Free Thought Exchange - Is this enough to break the spell?

[michel123456]

Religion is part of the society. In some cases religion is society. Anyone can believe in anything, independently, but that's not what is called religion. I am even convinced that God (or gods) are not the goal of religion but the mean to reach some other goals. Those goals are to settle down rules (dictated from above) that no one will contest (kill him) in order to solidly establish a kind of society (call that civilization). In that manner the Kings of France were crowned by bishops in the name of God, and Napoleon too. That's on of the roles of religion. I am pretty sure that nothing of that exist in pigeons.

Edited May 30, 2013 by michel123456

[iNow]

Religion is part of the society. In some cases religion is society. Anyone can believe in anything, independently, but that's not what is called religion.

 

Then what, in your opinion, is? You have not made the distinction between the two clear in any way. You've merely repeated yourself that there is an important distinction.

[MonDie]

I think there is a tendency for the religious to incorporate religiously-neutral things into the religion. For example, many values and feelings regarded as religious aren't necessarily dependent upon religion, yet one may associate a particular religion with certain feelings or values.

 

This article discusses the problem of defining religion:

http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/a/definition.htm

 

Here's a diagram I just put together.

Channing's quote is interesting rhetoric or free verse, but some, maybe most, spiritual advocates practice indoctrination and spurn those who think for themselves.

Photon propeller still might have a point. Even if religion generally involves indoctrination (i.e. forcing acceptance of beliefs), it may be a bit ignorant to conflate the two.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[michel123456]

 

Then what, in your opinion, is? You have not made the distinction between the two clear in any way. You've merely repeated yourself that there is an important distinction.

religion is something that establishes a system that make many people believe in the same thing. Further, religion provides teachings and laws that make the same-believers have the same behaviour, this way creating a common way of life in a society.

 

The wiki article states:

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.^{[note 1]} Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to create meaning to life or traditionally to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, they tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.^[1]

 

 

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.^[2]

 

 

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".^[3]

Emile Durkheim is clearly correct.

Belief is only a little part of religion, essential though when it comes to be the same for everybody (faith).

 

I couldn't figure that the difference between religion and belief could escape a bright mind like yours.

Edited June 1, 2013 by michel123456

[MonDie]

I couldn't figure that the difference between religion and belief could escape a bright mind like yours.

 

iNow never said there was nothing more to religion than superstition, (s)he merely said that the terms would 'overlap quite a bit'.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

religion is something that establishes a system that make many people believe in the same thing.

 

By this definition, a movie at the cinema or a decent book or even a video game or round of Dungeons and Dragons are all religions. If your definition of religion is so broad and imprecise as to include those other clearly nonreligious things, then surely there is a flaw in the definition you offered, no?

 

Further, religion provides teachings and laws that make the same-believers have the same behaviour, this way creating a common way of life in a society.

 

Again, here government itself fits under your definition of religion, as do the instructions from a parent to a child, or even the local traffic office who paints the different colored lines on the road and puts up signs regarding what is expected of drivers. Surely, you're not suggesting that governmental laws and traffic signals are religions too, are you?

 

It appears that in your attempts to extract the superstitious elements from religion you've ultimately done little more than to change the definition of religion so drastically as to render it useless... so broad that it includes very many clearly nonreligious things.

 

Even your own definition from wiki shares countless terms that reinforce the tremendous overlap between religion and superstition, the point I made on the previous page that you are here now seeking to refute. From your wiki definition we see terms like supernatural, spiritual, ritualistic, deity, gods, goddesses, and mythology. Each of those terms appear in the definition YOU shared in your attempt to refute my suggestion that there is vast overlap between the concepts of superstition and religion. Surely you're not here now trying to tell us that superstition plays no part in those many concepts (like mythology, goddesses, supernatural, etc.) from your own definition, are you?

 

 

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".

Emile Durkheim is clearly correct.

Belief is only a little part of religion, essential though when it comes to be the same for everybody (faith).

 

I couldn't figure that the difference between religion and belief could escape a bright mind like yours.

