Religion Matters: Take 3

Post Reply
ttf_ronkny
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_ronkny »

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 15, 2017, 11:47AMThat's a little off my point. Both the Christian and the Muslim have a similar motivation. Both think they are adhering to the one true religion, and both think their adherence will reap a reward in the afterlife. The sword yielder might have an interpretation of Sunni that's repellent to us, but he doesn't believe it any the less.

With respect to purely physical courage, the Muslims don't necessarily lack it, do they? A lot of them are leaving relatively comfortable lives elsewhere to gather in the desert and get shot at. They do this because they think they're fulfilling ancient prophecy and guaranteeing themselves a place in paradise. They're wrong on both counts, but it's still courage of some sort.
But of they are a "religion of peace"🙄
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 15, 2017, 01:29PMBut of they are a "religion of peace"🙄
Every religion claims to be one of peace.  What ISIS do is not condoned by Islam.

Besides, a Christian claiming Muslims are prone to savagery is a little like the pot calling the kettle black, no? 
ttf_ronkny
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_ronkny »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 01:48PMEvery religion claims to be one of peace.  What ISIS do is not condoned by Islam.

Besides, a Christian claiming Muslims are prone to savagery is a little like the pot calling the kettle black, no? 
No. Not even close This isn't the 4th century.  In modern times Islam is much much rmore savage. Beheading children. Honor killer bags? Throwing gays off roof tops or hanging them. Beheading prisoners. Indiscriminate bombing.  Burning prisoners alive.
ttf_slide advantage
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_slide advantage »

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 15, 2017, 03:16PMNo. Not even close This isn't the 4th century.  In modern times Islam is much much rmore savage. Beheading children. Honor killer bags? Throwing gays off roof tops or hanging them. Beheading prisoners. Indiscriminate bombing.  Burning prisoners alive.

Not all Muslims ascribe to that kind of brutality. Apparently you don't know any Muslims.


ttf_ronkny
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_ronkny »

Quote from: slide advantage on Jun 15, 2017, 03:39PMNot all Muslims ascribe to that kind of brutality. Apparently you don't know any Muslims.


Dd I use the word "all".  How about millions. Look at surveys in the Muslim world.
Most muslims believe in Sharia law too.
Your conclusion is silly.


ttf_Piano man
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Piano man »

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 15, 2017, 03:16PMNo. Not even close This isn't the 4th century.  In modern times Islam is much much rmore savage. Beheading children. Honor killer bags? Throwing gays off roof tops or hanging them. Beheading prisoners. Indiscriminate bombing.  Burning prisoners alive.

I don't blame moderate adherents of any religion for the behavior of the extremists. Both the moderate and violent co-religionists, Christian or Muslim, are factually incorrect, but the moderates do less harm and often do good.

Most Christians aren't busting up military funerals or beating the 'gay' out of kids. The vast majority of Muslims haven't beheaded any kids, but I'll certainly stipulate that Muslims are on more of a tear lately with respect to bad behavior.
ttf_slide advantage
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_slide advantage »

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 15, 2017, 04:14PMDd I use the word "all".  How about millions. Look at surveys in the Muslim world.
Most muslims believe in Sharia law too.
Your conclusion is silly.



Silly isn't the word I would use to describe you
ttf_Piano man
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Piano man »

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 15, 2017, 04:14PMMost muslims believe in Sharia law too.

Sharia simply means religiously based law in Islam. There is a wide range of views what that entails and it comes from various sources. It isn't, contrary to belief, simply a set of rules like the Constitution or the Code of Hammurabi. When you say 'most Muslims' support Sharia in principle, it doesn't imply that the majority worldwide support stoning adulterers or amputating hands.

