Advertisement
Most of us see religion as causing the schism between peoples. This is only partially correct. The real issue at the heart of the problem is not the religion, but the capacity for humans to construct cultures and create memberships in beliefs that are exclusionary. The foundational pretext to conflict is belief followed closely by membership. Religions have no monopoly on this phenomenon as it is abundantly evident in culture, social groups, classes and cliques.
Robert Bevan wrote a wonderful book which deals with the issue; The Destruction of Memory. In it he outlines how membership in a group is a frighteningly powerful aspect to human allegiance. He also reveals how one of the most effective method of erasing memberships is to erase the physical structures that are emblematic to said cultures. In effect by destroying architecture you erase the history of a people and sever the bonds between those living with their history and membership. You cast them loose on a wide and lonely sea, and you make it more probable that your own culture will persist. Thus wart and violence easily become the most useful tools in undermining a competing dogmatic perspective.
So, rather than the religion, which is only a brand, the real culprit is our intrinsic capacity to want to further our own agendas. The human physiology is to blame here, our own cognitive inclination.
So whatever your choice in the realm of religion, even if you choose to believe there is no god, you still have a belief system and this makes it impossible to escape the trappings of our need for membership.
The problem is us.
www.press.uchicago.edu/presss...ata.epl
Robert Bevan wrote a wonderful book which deals with the issue; The Destruction of Memory. In it he outlines how membership in a group is a frighteningly powerful aspect to human allegiance. He also reveals how one of the most effective method of erasing memberships is to erase the physical structures that are emblematic to said cultures. In effect by destroying architecture you erase the history of a people and sever the bonds between those living with their history and membership. You cast them loose on a wide and lonely sea, and you make it more probable that your own culture will persist. Thus wart and violence easily become the most useful tools in undermining a competing dogmatic perspective.
So, rather than the religion, which is only a brand, the real culprit is our intrinsic capacity to want to further our own agendas. The human physiology is to blame here, our own cognitive inclination.
So whatever your choice in the realm of religion, even if you choose to believe there is no god, you still have a belief system and this makes it impossible to escape the trappings of our need for membership.
The problem is us.
www.press.uchicago.edu/presss...ata.epl
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Interesting correlation, but I would think it would go deeper than destruction of architecture.
When you loose everything who do you turn too?
When you hit rock bottom, who do you turn to?
If you don’t have a higher power... a belief in something....how can you function?
Can you? Any thoughts?
I think spirituality is important...
Religions meh.... too many rules & martyrs in most of them...
Amy:-) -
-
<<<So, rather than the religion, which is only a brand, the real culprit is our intrinsic capacity to want to further our own agendas. The human physiology is to blame here, our own cognitive inclination. >>>
When I point out many of the negative aspects of faith and belief in imagined ideologies and flawed logic, I get the excuse "It's not religions fault". I find that to be pure bullshit. It's not the guns fault when a criminal uses it to kill someone, but if it were not for that gun being in the wrong hands administered in the wrong manner, that victem would still be alive. In the same manner we institute GUN CONTROL there should also be regulations to control the administration of religion instead of allowing these nut jobs to run amuk with it. We do not allow the layperson to prescribe themselves medication, so why should we allow a potentially deadly thing like religion to be self administered? The persons administering religion should be educated by professionals and be held accountable when someone is found to be taught some hateful throwed off bullshit. Like prescription drugs, uneducated persons SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to administer it to others.
Religion IS the problem and it needs to be regulated so we dont have people like the muslim extremists with their throwed off ideologies. If the religion were regulated to educate the administrators by professionals and be properly administered, those retarded idiots wouldnt be able to keep teaching the hateful deadly shit to kids generation after generation. Without the religion, there would be no cognative inclination to abuse it. The same thing goes for guns, alcohol and drugs. Those things ARE the problem and we need to get a handle on them.
Amy
<<<When you hit rock bottom, who do you turn to?
If you don’t have a higher power... a belief in something....how can you function?>>>
Are you serious? I have faith in MYSELF! In my younger days I played music in the clubs and I experimented with drugs. I got into shooting cocaine and had a habit of three 8 balls per day. I overdosed one day and was fortunate enough to live through it. It took me about an hour to recover my senses. When I did, I bent the needle over on my syringe and I gave the rest of the dope to my lead guitarist. I have never toushed it since that day. I didnt need any "higher power" or some imagined god because I know that to be bullshit. I had faith in myself and my ability to be self disciplined to just QUIT. It's not that hard to believe in yourself and not lean on something imagined for support. If you lean on a handrail, it will support you. If you lean on god as though it were a handrail, you're going to fall down. I believe in NOTHING spiritual, and I am quite strong as a result of it.
