Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Being for religion alone doesn't qualify.
No, no, no. For the Romans ("Byzantines") it was a tool to reconquer lost territories in eastern Asia Minor, something that actually worked splendidly. Territories which would never have been lost had there not been a certain religious leaders who had rallied the Arab tribes some centuries before. And for the Western Church it was an attempt to get the Eastern Church under its control again - something that did not work nearly as splendidly. But the point is, for the actual instigators of the whole thing, the Roman Church, it was purely about religious issues, if maybe not just "kick the Muslims out of Palestine".
And in any case the Crusades would never have reached its infamy, its utter bloodiness, if the Crusaders had not been driven by a religious zeal.
However - again, none of this actually matters. Whether religion is moral is not the question. What religion is rightly ridiculed for is holding to certain dogmatic points (that is after all what "belief" is about) that would never get half the respect they don't deserve if they were not in fact religious in nature.
Thus, conspiracy theories would also apply. And really, yes, conspiracy theories are born out of a general look for answers - just like religions, no?
name one time that this has actually happened.
Now, as I've said - people are imperfect, so yes, there will always be scientists who are a little bit too attached to their theories. But it is just that - a flaw. And a minor one at that, because, as I've said, the self-correcting mechanism does work in practice. With religion, though, it's not a bug, but a feature. That's the difference.
.
Personally, I'm not sure it makes a difference. It's just a different motivation for mythologification, if that's a word...
For instance, I'm an atheist. Former Catholic. But I remember, one day, hearing about the last Pope being shot. He survived. The next day, he went to the shooter's prison cell and forgave him. At the time, I found that extremely inspiring, and I still do. Perhaps it was a political stunt, but I don't particularly care; it set a new moral standard for me, and it's an example I'll never forget. I'll likely never live up to it, either, but I have it.
I do not mean to imply that morality is drawn from religion, or that religion has higher "moral potential" or anything of the kind. Religion does allow a common transmission of morality, however, and if you get a set of good values, that can be an extremely positive force.
Lastly, I find the whole "religion is evil/stupid/whatever" thing to be silly hipstershit that the post-modernist world has become far too obsessed with. That sort of phrase always sounds exactly like an acoustic rock band I've never heard of but know the exact sound of, and all the band members are wearing thick-rimmed glasses they don't even need.
If there is no creed, no faith at the core of a religion then it is obviously no religion. But this faith is, by its very nature, a dogma. Besides, if religions do not present never changing, eternal truth - then what are they there for? Might as well leave the field entirely to science and rational philosophy/ethics!
And for that matter I'd indeed rather that everybody think about their own ethics, too, instead of having them transmitted to them. After all, it used to be morals meant "no homosexuality" and "no women's right" and so on - that was not merely social practice, those were normative morals, and transgressers were indeed described as immoral and evil.
And really, community sense based upon religion is bad. Religion at its core is supposed to mean "Believing in this or that". I.e., you need to think something to be true. It's a matter of that, not identity. It excludes everybody who has... well, not even a dissenting opinion, it excludes everybody who don't hold this something to be true. You can go around founding identities based on that, it's very common. But it's not good.
However, again - that in itself does not matter. I do not believe in the concept of the Noble Lie. Religion could be the ethically most awesome thing ever (it isn't), and it would still be just as silly or not. What matters is how realistic its claims are, how well founded they are - in other words, how much possible truth there is to it. That's all that matters.
I have two major issues with your line of argument:
1. Your are making extreme, sweeping generalisations all over the place about a series of practises you don't seem to understand.
2. Without so many words, you're asking us to reject the beliefs of others and to install yours in their place. Religion may produce prejudice, and does in many contexts, but you're asking us to do exactly the same thing.
Reminds me of a friend of mine. If someone's religious, they're an idiot. If they adhere to an Abrahamic religion, they're an abominable idiot. I'm quite sick of personal crusades of most all kinds, especially those that ignore larger issues in favour of belittling others who are essentially good-hearted and well-meaning, if misguided.
And I'm not asking anybody anything. What I'm saying is religious people should not get surprised if their beliefs are ridiculed, because if those beliefs were not in fact classified as religious, then everybody would make fun of them the same way fun is made of conspiracy theories, or UFO esoterica, or Randian Objectivism. Strip them of their religious context and they are ridiculous. That's what I'm saying - I don't want to push my view on anybody, I'm saying there should no special protection for religious views!
Vandro: What has that to do with anything?
Furthermore, here's what I'm getting.
- Conspiracy theorists are ridiculed.
- That's okay, because they're ridiculous.
- Religion is on the same rational level as conspiracy theories.
- Therefore it is equally valid to ridicule the religious.
This seems too extreme to me. As I pointed out, religion has undeniable technical function. Whether you disagree with the value of that function is immaterial, because those values are as subjective as the religious views you criticise.
This has fuck all to do with the plausibility of religions and how serious we should take them. But if you insist - well, it would obviously depend on my co-prisoner, no? If I could trust him/her or not. That's the entire point of the game, isn't it? It's about trust.
I've said several times already that the moral aspects of it all are irrelevant. Paganism and Shinto believe there are spirits everywhere. Without that, it wouldn't be those religions. That's a dogma. And if it had not that religious context it would be a claim fairly open to ridicule - "there's something in that stone watching me!"
So, yes, what I say is in fact universally applicable. By the very nature of it, there can be no religion without dogma. It would be a religion not actually believing anything - which means it wouldn't be a religion.
No, the function is simply plain irrelevant. Religious views must hold to the same scrutiny and criticism as every other views, too - because at their core, like every other view, they claim to be truths. So either they are or they're not. What function they may fulfill besides does not matter at all.
That standard has to be applied universally or not at all.
You said the function of religion was irrelevant.
Then you said the function of rationality was relevant.
After I said you have to apply the same standards to both.
And you agreed.
Needs less bias.