Many Americans oppose religiously based law but many do not, including some people on this forum. I'll go on record as opposing Sharia, Christian-based law, and other similar systems.
ttf_slide advantage
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_slide advantage »

It is patently clear that some people are seriously misinformed about Islam. And they run with what they fear.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 15, 2017, 03:16PMNo. Not even close This isn't the 4th century.  In modern times Islam is much much rmore savage. Beheading children. Honor killer bags? Throwing gays off roof tops or hanging them. Beheading prisoners. Indiscriminate bombing.  Burning prisoners alive.
How about hanging people because they are black?

What you are describing is not Islam.  It's a few very dangerous zealots.  And I'm sorry, time does not heal the wounds that have been perpetrated by Christians over the years.  What the Christians did during the (many) inquisitions, or the Crusades was lead and sanctioned by the Church.

Islam does not lead or sanction the actions of these maniacs.  They are rogues.  The inquisitors, crusaders and witch hunters were not.
ttf_ronkny
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_ronkny »

Quote from: slide advantage on Jun 15, 2017, 04:26PMIt is patently clear that some people are seriously misinformed about Islam. And they run with what they fear.
[/quote I'm done posting here. I enjoy reading  moomin and JTT but you and  others are just mean spirited. And the conversation had been derailed.
ttf_Baron von Bone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Baron von Bone »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 04:58PMHow about hanging people because they are black?Does an equivalency somehow cancel out the one at issue? Does an ugly historical equivalency applied to a modern one make the modern one go away?
 
Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 04:58PMWhat you are describing is not Islam.  It's a few very dangerous zealots.I'd like to agree, but I'm not sure I can. I can if you're specifying Islam in the West, but even then, as I understand it all of the nastiness and violence is in fact easily taken from the Quran, just like there's a tremendous amount of similar nastiness in the Bible, except that the New Testament puts a definite 180º spin on it. I don't think there's an equivalent excuse to jettison the nastiness in Islam. The fact humans just do it anyway because it's human nature to get along (the whole social species schtick) and then find excuses says a lot about human nature though.
 
Most unfortunately however, many religions promote detaching our Better Angels from humanity and crediting a deity, robbing most humans of the appreciation we should have for each other and our species as a whole, deflecting it instead to the homunculi we create to try and fuse our personal sentiments and sensibilities with Ultimate Authority to validate them/ourselves. In any case, I'm not sure the characterization that it's just a few dangerous zealots is accurate.
 
Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 04:58PMAnd I'm sorry, time does not heal the wounds that have been perpetrated by Christians over the years.  What the Christians did during the (many) inquisitions, or the Crusades was lead and sanctioned by the Church.The history certainly doesn't go away at least, and any doctrines/dogmas that are too close to those of the Crusades are obviously still here, but that doesn't mean all of Christianity and all Christians are somehow tainted by responsibility for all that, and it certainly doesn't mean that the old school Crusader mentality is alive and well and prevalent (I don't think a lot of Christians are anxiously anticipating thrusting heavy duty cutlery through the enemies of the church).
 
Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 04:58PMIslam does not lead or sanction the actions of these maniacs.  They are rogues.  The inquisitors, crusaders and witch hunters were not.It's a very positive revisionism, absolutely! It's why we should do what we can to support that revisionism, and why we should do the same here in the West--the revision of the popular use of faith, for example, which is doing a similar 180º flip. This is The Better Angels of Human Nature winning out over the Dark Side of Human Nature, which is heavily dependent upon riding on the coattails of the Better Angels. When humans grow out of the Dark Side and it fades, religion also fades leaving healthier communities just doing what humans do without so much distraction ... or destruction.
ttf_slide advantage
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_slide advantage »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 04:58PMHow about hanging people because they are black?

What you are describing is not Islam.  It's a few very dangerous zealots.  And I'm sorry, time does not heal the wounds that have been perpetrated by Christians over the years.  What the Christians did during the (many) inquisitions, or the Crusades was lead and sanctioned by the Church.

Islam does not lead or sanction the actions of these maniacs.  They are rogues.  The inquisitors, crusaders and witch hunters were not.

