Owning the young mind

[August]

Again lots and lots of words describing who God may be and in what form he may take but nothing on how the entirety of the human race will get along without a social institution as pervasive and all encompassing as religion.

[Skybird]

Ach August, try to blow away that cloud above your head that hinders you to see that the sun you asked for to shine, already shines...


I would argue that Buddhism and mysticism are not even "religions". Some profane powerpoliticians turn them into that, yes - forming cults where then the few priests have power over the many people, but that is not what Jesus or Buddha have taught or authorized.



Your answer has been given earlier, and several times. You do not need religious cult to get a humane moral code. Granted, you can also get an in humane moral code without relgion: but then you also get that with relgions at times. One could even argue that the reason to form a religion is explicitly that to destroy and overcome an earlier moral code. That can work both ways: a humane face of religion taming a barbaric morale - or a religion turning draconic to overcome a man-loving, friendly morale to institutionlise it sown claim for power.


Open your eyes, see the sun, enjoy what is laid out before you. This hairsplitting tit-for-tat with me serves you nothing.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Open your eyes, see the sun, enjoy what is laid out before you. This hairsplitting tit-for-tat with me serves you nothing.

Hair splitting? No Skybird that would assume I am talking just to you and that is not the case. I have not seen an answer to my concern from you or anyone else. You say religion is not needed but that's at best a theory and one unlikely to gain much traction in a majority of the world.


For the last time we're not talking about you, or me, or even anyone here necessarily but rather the billions of religious people who you are offering nothing but nebulous utopian visions in exchange for an extensive social system they have relied upon for thousands of years.

[Skybird]

You can read that I said earlier in this thread that religion might have an important function to keep man's psyche in balance and keeping his self-esteem intact - and still you claim in the above reply of yours that

You say religion is not needed.

I stopped there, I simply suddenly lost any further interest.

[Dowly]

Gotta keep those goalposts moving.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe it'd be like the difference between a lone car crash and a multi car pile up. All I am saying is that eliminating religion means removing the good it does along with the bad and nobody, including you, knows the consequences of such a massive disruption to human society.

First, I'd like to point out that I don't believe in "getting rid of" religion. It's not anybody's place to try to control what anybody else thinks. I do think that governments, whose purpose it is to prevent us from harming each other, should be controlled by any external organization. My comment was directed toward yours concerning

a bloody resurgence as religions role is filled by radical cults all fighting for dominance.

It's my observation that religious history has been exactly that - radical cults fighting for dominance. You can talk about good influences all you like, but I see the Holy Wars of the Reformation as nothing more than disparate groups killing each other simply because the "other guys" believe in the "wrong" God. I see no difference between that and what you described.

Originally Posted by August

Like I said people come up with all kinds of reasons why religion is bad but nothing about what will replace the human need for it. That scares me because if we just leave it to chance it we could easily end up worse off.

On the other hand, a non-believer might say that it already has been left to chance, and that you are correct, we are worse off. As for myself, I don't care who believes what, as long as they don't tell me what I have to believe.

Originally Posted by August

Again lots and lots of words describing who God may be and in what form he may take but nothing on how the entirety of the human race will get along without a social institution as pervasive and all encompassing as religion.

"Pervasive and all-encompassing." You argue that that is a good thing, but others would argue that those words also mean "Controlling and all-dominating." I have heard many Christians talk about how much better off we would all be if only "their" religion ran everything. Again, believe what you like, but don't tell me I have to believe it too and don't pass laws based on your beliefs.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

.... but don't tell me I have to believe it too and don't pass laws based on your beliefs.

I did not and am not telling you what to believe Steve. Nor did I advocate for any religious laws. If you imagine that I did then you have totally missed my point.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

I did not and am not telling you what to believe Steve. Nor did I advocate for any religious laws. If you imagine that I did then you have totally missed my point.

And in taking it that personally you've totally missed mine.

I wasn't saying you did. I was pointing out that it is prevalent among religions (different ones in different countries, Christianity here in the U.S.) to try to use the government to make their own brand of belief into law, to force others to abide by it, and to lament the loss of the "good old days" when they fail to get their way. They blame other religions, or the non-religious for the lack of morality as they see it, and then cheerfully murder, torture or on good days lock up those who don't agree with them, and cry "persecution" when anybody tries to stop them from doing so.

As I said, I see little difference between the way religions treat each other and the non-religious and what you decried as "radical cults all fighting for dominance."

[Skybird]

Hm, Sorry, Rockstar: Veto!


https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpr...pher-hitchens/

The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premise and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.


Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all non-figure skaters. Therefore we can conclude that not being a figure skater causes a person to commit atrocities.


None of these three dictators believed in the existence of leprechauns, hence the lack of belief in leprechauns causes people to commit atrocities.

Correlation or synchronicity, and causality, are different things.

[Rockstar]

The criminally minded person group or herd will always try to find a way to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions. They'll use religion, [edit: wether their religion] is divine beliefs, politics, environment, science, race, what ever you name it they'll use it.

A dictator may not believe in a divine being but he will have a religion something that he ascribes supreme importance too and use it to justify his murderous actions.

Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

[Skybird]

Still, fallacy of false cause.


I recomemnd to read the full text I linked, it has more points than just this one that I picked.