religion isn't (inherently, intrinsicly) bad,
religious people aren't bad,
religion and religious people are, for the most part, a force for good in the world.
the problem is, religion is a source of authority, influence, and control.
and like all such positions of power, it attracts a disproportionate numbers of perverts and bullies.
so the problem with religion isn't actually about religion; it's about the unchallengable, unimpeachable authority it provides, which bullies and perverts are so good at hiding behind.
all the world's problems can be traced back to unopposed authority.
so the problem is, how does one effectively undermine, subvert, and destroy injust authority?
To destroy unjust authority, one must remove the support for the unjust. The short answer is: get people to support the good of society and make the people aware of what is going on. etc.
And religion is a source of morals and standards on one hand, but also a source of corruption on the other. Are you trying to start a religious debate??
You're pretty much right.
And the answer is, in my opinion, education. Give everyone knowledge of the past and they'll be less likely to repeat it's mistakes.
To destroy unjust authority, one must remove the support for the unjust. The short answer is: get people to support the good of society and make the people aware of what is going on. etc.
And religion is a source of morals and standards on one hand, but also a source of corruption on the other. Are you trying to start a religious debate??
i don't think it's religion so much as the power of religion that's corrupting. and it's not just religion, but ALL authority that attracts the corrupt. and i'm inclined to think that education can help, but it's not enough. look at the nazis or the aztecs; they were intelligent, educated societies that went horribly wrong. i need to find the connection, find out how one goes from being a normal human being into a homocidal maniac (or even worse, how one can be a normal human being AND homicidal maniac), and distill it into something that can be expressed into a few sentences.
(knowledge+experience)introspection = intelligence/wisdom
my first post in this topic is the product of years of thought. i took all the things i saw that were wrong with the world, and i (think) i discovered what causes them. a desire for authority, influence, control, or wealth. the desire to place yourself and your beliefs above everyone else; to spread your dominion and your ideas as far as possible. call it the aggressive meme.
And the answer is, in my opinion, education. Give everyone knowledge of the past and they'll be less likely to repeat it's mistakes.
education doesn't change human nature. so, what can change human nature? what forces govern the desire for agressive expansion?
i think empathy is the most powerful limiting force of, well, evil. that is what we're talking about, right? genocide, oppression, theft... all words for evil.
Quoteall the world's problems can be traced back to unopposed authority.
what.
genocide in rwanda - if the UN peacekeeping mission was adequately funded and had functioning equipment and maybe a battalion of marines, with a talk company, it never would've happened. or, going further back, if the british hadn't imposed arbitrary classification of africans according to what they do (farmers were hutu and city dwellers were tutsi, i think), then the oppression and division of one made-up group of people by another made-up group of people never would've happened.
germany, post WW1 - if someone had called out the brownshirts on, well, any of the crazy crap they were doing, the european theatre of WW2 never would've happened
pre columbus america - if any of the people kidnapped and mass-sacrificed by the aztecs had a means of fighting back, like knowedge and experience fighting an insurgent-guerilla campaign, they would've survived.
japan pre-ww2 - if anybody in japan had a means of resisting the Imperial Army (who assasinated anyone who opposed them), then the build up to war, and the atrocities the imperial army committed EVERYWHERE they went would never have happened.
america pre-ww2 - if someone would've called out the american politicians who were playing war games near japan, the japanese never would've believed the crap the imperial army was shoveling. notably, retired general smedly butler, who was awarded the medal of honor twice, did campaign against it.
guatemala, 1980's to today - if someone had asked ronald reagan why he was funding militias who consider rape an effective anti-insurgent tactic, then guatemala wouldn't have thousands of unsolved murders of women today.
power, because it attracts so many horrible people, must be monitered, regulated, and sometimes opposed.
neverminding all the disease/mental illness/environmental issues, sure.
And how shall power be regulated without power?
As far as I know, power regulates power. It's tweedledee to tweedledum.
Quoteall the world's problems can be traced back to unopposed authority.