Well stated. Thank you.

People who think otherwise are motivated by ignorance and fear, plain and simple.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 15, 2017, 05:59PMDoes an equivalency somehow cancel out the one at issue? Does an ugly historical equivalency applied to a modern one make the modern one go away?
No.  What I'm trying to point out is that it matters not what religious fanaticism is at play, they are all equally guilty.  But I fail to see your attempt to temper things with time.  I get the feeling you believe a heinous crime of the past is less of a crime than a heinous crime of the present.

QuoteI'd like to agree, but I'm not sure I can. I can if you're specifying Islam in the West, but even then, as I understand it all of the nastiness and violence is in fact easily taken from the Quran, just like there's a tremendous amount of similar nastiness in the Bible, except that the New Testament puts a definite 180º spin on it. I don't think there's an equivalent excuse to jettison the nastiness in Islam. The fact humans just do it anyway because it's human nature to get along (the whole social species schtick) and then find excuses says a lot about human nature though.
There is an equivalent to he New Testament in Islam.

The Qur'an was supposed to be the word of god delivered to several prophets from Adam to Mohamed via the angel Gabriel.  The Hadith are recounts of the life of Mohamed, and like the new testament is a collection of different accounts of the life of Jesus, the Hadith are accounts from different followers of Mohamed.  The only difference is that the Hadith were never put into a single volume.  Hence the different sects of Islam choose different Hadith texts.  However, the same 180º spin is through much of the Hadith that you find in the new testament.

Qur'an = Old Testament/Tora

Mohamed = Jesus

Hadith (life of Mohamed) = New Testament (life of Jesus)

There is far more similarity between Islam and Christianity than there is difference.
 
 
QuoteMost unfortunately however, many religions promote detaching our Better Angels from humanity and crediting a deity, robbing most humans of the appreciation we should have for each other and our species as a whole, deflecting it instead to the homunculi we create to try and fuse our personal sentiments and sensibilities with Ultimate Authority to validate them/ourselves.
I'm not sure the proto-religions intended to do this.  I think this has been manifest from people in power trying to retain such power.  Just plain corruption of what seemed like a good idea at the time.

Quote In any case, I'm not sure the characterization that it's just a few dangerous zealots is accurate.
This statement seems to go against some of your recent sentiment, but I could be wrong.  Taking the specific religion out of it I think there is a fine line to be drawn between the technical zealot and the dangerous zealot.  I don't know what pushes one over that line and am not sure that we can't hand some blame to chance for what side you end up on when circumstances prevail.  Did you read my little story about the village near Kumasi?  That missionary's (and yes, this was in the past, but certainly still considered contemporary.  And please forget he was a Christian) actions could have condemned dozens of people to a miserable and painful death just to get a fundamentalist religious point across.  I can't help but wonder what pressures were in his mind that forced him to endanger life in order to push his religious beliefs rather than just pick up a shovel to save lives.  I think circumstances can put any zealot into the position of being dangerous.

QuoteThe history certainly doesn't go away at least, and any doctrines/dogmas that are too close to those of the Crusades are obviously still here, but that doesn't mean all of Christianity and all Christians are somehow tainted by responsibility for all that, I have to disagree and I can find precedent to support that sentiment in religion itself.  However, I don't need it.  Religion must take responsibility for it's actions otherwise it denies it's own deity which would have supposedly demanded those actions.

Quoteand it certainly doesn't mean that the old school Crusader mentality is alive and well and prevalent (I don't think a lot of Christians are anxiously anticipating thrusting heavy duty cutlery through the enemies of the church).  Again, I don't see your time limitation being pertinent or effective.  How much time needs to pass before relevance fades?  As you state dogma/doctrine don't change so neither should responsibility.  From what I've read on TTF I think there are at least a few Christians here that would enjoy the thought of thrusting heavy duty cutlery through some folks that wish to worship the same god but in a different way.  At the risk of opening a huge can of worms, how about the Christian Nazi's and their persecution of the Jews?  Is that recent enough?  Anyway, it has nothing to do with what specific religious order is gutting what other specific religious order. It would have been no better if the Jews had tried to wipe out Christian Europeans.  It has to do with the fact that religion causes people to gut each other for the most insignificant reasons and it is just a really, really shltty thing.  I just get dumbfounded when I see one religion try to vilify another when they both most certainly have a full closet of skeletons.
 
