2009-09-18, 14:37 | Link #1841 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-09-18, 14:57 | Link #1842 | |
Senior Guest
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Athens (GMT+2)
Age: 35
|
Religion is most certainly not a waste of time for anyone. If you're caught by surprise, you could believe in anything and submit to a way of life you would normally refuse to follow. If you know enough, you can enrich your life with customs, manners and general knowledge. Maths are useful in their own way too...
Quote:
|
|
2009-09-18, 15:00 | Link #1843 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Teaching a course in comparative religion (major religions) isn't a bad idea if taught from a secular viewpoint. As the Jesuits say, you can't have a discussion if you don't even know the framework your conversation mate works with. However, such a course couldn't possibly take up more than a semester or year. There's enough room in the somewhat wasteful curriculum to add that in with a government civics semester. Of course, I don't think anyone should get out of high school without 4 years of math and 2 years of a foreign language either.... it might make those diplomas worth a bit more than squat in the marketplace. When I began to find Christianity too inconsistent for my view of reality, I specifically went on a background quest to understand all the world's major (and minor religions). Many of them turned out to be equally inconsistent, aggressive, divisive, etc. One of the first classes I took in college was a 300 level comparative religion course that gave me a good grounding to proceed with. My science/physics background kept leading me back to Buddhism though a fair amount of any school outside of Zen Buddhism incorporates a lot of previous local religions in areas Buddhism moves into (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism). Out of all the older religions I've looked into, folk Shinto has a fairly entertaining metaphorically colorful way of viewing the world. My own keltic/norse ancestry is also entertaining but very morose and dark (which might make sense if you spend part of the year in the dim and dark). If you view religion/spirituality as a tool/filter with which to view and interact with the world, it can be quite helpful. If you have this One True Way mentality and insist on forcing on others ("convert or die", "even if you don't convert, you can't violate our rules") -- lets just say we're not going to get along well
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2009-09-18 at 15:11. |
|
2009-09-18, 15:35 | Link #1844 | ||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2009-09-18, 17:00 | Link #1846 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
A lot of art and science, actually. It provided a pretext to pool resources for enterprises of no immediate uses.
Of course, it did mean some more peasants starved. Can't make an omelet without killing a few peons. And I like to think we don't need that pretext, any more. (Now, if religion supported space and biotech research, I might change my mind about the whole thing...) |
2009-09-18, 17:15 | Link #1849 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Tribal/folk/pantheon/animism religions give a tribe/village a bond and a way to understand the world around them (not that they can't be manipulated by the group leaders). State religions are usually primarily tools of control. The Roman Empire is a fine example of that -- including taking a small cult with useful attributes, making it the state religion, and declaring a certain interpretation of its beliefs as "law". Then they went out to snuff any competing religions and used it as control tool during their expansion even long after the original "empire" had fractured.
There's nothing that beats taking what might have initially been a good idea and then warping it into a tool of control and manipulation, especially for aggressive groups. Another example: Shinto was violated in this way during the Japanese Imperial aggression period - taking what was a localized collection of folk beliefs and stringing them together to justify the Emperor icon for purposes of expansion and control. (yeah, there's much more to it -- but I'm writing a post, not a doctoral thesis.)
__________________
|
2009-09-18, 18:34 | Link #1850 |
Banned
|
Even monarchs needed a higher force to excuse their misbehavior. Like the crusades for example. It wasn't about conquering more land. It was God who demanded it. Or the 10 comandments. It wasn't Moses, a simple man who wrote them in order to set some rules for his people. It was God.
|
2009-09-18, 20:11 | Link #1851 | ||
eyewitness
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-09-18, 21:01 | Link #1852 | ||
The Insidious
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Immaterium
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-09-18, 22:08 | Link #1853 | ||||||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For what it's worth, I do not believe that evangelists and other religious missionaries make most of their conversions by going door to door, or shouting in the street. Many charity and support groups (particularly to prisons) are actually backed and run by religious groups. When people are in need, or when they are at their most vulnerable, they are also the easiest to instill with a certain mindset or belief. Quote:
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods You're reading the "and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods" as being "and [always] favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods." That last bit isn't absolutely needed for something to fit the definition, but the first part (that I put into bold) is always a part of the definition. I'm not going to argue over definitions, though - read it as you will. That was just an answer to your question of why some people termed it "militant atheism." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From what I remember of Chinese history, the Emperor ruled with the Mandate of Heaven. That may not have referred to a single deity, nor did it connect with any centralized (or well-established) religion, but I'd argue that it's most certainly close enough.