I think people themselves are more likely to be the problem, you don't need authority for that.
What the fuck is the purpose of this topic?
Many of the ideas here do not even make any sense. A homicidal maniac, is just that a maniac; they are not a normal person.
The desire to dominate and expand isn't just human nature, it is the focus of every living thing. What you are asking is unattainable, without the drive for expansion and dominion there is nothing.
Quote from: "CidIII"The desire to dominate and expand isn't just human nature, it is the focus of every living thing. What you are asking is unattainable, without the drive for expansion and dominion there is nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kndX3tVxCt8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kndX3tVxCt8)
I dunno what the purpose of the topic is, either. I suspect red bird was just publicly musing.
That isn't true actually, any living thing will dominate an area if given the chance, human are just more equip for the task because they don't have any predators, and possess the ability to migrate and adapt to any environment.
And, whether or not a virus is an organism is debatable.
Virusses don't reproduce, other organism reproduce them. Officially they are not regarded as living.
I'm no biologist, but afaik, most creatures will try to form an equilibrium. Some kill/eat their offspring if there's too many in their area.
I suppose you could argue that nature isn't shortsighted, and that "given the chance" doesn't mean that they'll fully consume otherwise replenishable resources (at least in their natural habitat. Invasive species are an exception). I'll agree with that.
Humanity, though, has a history of doing just that. I believe we have the intellect to potentially transcend the "invasive species" model. Whether or not that potential will be realized is another matter. But honestly, I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't try.
They kill and eat their own offspring because they are depleting their resources, they're not consciously doing it for the mere purpose of establishing an equilibrium, they're doing it to survive. Most animals cannot adapt as quickly as humans, and cannot migrate to new areas. They do not have means of establishing a reliant food source. They do not "try" to establish an equilibrium, they are forced to.
Yeah, that's the idea I intended to say I would be in agreement with. Bad word choice on my part if you thought I meant something else.
That's the problem though, you cannot say that humans don't try to establish an equilibrium with their environment because neither do other animals.
Humans have rarely been put into a position where they were forced to establish an equilibrium with their environment. As long as there is sufficient food, space, and the lack of predators; humans will continue to expand. This is true with all animals. There are cases where groups of humans have established an equilibrium with their environment, look at island settlements.
Hrm, yeah the problem is word choice. By "try" I didn't mean consciously attempt to create a balance for the sake of balance. More like just doing what's necessary to survive.
It'd be better in the long run if we struck a balance with our enviornment somehow, but we don't because it's not currently necessary for survival. I argue that we have the potential to do it anyway, because we're smart enough to throw off instinct. Whether or not we will is uncertain (and quite likely we won't, as we're not that smart), but I think that the best way to attempt to is through education. That's my position in this thread.
Wow, i found a lot of insight in this topic. Personally, really like religion. An organized religion on the other hand is different. A belief is nice, a body regulating shared belief is more trouble than its wroth. For every good thing organized religion has done, it has casued something as bad as the first act was good or worse. Religious justification of racism with missions to africa. The Crusades with educating people in its infancy (i speak of Christianity of course) Uniting a people with Islamic extremeists. At best religion has done litle better in genral. At worst its done the world a bit worse.
Political influence is another beast. Any christian trying to influence politics to suit religious laws should site some Bible quotage:
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Matthew 22:21
Leave goverment law alone damn it. I'm looking at you Iran and other theocracies. Im looking at you swiss calvanism and Massachusetts Puritans. Even the Pope's rallies to fight abortion is crossing that oh so blury line between church and state. I believe in a God (Deism) and he wants no part in the written law. So keeps your holy books out of my holy book. I don't tell you how to worship your god. Don't tell me what is fair in just in the earthly law.
Sorry bout the massive post, but i am quite passionately against organized religion. Viva El Senor! Se more la Iglesia! Hope i said that right...(accent marks aside)
I agree with what you're saying, redux, but I think you're throwing the blame slightly off target.