QuoteIt's a very positive revisionism, absolutely! It's why we should do what we can to support that revisionism, and why we should do the same here in the West--the revision of the popular use of faith, for example, which is doing a similar 180º flip. This is The Better Angels of Human Nature winning out over the Dark Side of Human Nature, which is heavily dependent upon riding on the coattails of the Better Angels. When humans grow out of the Dark Side and it fades, religion also fades leaving healthier communities just doing what humans do without so much distraction ... or destruction.
  Perhaps you can explain where/how I revised things?

My point in all this Byron, is that Religion may have had a use ... at some point in the distant past ... but it has no use now.  Even at its best it is bad.  I know you understand what I mean.  I read your posts on TTF and have a fair idea of where your mindset is.  You know as well as I do that the authoritarian principles of religion and the stagnation brought on by dogma/doctrine are incompatible with humankind's betterment.  Tiny differences in doctrine or the interpretation of it have people slitting each other's throats.  Sunni's killing Shi'as in the middle east, Catholics blowing up Protestants in Ireland, Nazi's gassing Jews.  The list goes on and on over time and does not look like it's going to get any shorter for the foreseeable future.  From my perspective there is no place for religion any more.  The original concept has been lost long ago and it's become the major source of conflict on this planet.
ttf_John the Theologian
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_John the Theologian »

This thread has been generating a lot more heat than light over the past few days and I have therefore avoided posting much. 

However, some of the claims have been extremely strong and, to my mind, really not sustainable.  My point here is not to attempt to refute the claims that religion is inherently violent or that the history of religion is the source of the most violence in the world or other claims such as this, although I believe that they could be refuted.

Rather I would like to point you to an article that came out about 10 years ago that challenges the whole rationality of those claims because they are based on confused thinking.

The linked article is by a theologian and because of that perhaps a few of you who are closed minded might dismiss it outright, but I would urge you not to do so.  It is a very helpful article that raises important questions of definition that get lost in the whole discussion.  It is not an apology for the history of "religious" violence at all.  In fact the author is candid that it has and continues to exist.  What the author does is question the definitions of religion that are appealed to and the attempt to separate out "religious" from other components in the whole discussion.

I would encourage all of you to take the time to read it because it will show the difficulties and inconsistencies inherent in many of the claims about religion and violence.

Here's the link:

https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/articles/springsummer2007/does-religion-cause-violence
ttf_timothy42b
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_timothy42b »

No such thing as religion, seriously?

His idea of a more multifactor approach is a good one, but his reading left out two critical sources, both important to understanding what is going on.

QuoteSapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
One of those must read books, should be on the list of everyone who considers themselves educated about how the world works.  It talks in depth about different factors that influenced how people formed groups and behaved.  Available at your local library of course.

QuoteThe Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History by Howard K. Bloom
A little dated now, but still the best readable book out there about the history of violence in humans and animals. 

Are Christians for or against violence?
Well, Quakers and Methodists oppose capital punishment and war, while Baptists and Independent Bible churches vigorously advocate.  Hmmm.  Can't tell from that alone.
ttf_John the Theologian
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_John the Theologian »

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 16, 2017, 08:07AMNo such thing as religion, seriously?

His idea of a more multifactor approach is a good one, but his reading left out two critical sources, both important to understanding what is going on.

One of those must read books, should be on the list of everyone who considers themselves educated about how the world works.  It talks in depth about different factors that influenced how people formed groups and behaved.  Available at your local library of course.