 

Just because many people happen to share a common superstition does not mean it ceases to be superstitious. I appreciate the nice comment about my bright mind (even though you used it in an attempt to shame me into abandoning the logic of my position), and wish I could reciprocate it back to you with sincerity, but on this topic it seems you're either quite ignorant, ill-informed, or deluded or instead you are being intentionally obtuse in order to make some unsupportable point.

 

If we drew a Venn diagram with religion and superstition, there would be vast overlap. That was my point. They are not non-overlapping magisteria in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Edited June 1, 2013 by iNow

[SamBridge]

By this definition, a movie at the cinema or a decent book or even a video game or round of Dungeons and Dragons are all religions. If your definition of religion is so broad and imprecise as to include those other clearly nonreligious things, then surely there is a flaw in the definition you offered, no?

IF that was the only thing that constituted a religion, you'd be right, but the wiki articles states more than that doesn't it? In many ways, religion is organized, has structures, beliefs of an origin or something that constitutes the physical world, or something that causes events to happen.

Edited June 1, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

Religious belief isn't a "delusion" even scientifically as you cannot disprove it. It is a lifestyle choice in which one actively practices traditions of the said region and thus becomes more connected to the religion throughout the actions of one's life. There are plenty of random given things that atheists and religious people alike can believe in. For instance, you can "believe" in alien UFOs even though that itself is not a religion, but you don't see me calling moontanman schizophrenic. The most likely reason to believe alien UFOs is because of a connection to a distinguished event in one's life such as that you saw something in the sky which you could only rationalize at the time as being an alien made device as it did not behave like terrestrial technologies and did not have the characteristics of a natural phenomena that you knew of, even though there's no proof of such alien technology.

 

Sam, I am not going to take umbrage at your quip about UFOs since I do not "believe" and only advocate investigation Of UFOs and decry the misinformation campaign fostered by the military over the years, as for schizophrenic I have never done anything the voices tell me to do... well not often...

 

Religion doesn't seem like a bad thing so long as you aren't destroying society with it and do not substitute it in for proof, it seems to have been what created more complex, older societies in the first place.

 

Yes it did, feudal system of serfdom, slavery, being tortured to death to if you pissed off the religious authorities. Religious wars conquering and enslaving or killing the resident populations, yup them older societies were wonderful...

 

Not all religious people are crusaders.

 

Religion comes to us now days with a smiling face a open hand and sweet promises... This is not what religion really is, go back to before religion was gelded by secular authorities, when religion had real power and see how benign it is.... The crusaders are what drives religion, the fundamentalist fringes drive the mainstream and here in the states the fringes are coming close to capturing the mainstream again. The last thing we want is religion with power... forums like this one would be used to track people like me and burn me at the stake... no thank you I'll take secularism anytime...

[MonDie]

Belief is only a little part of religion, essential though when it comes to be the same for everybody (faith).

 

Replace "belief" with "superstition" and you've got it IMO.

 

Superstition may seem like a small component, but it's the key feature. Once you remove the superstition, it's not religion.

Even Zen Buddhism contains superstitions regarding the path to enlightment, beliefs that will remain superstitious until science proves their merit.

[michel123456]

Replace "belief" with "superstition" and you've got it IMO.

 

Superstition may seem like a small component, but it's the key feature. Once you remove the superstition, it's not religion.

Even Zen Buddhism contains superstitions regarding the path to enlightment, beliefs that will remain superstitious until science proves their merit.

You are underestimating your ennemy I' am afraid.

 

By this definition, a movie at the cinema or a decent book or even a video game or round of Dungeons and Dragons are all religions. If your definition of religion is so broad and imprecise as to include those other clearly nonreligious things, then surely there is a flaw in the definition you offered, no?

 

 

Again, here government itself fits under your definition of religion, as do the instructions from a parent to a child, or even the local traffic office who paints the different colored lines on the road and puts up signs regarding what is expected of drivers. Surely, you're not suggesting that governmental laws and traffic signals are religions too, are you?

 

It appears that in your attempts to extract the superstitious elements from religion you've ultimately done little more than to change the definition of religion so drastically as to render it useless... so broad that it includes very many clearly nonreligious things.