I'd argue that the "holier than thou," and "my G.od's law applies to everyone" type of opinions are to blame. An individual can have these. An organization with these ideas is indeed a monster. But you can have an organized religion without them.
In a way we already attempt to balance with the environment, employing farming techniques that conserve soil, etc. But, getting the entire human population to create a complete balance would be nearly impossible, that would require a worldwide birth rate regulation, among other things.
Yes, education will help, but it's the technology that comes with it that will help more.
Quote from: "CidIII"In a way we already attempt to balance with the environment, employing farming techniques that conserve soil, etc. But, getting the entire human population to create a complete balance would be nearly impossible, that would require a worldwide birth rate regulation, among other things.
Yes, education will help, but it's the technology that comes with it that will help more.
You forget the religion that sneaks in with science. The belief in technology. That it could cure all problems. It can't. If that is safeguarded against, then i think tech could be a possible solution of course. With some education too.
If we're gonna talk organised religion, I have one question.
Do want others to know the truth?
On the subject of belief in technology, I think the most dangerous is not the belief that it can cure all problems (maybe it can, probably not), but the belief that it can unrafel the complete truth.
I want to know the truth. I would sacrfice eternal life to see the universe as meant to be seen.
Quote from: "Tea"If we're gonna talk organised religion, I have one question.
Do want others to know the truth?
Certainly, it would be unreasonable to expect others to not to want to spread their "truth." I have no qualms with this. I do, though, when people
expect others to accept their "truth," or worse, require.
QuoteOn the subject of belief in technology, I think the most dangerous is not the belief that it can cure all problems (maybe it can, probably not), but the belief that it can unrafel the complete truth.
Interesting that you bring that up while we're discussing religion. Technology can reveal the complete "truth" only as far as we can perceive. Religion is about the supernatural.
Unlike many others, I do not thing that religion will ever "die out." It will continue simply because it's a question we will never be able to answer; no technology or logic will be able to "prove" anything supernatural's existence one way or the other. I don't think humanity will ever give up on a question it can't answer.
I'm probably going off topic though.
Just here to ask some questions.
Quote from: "Kaijyuu"Certainly, it would be unreasonable to expect others to not to want to spread their "truth." I have no qualms with this. I do, though, when people expect others to accept their "truth," or worse, require.
For some people, their religion is as true as mathematics. They know it's true, but they do not know nor understand everything. How can one righteous deny their spreading of the truth, other than proving the truth untrue?
QuoteInteresting that you bring that up while we're discussing religion. Technology can reveal the complete "truth" only as far as we can perceive. Religion is about the supernatural.
Religion is not only about the supernatural, since it clearly has many effects in the lives of many people. It has, however, unlike technology, to do with the supernatural as a fundament for everything. If not for your religion, a higher deity, what else can you use as a fundament for your morals and ideals? Your inner feelings? Pure logic? Both are easy to prove as a bad idea.
QuoteUnlike many others, I do not thing that religion will ever "die out." It will continue simply because it's a question we will never be able to answer; no technology or logic will be able to "prove" anything supernatural's existence one way or the other. I don't think humanity will ever give up on a question it can't answer.
However, people use technology as proof that there is no God, or no active one anyways. People use logic for it too. However, it is since long that people used logic to prove that God exists. Socrates did it, a lot of other philosophers have done it and for an example of a person who does it today, C.S. Lewis would be one. All of them considered the question of whether there is a god answered, other people just don't believe. Maybe it has do with trust. Since it is known that people rarely completely trust one another, not even a married man and wife. People need to see, to hear, to feel for their own, to learn something. A little kid proves this true, as he won't really learn the consequences of his actions untill he bears them. Imagine a hot oven and you know how the example goes.
Quote from: "Tea"For some people, their religion is as true as mathematics. They know it's true, but they do not know nor understand everything. How can one righteous deny their spreading of the truth, other than proving the truth untrue?
They can be wrong. At least from the "righteous" point of view. Another faith's "righteous" could consider them right. And then who's point of view do we trust?