A little dated now, but still the best readable book out there about the history of violence in humans and animals. 

Are Christians for or against violence?
Well, Quakers and Methodists oppose capital punishment and war, while Baptists and Independent Bible churches vigorously advocate.  Hmmm.  Can't tell from that alone.

Having taken a whole course at the University of Iowa trying to define religion and being left with the final definition as "whatever is your ultimate concern" his discussion of the difficulty of defining religion is not far-fetched at all.  Academics write whole books on it and disagree completely, as his interaction with Martin Marty shows.

If "ultimate concern" is the definition of religion then everyone is religious. 

It reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Christmas Story-- the one about Ralphie and his BB gun.  I, especially like it because it is set just a couple of miles from my childhood home, in an era just a bit earlier than my childhood, but one of my favorite lines is about religion and goes something like this:

"Some people are Baptists, some people are Catholics.  My old man was an Oldsmobile man."

The point is that if we define religion by ultimate concern-- the academic definition that I was given-- then secularists indeed do have as much religion as so-called religious people and many are indeed not only will to die for that ultimate concern, but very willing to kill for it-- cf. the recent shooter in Washington who seems to have been rather highly motivated by political concerns which were his ultimate concern.

My point is that, as the article says, "religion" is a notoriously difficult thing to define and street level definitions often lead to problematic generalizations such as have been evident on this thread.
ttf_MoominDave
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_MoominDave »

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 15, 2017, 05:33PMI enjoy reading  moomin and JTT

I appreciate that, thank you.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 16, 2017, 07:38AMHowever, some of the claims have been extremely strong and, to my mind, really not sustainable.  My point here is not to attempt to refute the claims that religion is inherently violent or that the history of religion is the source of the most violence in the world or other claims such as this, although I believe that they could be refuted.
Surely you jest?  Religious based violence is well documented.  Would you just deny these accounts?

BTW, I never said religion was inherently violent, although there are definitely violent ideals in the scriptures of several religions.  It's just how the cookie crumbles.  When Christian inquisitors tortured and hanged other Christians, they were not acting by the wishes of Jesus.  When Sunni rebels beheaded Shia children, they were not acting by the wishes of Mohamed.  Yet they both acted in the name of their religion.  They are indeed both heretics.
ttf_John the Theologian
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_John the Theologian »

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 16, 2017, 08:25AMI appreciate that, thank you.

So do I.  Thanks.
ttf_Baron von Bone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Baron von Bone »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 10:19PMNo.  What I'm trying to point out is that it matters not what religious fanaticism is at play, they are all equally guilty.  But I fail to see your attempt to temper things with time.  I get the feeling you believe a heinous crime of the past is less of a crime than a heinous crime of the present.Relevance to the present is a pretty real deal, man.
 
There's equivalence in that they all have produced fanaticism and carnage, sure. A good case can even be made that at least some elements of all religions of scale have and still do encourage fanaticism. But to stop there and ignore degree and prevalence and time and other mitigating factors is a problem.
 
We've all lied at some point or another--does that mean we're all equally guilty of it? Is am adult who had a lying problem as a child or a teen just as guilty of lying as adults who still do so? Germany and Japan created some major problems for a lot of the world a bit back--are today's Germans and Japanese guilty of that, and should we still consider them a threat? Do people or organizations get any credit for learning from mistakes or simply developing and changing, or are they always just equally guilty once a deed has been done?
 
 --
 
I'll get at the rest later--probably not a bad idea to split it up anyway.
ttf_Piano man
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Piano man »

ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 16, 2017, 09:10AMRelevance to the present is a pretty real deal, man.
 
There's equivalence in that they all have produced fanaticism and carnage, sure. A good case can even be made that at least some elements of all religions of scale have and still do encourage fanaticism. But to stop there and ignore degree and prevalence and time and other mitigating factors is a problem.
 