__________________
|
||||||||
2009-09-18, 22:22 | Link #1854 | |
Knowledge is the solution
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 39
|
Quote:
Now, on a more serious note, the most basic Abrahamic values have remained valid for all this millenia because they represent the most basic rules any society must follow in order not to self destruct. Societies that didn't keep heed to these principles to a reasonable degree didn't survive. It isn't anything complicated there. Our modern laws may have gotten overcomplicated with time, but the basic principles behind the most important laws remain the same.
__________________
|
|
2009-09-18, 22:43 | Link #1855 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Quote:
Quote:
When religious people try to spread their beliefs, you people say, "Oh, that's just what they do." When atheists write books to try to spread their beliefs, you people say, "ZOMG MILITANT ATHEISTS!" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
2009-09-19, 00:26 | Link #1856 | |
The Insidious
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Immaterium
|
Quote:
Think about this. If for example our world right now had no religion. I believe our conflicts would only be limited to conquest wars as what had been happening in the ages past. No one would kill an entire civilization since the god they are worshiping are blasphemous. Now you would say religion is what gave us morales etc etc That without religion we would be killing ourselves and everybody else. then what about your evolved brain? sure we still have animalistic behaviours left from our transition into a modern humanoid species. I believe humans could function well, without religion. Though I cant deny religion's influence regarding our behavior. But, what I am only saying is. We can stand on our own and be civilized if we wanted to. Religion has its ups and downs. Religion surely helped us in our lives. But the "side effects" of it outweighs everything good it has done. Caused meaningless deaths. etc etc I still have a religion. But I dont devote myself to the point that I would shun every muslim I see or force my mates to believe in my religion as the only thing that is worth believing in. I hope many religious zealots out there could be like that someday. A good substitute of totally having no religion.
__________________
|
|
2009-09-19, 01:11 | Link #1857 |
Banned
|
^ Blahblahblah. Religion was most of the times an excuse for people to do what they would do anyway. God(s) is a fine quick explaination / justification for everything. With a few lines everything was excused.
For example, proverbs like "only God knows" or "the Lord moves in mysterious ways" actually translate too "I have no idea what is going on; just shut up and follow the rest". Yet, saying it like that gives you more credit that a "I don't know". It's like magic versus science. You need to explain how a disruptor fires anti-matter without dissolving itself or causing a nuclear explosion just by passing through the air if you want to make it seem believable. You don't need to explain anything when a wizard casts a disintegrade spell. He just does. |
2009-09-19, 02:27 | Link #1858 |
~Warrior Chef~
|
Well I'm technically Catholic but hardly a steady practitioner. I think as a whole the heads of almost all organized religions have lost their way. Anymore it's all about telling people how they have to run their lives and how everyone else is wrong. To me it should be about offering guidance and ways to improve yourself and live as a decent person. I mean IMO it's our actions that define us and if there is a God (whatever you call him) I would have to think his ultimate judgment of us is not based on who we sleep with, how we worship, or anything of that nature. But rather did we lead a good life. Did we chose to be kind or harmful to others. As far as I am concerned there is no "right" religion, it's all about what fits you individually best. Plus as long as a religion does not preach harm onto others or take away people's rights and freedoms I don't see it as being bad either. Plus remember "religion" has never done anything wrong. It's people who do wrong and twist religion (whichever specific one it is) and it's teachings to fit their purposes.
__________________
|
2009-09-19, 03:48 | Link #1859 | |
The Insidious
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Immaterium
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
Thread Tools | |
|
|