QuoteReligion is not only about the supernatural, since it clearly has many effects in the lives of many people. It has, however, unlike technology, to do with the supernatural as a fundament for everything. If not for your religion, a higher deity, what else can you use as a fundament for your morals and ideals? Your inner feelings? Pure logic? Both are easy to prove as a bad idea.
"Good" and "bad" are relative to perspective. Whether you base your moral believes of feelings, logic, or faith, it is the same. Feelings can be deceiving, logic can be filled with holes, and faith can be lies from those wishing to manipulate. Also, feelings can lead you to the truth, logic can be sound, and faith could be true.
Ultimately, no matter what you use for a fundament for your morals and ideals, some will see it as right and some will see it as wrong. What you should use depends on who you're trying to impress. And if you're trying to impress yourself... only you can answer that question. Not me or anyone else.
QuoteHowever, people use technology as proof that there is no St. Ajora, or no active one anyways. People use logic for it too. However, it is since long that people used logic to prove that St. Ajora exists. Socrates did it, a lot of other philosophers have done it and for an example of a person who does it today, C.S. Lewis would be one. All of them considered the question of whether there is a St. Ajora answered, other people just don't believe. Maybe it has do with trust. Since it is known that people rarely completely trust one another, not even a married man and wife. People need to see, to hear, to feel for their own, to learn something. A little kid proves this true, as he won't really learn the consequences of his actions untill he bears them. Imagine a hot oven and you know how the example goes.
I would be interested in hearing the logic "proving" the existence of a deity or deities. I do not believe it can be, but honestly, that's only because I have been unable to myself.
I do not believe that technology can disprove it. The universe is just too ridiculously designed to discount the possibility. Could not the source of gravity, for example, be some deity's will?
The example of a hot oven is flawed. It assumes the oven can be touched at all, and that it is hot. Religion is an oven that cannot be touched, seen, or otherwise felt by normal means. Some claim that they have touched it... that they know it exists and what it is. Others claim that it doesn't exist at all, simply because they cannot see it.
Others still... like me... claim that either way, it is impossible to prove. And that to know... you have to reach out yourself. You probably won't touch anything and will still be left with an unanswered question.
I hope I answered all your questions and didn't misunderstand any. I guess it's just my perspective anyway...
Quote from: "Kaijyuu"QuoteReligion is not only about the supernatural, since it clearly has many effects in the lives of many people. It has, however, unlike technology, to do with the supernatural as a fundament for everything. If not for your religion, a higher deity, what else can you use as a fundament for your morals and ideals? Your inner feelings? Pure logic? Both are easy to prove as a bad idea.
"Good" and "bad" are relative to perspective. Whether you base your moral believes of feelings, logic, or faith, it is the same. Feelings can be deceiving, logic can be filled with holes, and faith can be lies from those wishing to manipulate. Also, feelings can lead you to the truth, logic can be sound, and faith could be true.
Now, when that faith has morals that do not hurt someone in any way, but aspire to teach, to comfort and to care for others? Even if they were lies made to deceive, to manipulate, would that matter?
Quote from: "Kaijyuu"Ultimately, no matter what you use for a fundament for your morals and ideals, some will see it as right and some will see it as wrong. What you should use depends on who you're trying to impress. And if you're trying to impress yourself... only you can answer that question. Not me or anyone else.
I don't have morals to impress anyone. I have morals because I find they are right and just and thus are not a wrong way to live.
QuoteI would be interested in hearing the logic "proving" the existence of a deity or deities. I do not believe it can be, but honestly, that's only because I have been unable to myself.
I do not believe that technology can disprove it. The universe is just too ridiculously designed to discount the possibility. Could not the source of gravity, for example, be some deity's will?
For example, every person has a basic feeling of what is right and wrong. Of course, there are many more and are all intertwined as they are all important parts of the entire argument, and I nor know, nor can be bothered to write it all up here. If you really are interested in how people can come to the conclusion that there is a God, I still think C.S. Lewis has awesome books, even if christianity doesn't appeal to you at all. It didn't to him either, so it should be no problem.