When I hit rock bottom, I turn to myself and I say "Self, get your ass up and get motivated". Because if I turned to god, my ass would still be sitting on rock bottom as that would be turning to flawed logic, lies and hearsay. I EXIST, and I know what needs to be done. So why would I rely on an imagined idea that didnt help me BEFORE I hit rock bottom? That is totally senseless from where I sit.
I have lost everything several times for many different reasons. Some as a result of my own ignorance, some for reasons totally beyond my control. But I always manage to pick myself up and move on without turning to some fantasy character like god. I take responsibility and I deal with it. I dont need the help of Tinkerbell, Humpy Dumpty or any other imagined fictional character. I can find absolutely no productive value in an imagined "higher power". To me that would just distract me as I ask the motherfucker why it let me get like that to start with then called it out for a good old fashioned ass whippin. I can find no productive value in anything "spiritual". Spirits/ghosts/invisible characters, these things do not pick up the tools and do the job, I DO. So why would I need them/it in times of crisis?
I think relying on an imagined "higher power" leads to mental illness. JMO
In case anyone forgot, there's so much to be learned in this;
www.youtube.com/watch
I do not mean to sound rude or anything like that. I just encourage people to believe in themselves and become rooted in reality instead of fictional characters.
-
<If you don’t have a higher power... a belief in something....how can you function?>
You function just like anybody else. One day at a time. You make a plan and you go with it. Ever since my wife got sick and things started going to hell, I have not wasted one moment in prayer. I am not back to where I was five year ago. Not even close. However I am much better than I was last year. Last year I was in a transitional housing program. (AKA shelter). Prayer did not get me out of the shelter. Working with plan A, plan B and plan C simultaneously did.
In short, I have never met a junkie who prayed to Jesus who did not shoot up. I never met a religious drunk be sober. I have seen good people suffer and bad people prosper, and as Lou Reed, my favorite philosopher, once put it, "there ain't no cure for bad luck."
-
I turn to friends...family...lovers...my own sense of inner guidance.
No "higher power" required...other than the energy that is all around us, within us, between us...that's my form of spirituality...being present to all around me, and my own inner guidance. The Gnostic teaching...that all is within. The macrocosm in the microcosm. Namaste. In Lak'ech. -
-
namaste.,nice answer Evan.,and everyone.,you dont need a god to beleive in yourself.,but i think since i carry my church with me--that makes me the pastor-head cook and bottle washer of the one spirit in this body at one time church.,
-
-
and/or go with a funny 'religion' & make yourself a pope ~ presto, change-o!
jubal.westnet.com/hyperdisc...cracy.html
Hail Eris!
love all-ways,
mem
-
-
-
-
<Most of us see religion as causing the schism between peoples. This is only partially correct. The real issue at the heart of the problem is not the religion, but the capacity for humans to construct cultures and create memberships in beliefs that are exclusionary. The foundational pretext to conflict is belief followed closely by membership. Religions have no monopoly on this phenomenon as it is abundantly evident in culture, social groups, classes and cliques>
And who but us have created religions? Religion is an entirely man-made curse. It is a social neurosis. Two cavemen were walking together and one turned purple and died. Wow, says the surviving cave man. Poor old Dave must have pissed off one of the local tree spirits. Two modern day humans are walking together and one turns purple and dies. Wow, say the surviving modern human. Poor old Dave ate too many Big Macs and he had a massive coronary. Maybe the surviving human got out his iPhone and saved Dave's life. Maybe he gave Dave CPR. All the surviving cave man can do is try not to piss off any tree spirits.
Religion provided reason for the reasonless. As the tree spirits grew into gods, fear of divine wrath was the underlying authority behind government. You obeyed the elders or the gods would smite your ass. If the gods didn't smite it, the rest of the tribe would stand in for the gods and stone you to death. The truly horrible thing is that 15,000 years later, there are still people who believe this shit. As Adam observed, there are Muslim who will not put down their guns until all non-Muslims surrender their human rights and live as dhimmi under Shari'a. The National Park Service is giving out creationist bullshit as to not offend the Christianoid imbeciles. Where do we draw the line?