 

Even your own definition from wiki shares countless terms that reinforce the tremendous overlap between religion and superstition, the point I made on the previous page that you are here now seeking to refute. From your wiki definition we see terms like supernatural, spiritual, ritualistic, deity, gods, goddesses, and mythology. Each of those terms appear in the definition YOU shared in your attempt to refute my suggestion that there is vast overlap between the concepts of superstition and religion. Surely you're not here now trying to tell us that superstition plays no part in those many concepts (like mythology, goddesses, supernatural, etc.) from your own definition, are you?

 

 

Just because many people happen to share a common superstition does not mean it ceases to be superstitious. I appreciate the nice comment about my bright mind (even though you used it in an attempt to shame me into abandoning the logic of my position), and wish I could reciprocate it back to you with sincerity, but on this topic it seems you're either quite ignorant, ill-informed, or deluded or instead you are being intentionally obtuse in order to make some unsupportable point.

 

If we drew a Venn diagram with religion and superstition, there would be vast overlap. That was my point. They are not non-overlapping magisteria in the way you seem to be suggesting.

I commited a strategic error.

Michel, never post under religion again.

[MonDie]

Religion comes to us now days with a smiling face a open hand and sweet promises... This is not what religion really is, go back to before religion was gelded by secular authorities, when religion had real power and see how benign it is.... The crusaders are what drives religion, the fundamentalist fringes drive the mainstream and here in the states the fringes are coming close to capturing the mainstream again. The last thing we want is religion with power... forums like this one would be used to track people like me and burn me at the stake... no thank you I'll take secularism anytime...

 

This is a general statement that I generally agree with, but we can't make a judgement on how or why religion becomes oppressive until it has been defined. If we don't define it a priori, debaters will define it post hoc to align it with their preconcieved opinions about this "religion" thingy.

[iNow]

I commited a strategic error.

Michel, never post under religion again.

 

So, instead of addressing my questions and criticisms, you're choosing instead to concede the point. Is that accurate?

[MonDie]

You are underestimating your ennemy I' am afraid.

 

Are we enemies? Have I underestimated you? I cannot tell.

 

Were you arguing that the other components depend on superstition?

[Moontanman]

This is a general statement that I generally agree with, but we can't make a judgement on how or why religion becomes oppressive until it has been defined. If we don't define it a priori, debaters will define it post hoc to align it with their preconcieved opinions about this "religion" thingy.

 

Religion is not just something you believe to be true

 

I think it's quite easy to define religion, defining god is quite a bit harder. All religions share a belief in something supernatural but not necessarily in a god.

 

Very nearly all religions, if not all, define special people who define what this supernatural belief consists of and what rules it's followers have to follow.

 

All religions must proselytize non believers to survive and those that join must be equal to or be greater than those that leave or the religion fails to survive. Often apostasy is punished severely, sometimes with death.

 

Often religions have written texts that demand followers belief on faith what those books say.

 

Critical thought is actively discouraged no matter what photon propeller seems to want to believe. In fact in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic mythos it is often stated outright that when reality and doctrine disagree doctrine must take precedence.

 

Most fundamental religions require apologetics to explain away the inconsistencies of doctrine and dogma

 

While many religious sects try to stay away from dictating reality the fundamentalists always drive the religion by attempting to dictate reality, this series of videos is excellent for making that point, i know it's a long series but for anyone who wants to understand what religion can be when given real power this is very enlightening.

 

 

Sadly the religious are often the people who least understand their religion...

[overtone]

Religious belief isn't a "delusion" even scientifically as you cannot disprove it

This is only true in general, or abstraction, when stated about the entire category of "religious belief". In specific cases of specific beliefs, it is occasionally possible to disprove them (often in the scientific sense of beyond a reasonable doubt, and sometimes in the strict sense of logical incoherence and self-contradiction).

 

The fact that such disproof is normally unpersuasive in the short term should not discourage anyone - revelatory as that circumstance is about the nature of religious belief, it also highlights the observation that people do sometimes change their ways of thought and alter - even discard - their beliefs. That possibility is recognized by many religions, and we see serious attempts to prevent encounters with "outside" reasoning or question-provoking experience forming major structural features of the more dubious religious establishments. They are probably right about the threat posed, eh?