QuoteThe example of a hot oven is flawed. It assumes the oven can be touched at all, and that it is hot. Religion is an oven that cannot be touched, seen, or otherwise felt by normal means. Some claim that they have touched it... that they know it exists and what it is. Others claim that it doesn't exist at all, simply because they cannot see it.
Others still... like me... claim that either way, it is impossible to prove. And that to know... you have to reach out yourself. You probably won't touch anything and will still be left with an unanswered question.
This is true and totally not the point of the example of the hot oven, which was to illustrate the need to experience first hand before you learn and understand. And people cleerly hear, see, or whatever their God by normal means, or at least they believe that they do. Science usually calls this randomness or something like that.
Also, most people who do believe, require no proof. They rather require trust, also called faith. That is something you can't "grab", it's a gift. You can decide to act as if you trust a person, you cannot decide to fully trust the person in any case. It is something that grows.
QuoteI hope I answered all your questions and didn't misunderstand any. I guess it's just my perspective anyway...
It certainly is your perspective, but I don't see how that is bad.
authority is your opinion has dominion over other people's opinions. it exists only because the people it rules over let it exist. not that that's a bad thing, i'd rather have an intellgent guy i disagree with in public office than i moron i agree with. anyways, the most effective way to oppose authority, in our day and age, is to call it out on the stupid things it does, like john stewart and stephen colbert do. investigative journalism. media.
a free and unafraid media is the only way to curb the excesses of power. if china had a free and unafraid media, they wouldn't have the environmental problems they have, cause the media would bust the bureaucrats and politicians and manufactourers who profit from it. [some areas of rural china no longer have bees. they were all killed by excess pesticide spraying, so all polinization is done by hand]
i don't see the point in trying to rationalize religion. religion is irrational. i don't believe or disbelieve in any religion. i've had two religious experiences in my life. one, when i was kicked out of my parents house and i had nowhere to go, another when i was high on something in the military.
unrelated, but i can't stop writing in the passive voice, and it's pissing me off! has anyone taken any writing classes?
A free and unafraid mediais not the only way to curb the excesses of power, it is power. The media creates a lot of problems too.
Also, what do you mean with a passive voice?
i have had problems with drinking - passive
i am a drinker -not passive
i don't completely understand what the passive voice is, but i do see how it's bad.
and the problems of the media can be remedied by outsiders with inconvient points of view, like comedians.
basically, everyone watches everyone else, and we all speak up when someone is being oppressed because it might be us next.
Holy shit there is some many incorrect statements in this topic, I can't stand it.
The passive voice is not bad, it's just frowned upon if a person over uses it. It just basically using two verbs where one could fit.
iri thinks that problems dont rest with priests and politicians, nor organizations in and of themselves. problems rest with fanaticism, and even an atheist can be a fanatic, for instance they could see need to rebel against and throw off the yoke of religion- maybe at any cost. problems arise when one is inclined to demonize and ostracize those who don't hold the same beliefs and with those who worry about their societies so much as to cave into its pressures.
iri thinks that fanatics can come in all colours and creeds, and that no one is safe from falling into fanaticism. because you're an atheist or a capitalist doesnt mean you're not in danger of being a zealot, they're not mutually exclusive. because you're a good person doesn't mean you're not at risk of wrongly accusing people based on the colour of their skin.
If you look for evils, you'll find them in abundance, youll always be able to say this is the reason why bad things happen, that is the reason why we cant have a nicer life.
iri thinks, because of this, that the pieces that are most often absent are careful self-examination and a compassionate embrace of others.
Edit: Sorry for the necro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXe ... annel_page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=channel_page) (short)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCc ... annel_page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A&feature=channel_page) (long)
/thread
Quote from: "Voldemort"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=channel_page (short)
Everyone of every faith or non faith needs to comes to terms with that. Way too much bias in the world based on upbringing (or perhaps a better word, circumstance).