<So whatever your choice in the realm of religion, even if you choose to believe there is no god, you still have a belief system and this makes it impossible to escape the trappings of our need for membership. >
That is simply not true. Atheism is not just a total lack of a belief system, it is the total lack of need for a belief system. Atheists neither pray to Darwin nor do we meditate upon the DNA helix. Richard Dawkins does not heal lepers and turn water into wine. We have abandoned belief systems in favor of whatever the hell we want. There are Atheists who watch TV all day. There are Atheists who are ethical vegans. There are atheists who eat big macs. The only thing that unites Atheists is that we are sick and tired of religious imbeciles who talk to their make believe friend while their kids die of diabetes. We are sick of idiots who try to provide our children with an inferior education by imposing their superstitions in the public schools. We are especially sick of our government pandering to the most ignorant and superstitious of our population in return for votes.
As I have mentioned over and over again, religion kills. As far as I am concerned, all the good that anyone claims that religion does is not worth the life of one of the 300 children who were neglected to death by their religious idiot parents. Deists can either admit that the harm is done and join in a dialogue to stop it, or we will stop it anyway.
-
-
I think it's important to remember that before Enlightenment philosophers separated Religion and Science, religion was really the sole repository of the accumulated knowledge of people, however flawed. It's really inaccurate to portray religion as a sort of outside force which acts upon society, rather, it evolved, ironically enough, along with people as a natural extension and tool for understanding the world around us.
Now that we find ourselves in a new situation where much of the ideas religion espouses seem more akin to superstition, it certainly does seem outdated, but it won't be gotten rid of as simply as turning off a light switch.
Personally, i think what we're seeing in the recent volatile outlashings from certain world religions are really just the death throes of a dying animal, but again, I don't think you can expect them to go away over night, considering that they've been around for millenia.
-
-
It won't be a problem when it's no longer given a shred of attention.
Religion's failing is not that it does or does not divide people. The flaw in religion is it teaches people absurd ideas (like the earth was made in six days by a man up in the clouds) and then insists it be given the same credibility as any real world fact. It teaches people to believe in things that we would actually discourage children from believing.
Religion engenders gullibility.
-
-
Religion was used to explain the unexplainable....
If you couldn’t put a name on it . Well the gods did it.
"I didn’t do bad things ...it was the devil" etc...
So if you honor the god, you wont turn purple & die.. If you do then you must of not followed the rules. You can justify things till the cows come home...
But religion can be a comfort as well..
Amy:-)
-
-
"...the real culprit is our intrinsic capacity to want to further our own agendas."
And organized religion gives us the perfect vehicle for this.
-
Yes..religion and politics are not the problem... we are...As..we are the catalyst, the divide, and the one nothingness that struggles to create ourselves from all and none...so much for karma and zen :-)
-
There are some well wrought and passionate responses here, but if you can distance yourself enough from your own contextual prejudice you will see that religion, like politics, like patriotism, like so many social constructs, is only a symptom and not the root cause.
Even an athiest is believing in something, even if what they believe in is "nothing" it still qualifies as something; a belief structure. So in this aspect the athiest, non-thiest as I prefer to consider myself, has constructed a system that has membership and prameters for consistancy.
It's us, the problem is us.
How do we solve the problem? -
-
Belief is not religion. We all believe in things that we may not have absolute reason to accept or expect. I believe I will be alive next week though I have no absolute reason to think that. Belief is a part of the human brain. Religion is a despicable abuse of belief, used by both the well intentioned and the craven to rule over idiots who refuse to think for themselves.
As long as we live in a world, largely surrounded by this problem, it would be churlish of you to expect us to "distance ourselves" from it. -
-
Thanks! great response.
..."Religion is a despicable abuse of belief, used by both the well intentioned and the craven to rule over idiots who refuse to think for themselves"...
You sound pretty dogmatic about it. Sort of ironic, no?
But again, how do we solve the problem? You are doing a great job of thrusting your belief on us, but where is the solution to the intolerance? Where is your tolerance for others belief? Should we be tolerant?
I think our intolerance for those who are not in the same 'membership' as we are is part of the issue.
-
-
"You sound pretty dogmatic about it. Sort of ironic, no? "
Dogmatic would imply an equal amount of contempt to all religions. Personally I don't care when people keep their beliefs to themselves, being the live and let live type of person that I am. However the sad fact is most people who refer to themselves as 'religious' do not keep it to themselves and are not happy until they have made everybody as miserable and contemptible as they are. Were this only a couple centuries earlier, they would have gladly burned me at the stake for simply speaking my mind. Who's the dogmatic one here?
"But again, how do we solve the problem? You are doing a great job of thrusting your belief on us, but where is the solution to the intolerance? Where is your tolerance for others belief? Should we be tolerant? "
You don't 'win' against ignorance. Same as you never truly beat disease. You don't beat the darkness and you'll never rid the universe of all the problems it endures. Most things in life are not there to be beaten, but to be opposed. You win by not giving up. You lose by not caring.