 

One of my own touchstone analogies is with a jammed shoelace knot - gentle patience and careful attention to detail seems indicated in personal or specific situations, although the Gordion Knot approach tempts.

 

The value of religion in the abstract seems unchallenged, btw. From even the most technical and shallowly "scientific" perspective, its role in freeing communities from such traps as Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons or the Prisoner's Dilemma should be acknowledged. Logic and rigorous science alone will not suffice, and such situations afflict us all regardless of our technological or scientific sophistication.

Edited June 1, 2013 by overtone

[Moontanman]

The value of religion in the abstract seems unchallenged, btw. From even the most technical and shallowly "scientific" perspective, its role in freeing communities from such traps as Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons or the Prisoner's Dilemma should be acknowledged. Logic and rigorous science alone will not suffice, and such situations afflict us all regardless of our technological or scientific sophistication.

Could you elaborate on these issues? My thought was that logic in fact was or is instrumental in solving these problems, I see no way religion could contribute to solving either, in fact we are slowly seeing the tragedy of the commons spread over our entire planet and religion is if anything contributing to this problem not helping to solve it...

[SamBridge]

Sam, I am not going to take umbrage at your quip about UFOs since I do not "believe" and only advocate investigation Of UFOs and decry the misinformation campaign fostered by the military over the years, as for schizophrenic I have never done anything the voices tell me to do... well not often...

Well there's plenty of people who do believe in alien UFOs, I just thought you were one of them based on other topics.

 

 

Yes it did, feudal system of serfdom, slavery, being tortured to death to if you pissed off the religious authorities. Religious wars conquering and enslaving or killing the resident populations, yup them older societies were wonderful...

Such types of wars ultimately happen regardless of religion. We see proof of this when we see that nearly every country in the world has had it's share of wars. Since the religious belief itself and its influence is not a constant factor for every country yet we still see numerous wars in nearly every country, it cannot be the root cause of all those wars in the same way that you cannot make an equation from a collection of totally random points in a range of greater than 1u. Religion is merely mixed up in human feelings which may or may not amplify wars.

 

 

Religion comes to us now days with a smiling face a open hand and sweet promises... This is not what religion really is, go back to before religion was gelded by secular authorities, when religion had real power and see how benign it is.... The crusaders are what drives religion, the fundamentalist fringes drive the mainstream and here in the states the fringes are coming close to capturing the mainstream again. The last thing we want is religion with power... forums like this one would be used to track people like me and burn me at the stake... no thank you I'll take secularism anytime...

You should try talking to a religious person who's just an average person. Most religious people are just "average" people, statistically speaking, there is nothing particularly cynical about religion in general, as I said before it is a lifestyle choice that may be adapted by something as simple as environment or life experiences. There is no definite drive for religion, any member can contribute uniquely to it or alter it, which we have seen happen by seeing changes in religion over time. There are plenty of people who didn't like the crusades and wars, both atheistic and religious people alike. Any religion can be whatever its members collectively decide it to be.

 

 

This is only true in general, or abstraction, when stated about the entire category of "religious belief". In specific cases of specific beliefs, it is occasionally possible to disprove them (often in the scientific sense of beyond a reasonable doubt, and sometimes in the strict sense of logical incoherence and self-contradiction).

 

The fact that such disproof is normally unpersuasive in the short term should not discourage anyone - revelatory as that circumstance is about the nature of religious belief, it also highlights the observation that people do sometimes change their ways of thought and alter - even discard - their beliefs. That possibility is recognized by many religions, and we see serious attempts to prevent encounters with "outside" reasoning or question-provoking experience forming major structural features of the more dubious religious establishments. They are probably right about the threat posed, eh?

 

One of my own touchstone analogies is with a jammed shoelace knot - gentle patience and careful attention to detail seems indicated in personal or specific situations, although the Gordion Knot approach tempts.

 

The value of religion in the abstract seems unchallenged, btw. From even the most technical and shallowly "scientific" perspective, its role in freeing communities from such traps as Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons or the Prisoner's Dilemma should be acknowledged. Logic and rigorous science alone will not suffice, and such situations afflict us all regardless of our technological or scientific sophistication.

You can question religion all you want, and you do not have to take it seriously, but by nature if it cannot be disproved then it cannot be proven to be a delusion of someone.