We've all lied at some point or another--does that mean we're all equally guilty of it? Is am adult who had a lying problem as a child or a teen just as guilty of lying as adults who still do so? Germany and Japan created some major problems for a lot of the world a bit back--are today's Germans and Japanese guilty of that, and should we still consider them a threat? Do people or organizations get any credit for learning from mistakes or simply developing and changing, or are they always just equally guilty once a deed has been done?
 
 --
 
I'll get at the rest later--probably not a bad idea to split it up anyway.
Except that Christians have a history over time toward violence.  Sometimes the are, and other times they are not.  The same can be said for other religious people, but the particular religion creating havoc now is not worse than any of the others.  Non of them have given it up for good and my bet is the Muslims will let off after a time, only to take it up again at some future point.  History repeats, especially where a fixed doctrine is in place.
ttf_timothy42b
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_timothy42b »

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 16, 2017, 09:52AMThe article is excellent. I haven't finished it yet, but it's an eye-opener.

The article points out that until fairly recently there wouldn't have been a good way to separate religion from culture, they were part and parcel.  That's a good point.

It extrapolates a bit, to say that religion is a fuzzy concept so it doesn't exist, and oh by the way other things are religions too, preparing the ground for a false equivalence of probability.  Standard practice.

There are clearly many influences into the problem of violence.

One thing that does not get mentioned is that the artifacts and rituals of organized religion are a powerful method for influencing and motivating large groups of people. 

Of course, the world has been getting less and less violent for a good bit of time now, currently we're the safest we've been in 10,000 years or so.  Whether that has to do with secularization, economic prosperity, weather, etc., I don't know. 
ttf_Baron von Bone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Baron von Bone »

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 16, 2017, 07:38AMThe linked article is by a theologian and because of that perhaps a few of you who are closed minded might dismiss it outright, but I would urge you not to do so.Heh ...
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 16, 2017, 07:38AMI would encourage all of you to take the time to read it because it will show the difficulties and inconsistencies inherent in many of the claims about religion and violence.
 
Here's the link:
https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/articles/springsummer2007/does-religion-cause-violence
Just through the opening section so far--good stuff! Looking forward to seeing if he gets into the reification of religion and the fact that violence and religion and most of the rest of what's in play here are all about human nature rather than Things Unto Themselves. We categorize them so we can deal with them intellectually, and that's good, but we also tend to reify categories (due again to our nature--the way our brains work).
 
Avoiding others' responses on this one before I finish it ... busy today.
ttf_Piano man
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Piano man »

Timothy, what interested me was the idea that religion as a discrete entity is a hypothetical construct, and a rather recent one. The equation of nationalism with religion struck a chord with me as well. People who place real value and importance in rituals like saluting the flag seem just as religious to me as people taking communion. And it definitely gets all balled together--there are certainly people who feel that they're defending Christianity when they defend America, and vice-versa.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 16, 2017, 09:52AMThe article is excellent. I haven't finished it yet, but it's an eye-opener.
It is well written, but I'm not inclined to expand the concept of religion so wide that it encompass us all ipso facto violence in the name of religion is not really religious violence, it's everybody's violence.  Someone accused me of being glib, now I will be.  The fact is, people that fanatically love Mustangs do not go around beheading other people because the love Cameros.  Proponents of the elctorweak force theory do not burn string theorists at the stake.

Further, I don't believe the article even addressee my position.  I don't believe religion is inherently violent.  The blame needs to be put on religious people, those I call dangerous zealots.  People that seek to convert others, to admonish them for holding beliefs other than their own. If all religious people actually followed the teachings of their religions and left others alone, there would be no violence.  However, not all do, and as I said before there is a fine line there.