-
-
"Most things in life are not there to be beaten, but to be opposed. You win by not giving up. You lose by not caring." says The Intellectual B. But I take precisely the opposite tact. I give up, I yield, thus become vulnerable--prone if you will--to be impacted by what IS OBSERVABLY rather than lie in wait for my adversaries or IDEALs I am in conflict with. To be in conflict is taking any action to create change according to your own vantage point. It is NOT about me, it IS about Consciousness, Answers, Perhaps G*D or Higher GROUND, in the outward fact where relationship gives us Understanding of Self. If we refuse relationship, we deny self.
-
-
here are some well wrought and passionate responses here, but if you can distance yourself enough from your own contextual prejudice you will see that religion, like politics, like patriotism, like so many social constructs, is only a symptom and not the root cause.
Even an athiest is believing in something, even if what they believe in is "nothing" it still qualifies as something; a belief structure. So in this aspect the athiest, non-thiest as I prefer to consider myself, has constructed a system that has membership and prameters for consistancy.
It's us, the problem is us. "<<
I agree with most of what you say. And it is " us", It's human nature, one cannot change that. We are not the " problem" per-say, we are the experience, and we experience each other. It's how we learn in this life, it's why we're here.
What you believe, where you expect to go after this, what you will, or will not take with you, are hoped for, you have faith in that eventual outcome. But realistically, we don't " know to a certainty", unless your faith is blind.
We can only function is this life with one decision, " Am I going to lead my life as a good person ? "
Hammering everyone that disagrees with you, making them doubt themselves, and the loved ones that taught them, Is not the way of a good person.
"You're all wrong, and you're the problem", can only bring strife and contention, living under this dark cloud is not a good thing, and nothing good ever comes of it. I don't care who says it, or why, it is high handed judgmentalisum. Generally a sign of a scared little person who would rather find fault in someone else's path, than beauty in their own.
That's why though I'm still a Minister, I am no longer a, " Christin" minister, not even a Christian. Because Christians, by and large are a " Christ is the ONLY way" lot.
"There are 10,000 paths to the next life, and 10,000 doors on each. Who am I to say any are locked ? " Do no harm, and travel your own path, it's your way, not mine.
OK, everyone, repeat after me, " It's your path not mine, It's your................"
-
<Even an athiest is believing in something, even if what they believe in is "nothing" it still qualifies as something; a belief structure. So in this aspect the athiest, non-thiest as I prefer to consider myself, has constructed a system that has membership and prameters for consistancy.>
Which is absolutely no interest to me. If you follow PZ Meyer's blog, he has some interesting observations about trying to turn atheism into a religion. When you try to tell me what I do not believe in, you are indulging in religion's worse and most annoying habit. Atheism is the lack of belief.
<It's us, the problem is us.>
As there is no god, the problem has always been us. This is what I have been saying all along.
<How do we solve the problem?>
A good start would be to stop projecting your needs and your beliefs on other people.
-
-
"A good start would be to stop projecting your needs and your beliefs on other people. "
Someone should really show you to a mirror, Bill. This is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it. What you so hate in religious people is a perfect mirror reflection of one of the ugliest things about Bill...the belief that Bill's needs and beliefs ought be projected on to everyone because they're "right." Can't you see this? Is this not plain as day to everyone here? Frankly, I'm shocked by the lack of humility. -
-
<Someone should really show you to a mirror, Bill. This is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it. What you so hate in religious people is a perfect mirror reflection of one of the ugliest things about Bill...the belief that Bill's needs and beliefs ought be projected on to everyone because they're "right." Can't you see this? Is this not plain as day to everyone here? Frankly, I'm shocked by the lack of humility.>
And I am shocked by your utter ignorance. I should not be, but I am. Yes, I do not believe in God. I think the entire concept is a little silly, but don't I dare state that opinion. I might hurt somebody's feelings. At least that is the excuse the National Park Service uses to justify pushing creationist bullshit printed up at government expense.
All I am asking is for there to be limits. That's all. Your right to swing your fist ends at my right to have an intact nose.
A capitalist is somebody who swings his fists, breaks your nose, and tries to pay his way out of the situation.
A libertarian is somebody who swings his fist, breaks your nose, and then yells at you for getting in the way of his fist.
A socialist is somebody who will beat a capitalist and a libertarian's face in with a crowbar until they learn that you don't swing your fist into other people's faces.