Edited June 2, 2013 by SamBridge

[iNow]

Can you disprove the existence of Thor? No? Do you think that has any relation whatsoever to the likelihood that someone is deluded if they think Thor is real? Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean that people believing in that something cannot be accurately described as deluded.

[EdEarl]

Can you disprove the existence of Thor? No? Do you think that has any relation whatsoever to the likelihood that someone is deluded if they think Thor is real? Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean that people believing in that something cannot be accurately described as deluded.

Wow, this knotty sentence is not easily understood.

[SamBridge]

Can you disprove the existence of Thor? No? Do you think that has any relation whatsoever to the likelihood that someone is deluded if they think Thor is real? Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean that people believing in that something cannot be accurately described as deluded.

What if Thor did exist but not in the way we thought? Possibly an advanced alien that people would mistake for a god, which just goes to show we can speculate all we want and never prove/disprove it.

[iNow]

What if Thor did exist but not in the way we thought?

Then it would clearly make sense to believe in his existence AFTER evidence in favor of said existence was found, but not before. My previous point stands. It is not an argument against delusion to suggest that the object of those deluded people's belief cannot be disproven. We cannot disprove the easter bunny, either. Does that mean people believing in the easter bunny as adults are not deluded? What about people believing in Puff the magic dragon? We cannot disprove the existence of Puff, either. Does that mean people who sincerely believe in his existence are not deluded? No, of course it doesn't mean that. Your argument above is bunk.

 

Wow, this knotty sentence is not easily understood.

His point is that it can only be called a delusion if the object of that belief is able to be disproven. I am pointing out that falsifiability of the subject of belief is not required for the term delusion to accurately apply. Just because I cannot disprove the existence of a magic elven ring made of magenta colored ostrich feces orbiting on the other side of Neptune does not mean it's inaccurate to describe as deluded a person sincerely believing one is there in the absence of any evidence for it whatsoever.

[Moontanman]

 

Then it would clearly make sense to believe in his existence AFTER evidence in favor of said existence was found, but not before. My previous point stands. It is not an argument against delusion to suggest that the object of those deluded people's belief cannot be disproven. We cannot disprove the easter bunny, either. Does that mean people believing in the easter bunny as adults are not deluded? What about people believing in Puff the magic dragon? We cannot disprove the existence of Puff, either. Does that mean people who sincerely believe in his existence are not deluded? No, of course it doesn't mean that. Your argument above is bunk.

 

 

Dammit iNow, Puff isn't real? You mean I've been singing that song to raise Puff up out of the ocean all this time and he isn't real? Next you'll say Adrianna isn't real and the honor I enjoy of reciting poetry while the witches dance naked under the full moon isn't really for the benefit of the Moon Goddess....

 

Seriously, it has been suggested that i need to go out and talk to some of the majority of at worst harmless religious people who make up most of the religious in our land. No need, I have and do, you misunderstand my fear of the religious. I understand completely that most of the religious are at worst harmless cranks and most are the nice people next door that that rarely even talk about their religion other than the occasional "Bless her heart" or giving thanks around a special meal.

 

But you don't have to look far to see these people are deeply divided, thousands of different sects, all of which disagree on sometimes minor and sometimes major points of dogma. They all now days say they all are Christians and then there are those nice "harmless" people who knock on your front door asking if you've heard the good news or know about a new testament of Jesus. Merely annoying you say? a little over 100 years ago Mormons were killing non Mormons and blaming it on the Native Americans, go back a little father and in the US Baptists were killing Catholics and Baptists or some other sect were killing Quakers and so on.

 

Right now the radical fringes of our nice tame religion are gaining power. passing laws denying citizens rights based on religious doctrine, they do this because the nice tame religious people think the fringes are the same as they are and think that religion in schools and government, a state religion sounds like a pretty good thing. How could a religion based on the teaching of Jesus be a bad thing? They have no clue or choose to ignore the history of religion and how it acted when it had real power and didn't have to beg for attention, when it could demand compliance under the force of law and punishments were often quite harsh.