Let's take JtJ for instance.  When he used an example of religious violence, he chose to seek that example from another faith when he could easily have used an example from his own faith's history.  Instead his choice only propagates Christian-Muslim hate.  Also, when I stated that I don't believe his god exits he said "I know He's real and because of that I shudder for you-- I really do-- because you will have to give account before Him."  Sounds to me a lot like "Heathen, yea shall be judged for your lack of faith."  Neither of those sound much like the teaching of Jesus, but there you go.

From a personal perspective, I don't mind religious people as long as they keep it to themselves.  If they are true followers of their religion and don't hate others for their beliefs, or try to change other's beliefs, then everything is fine.  But that is not always the way it is.  When you start to question another's strongly held beliefs, you're asking for trouble to escalate very quickly.  I did not even question John's personal belief in a god.  I merely stated my position and asked that folks get over it.  I did not ask him why he was doing something I thought was wrong, or suggest he try on another religion otherwise he would be judged for it.  Yet he got upset.  What would happen if I moved in next door to him and kept telling him he's a sinner unless he converts to XYA religion.  At the very least I'm sure he'd have me thrown in jail.  I'm pretty sure Jesus would not look at it that way, if, of course, the new testament is a true account of the man.

I guess Byron may be right.  It might be about human nature, but it seems to me if the result of mixing religion with human nature is wanton violence, then perhaps my position that religion has had it day should be considered.  Jus' sayin'.
ttf_John the Theologian
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_John the Theologian »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 16, 2017, 10:40AM
From a personal perspective, I don't mind religious people as long as they keep it to themselves.  

In other words you will impose your definition of what is good and just upon those of us who are traditional Christians and believe that our faith should be propagated at the command of our founder and it doesn't matter what we believe because your POV is the just and right one and trumps everything.

Sure sounds like imposing your POV on others.

Seeking to persuade someone else is not inherently violent, no matter how you loudly say it is.  I abhor real violence as much as you claim to do, but seeking to persuade someone else is not inherently violent.

People seek to persuade others about things all the time.  It's part of what being human is.

We Christians simply believe that an intolerant-- there I said- secularist like yourself can not and should not be able to silence public discourse.

For someone who claims to not want to talk about "religion", it seems completely and totally hypocritical for you to spend so much time trashing it on this forum.


ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 16, 2017, 10:52AMIn other words you will impose your definition of what is good and just upon those of us who are traditional Christians and believe that our faith should be propagated at the command of our founder and it doesn't matter what we believe because your POV is the just and right one and trumps everything.

Sure sounds like imposing your POV on others.

Seeking to persuade someone else is not inherently violent, no matter how you loudly say it is.  I abhor real violence as much as you claim to do, but seeking to persuade someone else is not inherently violent.

People seek to persuade others about things all the time.  It's part of what being human is.

We Christians simply believe that an intolerant-- there I said- secularist like yourself can not and should not be able to silence public discourse.

For someone who claims to not want to talk about "religion", it seems completely and totally hypocritical for you to spend so much time trashing it on this forum.


No need to be nasty John.  Aren't you Christian?  Didn't Jesus teach love and acceptance?

1) I did not say my POV was the only one, just that it is my POV.  And of course I think it's the right one.  It's mine.  Don't you believe your POV is the right one?  You're just being silly now.

2) So, my stating my POV is an imposing thing?  I'll take that as a compliment.

3) There is a difference between polite persuasion and brow beating people into religious conversion through guilt and fear.  Plus, anyone you try to 'persuade' certainly has the right to ask to to leave them in peace, no?

4) I'm intolerant because I want folks to keep true to their religions and keep there religions to themselves? Hmmm...

5) Well then John.  I'll agree to leave you to your religion.  Just explain to me why it is a 'better' religion than either Judaism, Islam or LDS.  Take your pick.  Then I'll be glad to be out of your hair.

ttf_John the Theologian
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_John the Theologian »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 16, 2017, 11:30AMNo need to be nasty John.  Aren't you Christian?  Didn't Jesus teach love and acceptance?


Not trying to be nasty, but rather just pointing out what I believe is the inconsistency of your attitude that you seem unaware of.