What ever else you believe in is of no interest to me. You do not impose your religious beliefs on me. Got it? -
-
A capitalist is somebody who swings his fists, breaks your nose, and tries to pay his way out of the situation. (I more or less agree.)
A libertarian is somebody who is opposed to the swinging of fists and believes that your right to swing your fist ends at his right to an intact nose. (adjusted for accuracy)
A socialist is somebody who will beat a capitalist and a libertarian's face in with a crowbar and force them both to give up all their worldly possession to the State in order to fund some version of Utopia where only socialists have the right to beat faces. (adjusted for accuracy)
And you do NOT impose your STATIST beliefs on me. Got it? -
-
Evan, I'm surprised to find that you don't know anything about cows ! (Utter ignorance) .
Bill seems to know all about them, he uses the word "utter" a lot ! 8-) -
-
Dan, try not to feel put upon here, but you are offering up an almost perfect illustration of my point...
...”We are not the " problem" per-say, we are the experience, and we experience each other”...
We HAVE experiences, but our experience of other people is still our own experience. We don’t experience each other, only ourselves (think it through; you’ll see what I mean) and only via our cognitive capacities. Everything is highly subjective and we should try to be cognizant of it.
I’m not sure why you put parenthesis around the word Problem, what other meaning are you trying to imply by use of it?
...” But realistically, we don't " know to a certainty", unless your faith is blind.”...
Faith, by definition, is blind; ...”firm belief in something for which there is no proof”…from m-w.com. Are you saying to have faith in something IS certainty? I would disagree with that speculation.
…”"You're all wrong, and you're the problem", can only bring strife and contention”...
Exactly the point I’m making, yes. It also starts wars, genocides and the like, but it’s not just religion that does it. My point is that we are hardwired for this type of judgment to spring up, with or without religion.
Look at what is happening right here in this string of responses, folks are getting highly defensive because they think they are right and someone else is wrong (and I’m kind of pleased that it’s of a non-religious sort but at the same time I’m repulsed by how childish and petty it becomes). Atheists are saying they believe in nothing (which is vastly entertaining to me), while the religious hold the line on their own dogmatic agenda, and both are berating the other because they believe they are more correct. What rapture!
Clearly you and Evan don’t like Bill. We all get that, how nice of you to share. Your particular brand of derision is not a secular divisiveness. It illustrates perfectly the intrinsic foundation of this inclination to be combative in the realm of ideal. It’s PERFECT really.
I should thank you for being SO predictable...but I’m not going to.
Awesome. -
-
Jai.,your a wiseguy--on so many levels.,.,and i see your point--it is like a screen play allmost--
great posting.,very educational--and revealing
-
Use of the word experience, depending on context, can be poetic semantics.
Experiences on a spiritual level are not necessarily cognitive.
Faith is also a belief system, and blind faith is being close minded to other options.
Even though you may be of the Christian "faith", you might leave open that you're not absolutely right. On the other hand, some Christians as certain they're right, having as it were " blind faith".
Rethinking, I should have written, "we don't -believe- to a certainty, unless your faith is blind".
One Bible translation ( I don't recall which) defines faith as , "things hoped for but not yet beheld." You can have faith, or trust, that things are going to work out, and at the same time be thinking, " or maybe not".
There is an old adage, ( that I might be making up) " there is as much hope in faith, as there is faith in hope"
I note that in the definition you found, they use the word " firm" . I've found in my dealings with people that Faith, hope, trust can be cross applied, but generally they not absalute when comes the end of the day.
I don't dislike Bill, I don't know Bill. I do dislike what he writes, I believe his writing to be nothing more than a cyber persona. and that he is just another troll looking to bite someone on the ankle from under his bridge.
" you are offering up an almost perfect illustration of my point... " What is your point ? That people always have, and always will disagree ? It doesn't mater if the discussion is in the realm of the ideal, or based solely on reality, people will always disagree, it's part of our learning process.
Your little snippets of sarcasm aren't becoming, only confusing the points you're trying to make. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Dan: "One Bible translation ( I don't recall which) defines faith as , "things hoped for but not yet beheld." "
I think faith can also be usefully defined as a "confident expectation about the future."
-
-
we have filters in our brain.,switches if you like that turn everything we see into a cognitive pattern.,if that gear doesnt work--we go insane
but its like a picture.,no two people see the same thing.,
my statement on quit searching for the truth is not a way of saying-i give up--its a way of saying okay--show me-
opening of the mind and putting our filters at rest.,im not educated so all i can say comes from my little experiance--
its so important--to listen.,and a little bit of faith--can change everything., -
-
Picker Rick: "we have filters in our brain.,switches if you like that turn everything we see into a cognitive pattern.,if that gear doesnt work--we go insane"
A wise friend of mine has often said that people have religion for the same reason that they have thumbs.
