, I don't think I could be duplicituous enough to follow a faith merely for health benefits when I feel that intellitually it's a dead end. I read stuff on a daily basis more or less about religion, and philosophy, just because I haven't moved my position doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. Not sure that logically follows to be honest. I think (and I may be wrong on this) but throughout history nearly all civilisations have kept slaves... Does that make slavery a basic human need? Or is a it a cultural thing we have grown out of? Much like we seem to be doing with religion... Speaking of history: would all those people sacrificed by the aztec and mayans (and other cultures) as a direct result of religion be considered a bad thing? Since Marios wanted examples...
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:00 PM
Posts: 2,006,
Visits: 8,543
|
|
Ian Sturrock (6/3/2007)
I disagree. Most non-religious people either have a near-religious faith in something else (usually science or a particular political belief system)
I think 'ideology' is the word you want here. Claiming not to have an ideology is synonymous with claiming not to be part of a culture (or to be in a state of rebellion against your atoms).
Tart (6/3/2007)
Speaking of history: would all those people sacrificed by the aztec and mayans (and other cultures) as a direct result of religion be considered a bad thing? Since Marios wanted examples...
How much do you know about Aztec and Mayan cultures?
I think you're stuck in a uniquely (?) Western mindset where religion is somehow assumed to be separate from some 'secular' concept of society. This is a historical peculiarity due to having had a separate long term religious leader living in the remains of the Western Roman empire, while retaining local secular leaders. I'm having trouble thinking of another culture with a similar definite split. Islam is very obvious example of a culture where there is very little distinction (hence it's misleading to translate 'sharia' as 'religious law' because there is/was no distinction between religous law and secular law).
Insight into Aztec and Mayan civilisations is considerably more occluded than into Islam, but nothing I've read suggested that they had a distinct 'religious culture' separate from their 'secular culture' that would allow people to say 'yes, see that human sacrifice, that's only part of this religious subculture'. In the same sense, you could say that religion is the prime cause of architecture - after all, when we excavate places, all the serious architecture seems to have some religious (i.e. non-functional) purpose - therefore, religion must have caused it.
Generally, speaking, from what we decent history we do have, religious values tend to develop from the cultural values in which the religion is founded (then possibly carrying those values around in various forms of evangelism), not the other way around (although, obviously, theists would be more inclined to agree with you, insofar as you're suggesting that religions drive values and changes in behaviour, rather than reflecting values and changes in behaviour).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Marios (6/3/2007)
i'm having trouble thinking of another culture with a similar definite split. Islam is very obvious example of a culture where there is very little distinction (hence it's misleading to translate 'sharia' as 'religious law' because there is/was no distinction between religous law and secular law).So if there is no distinction, you agree that the laws are based on religion, which proves my point. And as for Islam, so it must follow for aztec, mayan, and various other cultures. Or are you trying to pretend that religion had no bearing on them sacrificing thousands of people?
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
| | |