 

We have these churches that used to be small insignificant crazies calling not that the end times are coming but that they should help them along, insisting the Holy Bible is the divine inerrant word of the one true god. Now these churches are huge and influential and driving not just public opinion but politics as well. Influential churches calling for homosexuals to be rounded up and killed. Passing laws to strip rights away from homosexcuals and anyone now married under civil law.Insisting that the bible be taught as "science" and stripping public schools of money and giving that money to religious indoctrination centers schools.

 

Yes religion seems harmless but take a good long look into certain areas of the middle east where religion, law, and government are the same thing and being stoned or burned on a pyre still takes place, that is what Christianity used to look like and will again if it is allowed to regain power...

 

What if Thor did exist but not in the way we thought? Possibly an advanced alien that people would mistake for a god, which just goes to show we can speculate all we want and never prove/disprove it.

 

 

I think I'm a time traveler from the distant future sent here to pass as one of the general population and at death my soul will be recalled to the future, where the technology exists to do such things, and I will be reinstated into a new body so i can recount my times as a member or your primitive superstitious society.... delusional?

 

[SamBridge]

 

Then it would clearly make sense to believe in his existence AFTER evidence in favor of said existence was found, but not before. My previous point stands. It is not an argument against delusion to suggest that the object of those deluded people's belief cannot be disproven. We cannot disprove the easter bunny, either. Does that mean people believing in the easter bunny as adults are not deluded? What about people believing in Puff the magic dragon? We cannot disprove the existence of Puff, either. Does that mean people who sincerely believe in his existence are not deluded? No, of course it doesn't mean that. Your argument above is bunk.

You can consider something unlikely, but unless there is strong physical evidence against it, then someone wouldn't be in a delusion for believing it. You can't just declare something like the Easter bunny is impossible, you need to have evidence or why it is so unlikely, and even then if there is still evidence for it to cancel out evidence against it, you may as well be back to where you started. Things like this may happen all the time in science like with string theory, but I don't see many string theorists getting called delusional despite the complete lack of any evidence for strings.

 

 

Seriously, it has been suggested that i need to go out and talk to some of the majority of at worst harmless religious people who make up most of the religious in our land. No need, I have and do, you misunderstand my fear of the religious. I understand completely that most of the religious are at worst harmless cranks and most are the nice people next door that that rarely even talk about their religion other than the occasional "Bless her heart" or giving thanks around a special meal.

 

But you don't have to look far to see these people are deeply divided, thousands of different sects, all of which disagree on sometimes minor and sometimes major points of dogma. They all now days say they all are Christians and then there are those nice "harmless" people who knock on your front door asking if you've heard the good news or know about a new testament of Jesus. Merely annoying you say? a little over 100 years ago Mormons were killing non Mormons and blaming it on the Native Americans, go back a little father and in the US Baptists were killing Catholics and Baptists or some other sect were killing Quakers and so on.

 

Right now the radical fringes of our nice tame religion are gaining power. passing laws denying citizens rights based on religious doctrine, they do this because the nice tame religious people think the fringes are the same as they are and think that religion in schools and government, a state religion sounds like a pretty good thing. How could a religion based on the teaching of Jesus be a bad thing? They have no clue or choose to ignore the history of religion and how it acted when it had real power and didn't have to beg for attention, when it could demand compliance under the force of law and punishments were often quite harsh.

 

We have these churches that used to be small insignificant crazies calling not that the end times are coming but that they should help them along, insisting the Holy Bible is the divine inerrant word of the one true god. Now these churches are huge and influential and driving not just public opinion but politics as well. Influential churches calling for homosexuals to be rounded up and killed. Passing laws to strip rights away from homosexcuals and anyone now married under civil law.Insisting that the bible be taught as "science" and stripping public schools of money and giving that money to religious indoctrination centers schools.

 

Yes religion seems harmless but take a good long look into certain areas of the middle east where religion, law, and government are the same thing and being stoned or burned on a pyre still takes place, that is what Christianity used to look like and will again if it is allowed to regain power...

I think I'm a time traveler from the distant future sent here to pass as one of the general population and at death my soul will be recalled to the future, where the technology exists to do such things, and I will be reinstated into a new body so i can recount my times as a member or your primitive superstitious society.... delusional?