Picker Rick: "my statement on quit searching for the truth is not a way of saying-i give up--its a way of saying okay--show me- "
"opening of the mind and putting our filters at rest"
I like that. A lot.
Our minds are full to bursting with of all kinds of crap. Good, bad, right, wrong. Before we can put something new in, we have to take something old out. The more old we take out, the more new we can take in. Before we can gain a correct understanding, we have to give up our incorrect one. Before we learn, we have to unlearn :)
-
Can you point me to something that describes these "filters in our brain.,switches if you will"...?
I'm not sure whay your thinking of, and I study Cognitive Science. -
-
its easier to think of doors and windows that you put there--and you open or close them according to your reality concept at the moment.,call them your BS detectors.,anyways its your program--you put the doors there in your mind in a certain order-with directions when to open and close--
i dont know how to word it better than that
-
-
..."we have filters in our brain.,switches if you like that turn everything we see into a cognitive pattern.,if that gear doesnt work--we go insane"...
Everything you experience or percieve is a cognitive pattern. Without sensory cognition you wouldn't have a subjective experience at all. You would fail to become conscious. It's not switches or filters, your subjective reality is the emergent property of a re-entrant degenerative complex system.
I think maybe what you are driving at is neuroplasticity and the ability to change our emotional responses to the situational environment. Yeah? -
-
could be neuroplasticity.,.,man i could hardly spell that.,i think it has to do with reality concepts--started when we are born--probably younger but not worth getting into.,
the way we see and understand is programmed by our enviroment and parents first of--thats where the filters-doors--neuro-stuff kicks in.,.,
hell .,you probably know more about it than i could study up on in a week.,apreciate the fact that you really do want to grasp concept or i would not waste your time
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jai
<<<There are some well wrought and passionate responses here, but if you can distance yourself enough from your own contextual prejudice you will see that religion, like politics, like patriotism, like so many social constructs, is only a symptom and not the root cause.>>>
I find that religion is nothing more than a crutch like alcohol or drugs. like drugs, alcohol and even guns, the problem is the liklihood of people abusing these things. The gun is not responsible when someone picks it up and murders someone, but we still have gun control. I think the solution to the abuses regarding religion is the regulation of those administering it. We do not allow persons to prescribe their own medication as that allows for abuse. The same thing goes for religion. When people are allowed to administer it to themselves absent peoper education, it can be adverse and even deadly. I think religion needs to be regulated and administered by trained qualified professionals.
<<<Even an athiest is believing in something, even if what they believe in is "nothing" it still qualifies as something; a belief structure. So in this aspect the athiest, non-thiest as I prefer to consider myself, has constructed a system that has membership and prameters for consistancy. >>>
I disagree with this. Calling my lack of belief a belief is like calling someone who does not collect stamps participating in a hobby. My choice is an open mind that is not influenced by ancient imagined ideologies, lies and hearsay. Whatever is is, and anything other than that is yet to be proven. Fashioning belief from the unknown is flawed logic at best. So how can I logically fashion a belief out of disregard for that which is not proven? That dog wont hunt.... -
-
Adam, the reason I say you (or rather athiests in general) DO believe in something is because you are so adamant that religion is "wrong". You are making a moral judgement, which is only possible if you have a contextual prejudice inclining you to be aligned with something other than the offending 'wrong'.
If you belived nothing, you would be able to decline religion without being derisive. There would be no need to berate it as it simply wouldn't infringe on your own belief system...
...but it does infringe.
You do believe in something, you just choose to think of it as "nothing".
I don't collect stamps, but I also don't disparage those who do. I simply have no interest, thus if you want to collect stamps you won't get any resistance from me. Relgion is trickier than stamp collecting though. I don't see a problem with religion persay, but I do think there is a problem with what people do with it. Inasmuch as religion proffers a god, atheism proffers a resistance to one, and this is why I see it too as a belief structure.
Personally I get heat from both camps. The athiests claim I'm pushing a religious agenda, and the relgious claim I'm a Nihilist. I'm neither of those, I'm just not sure what to call my particular belief system. I like Dawkin's "non-theist", but he is so clearly bashing religion. I'm more of the thought that we should try to understand ourselves (as in our cognitive neurophysiology) better as a way of ameliorating the negative sides of our nature.
I can be as bombastic as anyone though, I'm as inclined as anyone to want to further my perspective.
thoughts for now. -
-
If your looking for some fun, try this...
powertochange.com/discover/...ment-52409
It's maddeningly poor reasoning, but I bet you could have some fun with it. :)
Cheers
-
-
-
BadAss
<<<"...the real culprit is our intrinsic capacity to want to further our own agendas."
And organized religion gives us the perfect vehicle for this. >>>
VERY TRUE!
Jai
<<<Even an athiest is believing in something, even if what they believe in is "nothing" it still qualifies as something; a belief structure. So in this aspect the athiest, non-thiest as I prefer to consider myself, has constructed a system that has membership and prameters for consistancy.>>>
So not collecting stamps is a hobby?Ha!Ha! I consider myself to be a fan of reality, not atheist or non-theist. I do not see it in the same manner you do, which is fine, but I disagree with the idea that I am a part of the problem which involves religion. You say the problem is us. I do not see the logic of this idea. A group of ancient people had ideas that others share and it has nothing to do with me other than their attempts to oppress me. I mind my own business and if they did the same, there wouldnt be any problem.
-
-
like the hank williams jr. song
why dont you mind your own business*
then you wont be minding mine--
-
Does not believing in leprechans make me an a-leprechan?
Religion is a BIG problem! Millions of people have been ruthlessly murdered in the name of religion!
A few hundred years ago I would have been burned at the stake, beheaded or worse!
God is frequently a lame excuse for murder, rape, mayhem and cultural destruction.
The fairy tales all "good" Xtians, Jews and Moslems are taught are poison! -
-
hmmn.,you have a point.,seems extreme.,but i thought about it again.,fanatics of any kind are waco
but killing in the name of god--my gods the only god that counts---type of justification-
they showed the natives here in america what a wonderfull god the whites war-ship--
religion has killed more people than anything besides old age since long befor jesus--so
i totally agree with you--religion is for sheep--mean chickenshit sheep--who love their masters
either your with us--or against us--is a call to wake up -
-
Ok, let me ask you this...Who invented religion?
Humans invented religion, it is a tool we developed collectively. Sure, I know, maybe we personally haven't contributed, but human-kind has (and we are party to that group).
Religion is just a symptom of our inherant capacity to defend and assert membership in our cultures. -
-
Jai
<<<Humans invented religion, it is a tool we developed collectively. Sure, I know, maybe we personally haven't contributed, but human-kind has (and we are party to that group).>>>
What about those of us who have evolved past the need to provide explanation and reason for our mortality? What about those of us who see that we have the technology and ability to live wonderful peaceful lives regardless of what might or might not exist? What about those of us who know that if we offer complete equality and acceptance there will not be any wrath of an entity to deal with? If I had my way religion would exist only on islands of those wishing to be religious while the rest of us live in peace.
I agree that early in mankinds existance the collective whole were in search of spiritual answers. Now, however, I think that those people who remain retarded in the ancient past drag the collective whole into the fetid mire of egotistical self righteousness and narcisisstic ideological abandon which can only result in the repetition of what we have witnessed throughout history.
GIVE UP THE GHOST I say....You cant win a war fighting with your brother. If you want to have peace you've got to love one another. Not some motherfucking imagined entity! Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Krishna....Fuck man, when you BBQ in your back yard with the Japanese guy from down the street, WHAT GODDAMNED DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? If you leave all of that horseshit in your living room and step out into the back yard with a goddamned cold beer, FUCK RELIGION!!! I am part of the solution, not part of the problem. -
-
..."If I had my way religion would exist only on islands of those wishing to be religious while the rest of us live in peace."...
..." If you want to have peace you've got to love one another."...
Do you not see the dissonance even in your own thought proccess?
The point I'm trying to make is that the inclination to reject and oppress those who don't share our own subjective beliefs is not soley the realm of religion or the religious. It is a wholley fundamental intrinsic human trait. Your expressed thoughts illustrate that very well (thank you!).
And what about those who have "evolved past the need to provide explanation and reason for our mortality?" I don't think I know anyone like that. Even you are providing those things here. -
-
I think Jai....you've made an excellent point.
Religion is created out of personal beliefs....it just happens that through religion people union to honor a common figurehead that represent the ideals of a collected group. Politics is similar to religion in which folks vote for a common ground leader to represent their interest.