Emotions of violence are not roots of religion, they are roots of humanity, so considering many religious people are nice or that no religion has to be any particular thing and that any religion can be whatever its members want to be, and those members at some times choose it to be violent, then the problems are not rooted in religion, but in human nature itself. There is also the fact that nearly every country in the world has had its shares of wars, and since religion is varying but the acts of violence are constant (based on the technology available), it must be that war does not have a directly proportional relationship to religion, sometimes non at all, just human feelings like insecurity, the notion that one group is an enemy or friend because of how similar or different they are, who has what resources, lust for power, ect. As I said before, religion can be used to amplify these emotions, or used as some excuse to do something, and the only reason that religion does is because of the fact that the old religions come from humanity's own feelings and emotions, and thus religion itself is not the cause of a war. If I write an idea for a religion down and send it on a rocket to Pluto, I'm not going to start spontaneously seeing wars on Pluto because there's no living things there to interpret it, which just further proves my point.

Edited June 2, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

You can consider something unlikely, but unless there is strong physical evidence against it, then someone wouldn't be in a delusion for believing it. You can't just declare something like the Easter bunny is impossible, you need to have evidence or why it is so unlikely, and even then if there is still evidence for it to cancel out evidence against it, you may as well be back to where you started. Things like this may happen all the time in science like with string theory, but I don't see many string theorists getting called delusional despite the complete lack of any evidence for strings.

 

 

Emotions of violence are not roots of religion, they are roots of humanity, so considering many religious people are nice or that no religion has to be any particular thing and that any religion can be whatever its members want to be, and those members at some times choose it to be violent, then the problems are not rooted in religion, but in human nature itself. There is also the fact that nearly every country in the world has had its shares of wars, and since religion is varying but the acts of violence are constant (based on the technology available), it must be that war does not have a directly proportional relationship to religion, sometimes non at all, just human feelings like insecurity, the notion that one group is an enemy or friend because of how similar or different they are, who has what resources, lust for power, ect. As I said before, religion can be used to amplify these emotions, or used as some excuse to do something, and the only reason that religion does is because of the fact that the old religions come from humanity's own feelings and emotions, and thus religion itself is not the cause of a war.

 

 

Yes, I agree the problem is in human nature and rule of law helps to protect us from that but rule by religion which is not much more than rule by emotion allows practically anything to be fostered on anyone you disagree with. We cannot afford to allow religion to regain the power it once had...

 

Evil men do evil things, good men do good things, religion makes good men do evil things...

If I write an idea for a religion down and send it on a rocket to Pluto, I'm not going to start spontaneously seeing wars on Pluto because there's no living things there to interpret it, which just further proves my point.

 

 

You just might want to go back and think a bit about that bolded part because i think it proves my point....

 

If your last point is true then I can show the ebola virus is harmless the same way, if I send it to pluto it can't infect anyone there so it's harmless....

Edited June 2, 2013 by Moontanman

[SamBridge]

 

 

Yes, I agree the problem is in human nature and rule of law helps to protect us from that but rule by religion which is not much more than rule by emotion allows practically anything to be fostered on anyone you disagree with. We cannot afford to allow religion to regain the power it once had...

 

But can't that same power be used for good as well? It was used in many tribes to bring communities together.

 

 

 

 

 

Evil men do evil things, good men do good things, religion makes good men do evil things...

Religion can do either that or make good men do good things or bad men o bad things, you just only focus on the bad things. Religion can make an "evil" person try and repent or kill themselves, or it can stop someone from acting violent all together like with Buddhism, it can give someone a reason to help a community out or bring a community together in general.

 

 

You just might want to go back and think a bit about that bolded part because i think it proves my point....

 

If your last point is true then I can show the ebola virus is harmless the same way, if I send it to pluto it can't infect anyone there so it's harmless....

However, if you expose ebola to a control group it will get infected, which I pointed out a flaw in earlier. Varying levels of different religions lie in every country in the world, yet in nearly every country there is a history of violent wars as well as peace, which means the problem does not reside within religion, but in the nature of the living things that start it, which means religion cannot be the largest factor in wars and must have less of an effect than you are making it out to have.

Edited June 2, 2013 by SamBridge