Groups in general have all created a common figurehead to lead or represent them...either through war, politics or spiritual practices.
examples of figureheads who influenced religion or misused or used religion as a tool:
Buddha (did not preach religion, but a way of life)
Henry The 8th (created his own religion)
Jim Jones (killed many under the name of religion)
Hilter (killed to eliminate religions that opposed him)
presidents, Kings and Queens (many created or misused religion to get ahead)
Queen Isabel (used religion to accused many of being witches just to scare people into obedience)
Jesus (preached in contradiction to the religion of his day)
Gandhi (challenged the caste system)
Pharaohs ( as a matter of fact in Ancient Egypt Pharaohs were often considered living Gods)
Again at the end of the day its not religion...its the people using religion as tool for manipulation. Playing off the fears of people who have strong beliefs
But if you think about it...fear is used behind every method for modifying behaviors at large...
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded."Again at the end of the day its not religion...its the people using religion as tool for manipulation. Playing off the fears of people who have strong beliefs "
As the bumper sticker said:
"Extremist Religious fundamentalists
are a danger to society abroad.
"Extremist Religious fundamentalists
are a danger to society at home."
The "True Believer" is the problem, whether in religion, politics, or whatever.
Check out the section titled "On the nature and origins of mass movements" found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
There is some interesting fodder here. You can read the abstracts, and I think you'll find the group membership context is pervasive accross cultures and classes.
jce.sagepub.com/current.dtl -
-
jai, I like the cut of your gib. This idea that we think inspires the goal of our momentum thru these relationships, whatever they are: Like G*D or our sense of higher ground, or something Numinous, is ultimately FOR ME what makes me CHECK a box that I've bridged the physical and have begun to participate in something that may give me self-actualization. For belief systems that are about conforming to the negation of normalcy or tradition is not an apophatic fact. If we can say belief inspires un-belief, because Nothing is Outside the Known...then we only deal with what-IS. So, your IDEAL IS, as is MINE and Peace will be the surrendering of the trappings of identity... of which we have nothing proven.
-
-
Jai I tend to agree with your statement about religion.
I've always felt that people create social groups to suit their needs...whether its religion, a cult or social club.
Social groups bring together folks that have similar ideas, beliefs and cultures regardless how right or wrong they may seem to outsiders.
Case in point folks...Raw Wisdom...its a social group that many join...some join looking for comic relief, some moral support, some out of boredom or plane curosity, When the need for joining is fulfilled or not folks leave or fade out.
Human are naturally social creatures...without the skills to socialize the human species would have faded out into extinction. -
-
Rev Ro: "I've always felt that people create social groups to suit their needs...whether its religion, a cult or social club."
Here's an essay that I serendipitously came across this morning that discusses the creation of social groups in conenction with religion and warfare. The author (who has a website that I greatly enjoy because of his analysis of current world events in their historical contexts) makes the argument that religion does not cause war, instead war causes religion. It's a long read, but interesting.
www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi...D.PL
-
-
Religion in itself is not the problem... but when religion is co-opted and used as a means of mass control, it becomes a problem. So it's necessary for religion to exist in a constant state of diversity and evolution or metamorphosis in order to evade being co-opted... at least that's the only solution I've found so far.
On a completely unrelated note (except in the stream-of-consciousness form of relation), I decided to look up "co-opt" in the dictionary when I was writing this, just to be sure it did actually mean what I meant it to mean, and came across this quote (the dictionary's usage example), which is interesting to me:
"the students are co–opted by a system they serve even in their struggle against it" — A. C. Danto
And reading again, the quote may not be as unrelated as I originally thought. -
-
<..."Religion is a despicable abuse of belief, used by both the well intentioned and the craven to rule over idiots who refuse to think for themselves"...>
This is a beautiful summation of the true problem...the human condition. We, as a people, are primarily followers. Those who are leaders are not all governed by a sense of altruism, which would impart restraint and cautious judgment as one realizes that others are relying upon them. Rather, more leaders increasingly grow their egos, and few are able to maintain enough humility to govern well. This is true in political and religious circles, as well as other forums. There are a select few out there that may not be leaders, but also may not care enough about society's opinion of their eccentric ways to worry about marching to the tune of their particular drum. However, a minority has never been able to foot change effectively...the masses enable this, so more bullying personalities remain at the helm, and we remain at their mercy. Yet, we do have a decision to make in the matter. We can employ means to remain effectual for ourselves and our immediate communities. Change does start with each of us...and the fertilizer in our corner of the world does make a difference. We need to give this importance and follow through, even when mainstream is kicking us down. Looking within is critical, as it employs individuals to live and let live, even if their government is attempting to run their lives. No one can run anyone's life without their direct consent. The mind is a powerful thing. Employing one's mind to be where that individual wants to be is the best means of responding to control freaks. When they see how peaceful individuals can remain in spite of their activity, they will grow frustrated.
-