Jesus did teach love and acceptance, but he also could call people out when necessary.  After all he called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs and a bunch of snakes," not exactly polite language.  Yet he did, it out of genuine love.  Sometimes the really loving thing is to show what's really there and I believe that your attitude is hypocritical, at least what I've seen on this thread.

I believe that I did that out of love.  You may not think so, but if you really want to discuss the truth claims of the Christian faith, I would be willing to do so, as long as it isn't just an opportunity for you to pour out your anger.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 16, 2017, 11:49AM... as long as it isn't just an opportunity for you to pour out your anger.
I am really not angry at all.
ttf_Baron von Bone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Baron von Bone »

I hate I've had to read Does Religion Cause Violence? in chunks, but I'll definitely be going back over it. Skimmed over the beginning of the third section and I'd say the author's just gone off course. The religion causes violence (RCV) model is ubiquitous among believers, not just non-believers. In fact most of those advocating it are believers, by a long shot. Clearly they don't think their religious beliefs promote violence. Quite the contrary. They generally think the unenlightened understanding and practice of religion is the problem, and that it's also about the aggressive, self-centered kind of thinking that isolationist, fundamentalist type religion tends to nurture, or at least provides a friendly enough environment for that it's heavily represented by isolationist type fundamentalists. So the way he's taking his argument in the third section has just taken a striking turn from the veracity of the previous two.
 
In any case it seems to me this essay may warrant its own topic, or maybe it'll just be prominent enough in here for a while to cover it well enough--that would certainly be a nice change for this genre of topic in here! I just posted it on the Sam Harris Forum, where the ratio of signal to noise is significantly better than any other forum with which I have much experience--should be interesting to see how the kids there handle the material.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 16, 2017, 02:11PMSo the way he's taking his argument in the third section has just taken a striking turn from the veracity of the previous two.
For me it did not get any better.  It's almost like he got tired of writing it.
ttf_John the Theologian
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_John the Theologian »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 16, 2017, 02:24PMFor me it did not get any better.  It's almost like he got tired of writing it.

Or maybe because it was a challenge to your paradigm.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 16, 2017, 02:33PMOr maybe because it was a challenge to your paradigm.
No, like I say, he was not really addressing my paradigm.  I felt no threat in what he wrote against my position.  He just lost precision and conviction.  Once he argued the difficulty in defining religion and the lack of distinction between secular and religious, he just seemed to loose focus.  I also found some of his arguments lacking.  For instance the part about the Christian persecution of the Jehovah Witness.  I don't see anything secular about that.  the JW do not believe man should pay homage to anything but God.  Their mistake was making a point of it and the Christians took offense.  If they had kept their beliefs to themselves and let the Christians do likewise, there would have been no violence.  But that event was religious violence, there was nothing secular about it.

Of course there is a problem defining religion.  If you define what religion is to , say, a Catholic, Muslim's are not going to agree and vice versa.  That does not mean everyone will confuse religious with secular.  Secular rarely involves an unquestioning spiritual faith in a supernatural entity.  Monotheistic religions (the most prone to be associated with violence) invariably do.  I know that is certainly not going to be a sufficient definition to fully satisfy the devout, but it serves fairly well to separate religious from secular.
ttf_Piano man
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Piano man »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 16, 2017, 03:22PMI also found some of his arguments lacking.  For instance the part about the Christian persecution of the Jehovah Witness.  I don't see anything secular about that. 

To the contrary, that was a strong argument. The persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to conform to a nationalist ritual was a perfect example of nationalism mimicking, and maybe becoming, religion. The objection that led to that persecution would certainly be described as 'secular' in the traditional sense, because the objection was over a nationalist ritual, not a religious one.

The people who argued it contrarily as an example of (traditionally defined)) religion as creating violence got it exactly wrong, because the JH's weren't throwing rocks at anyone. It was a perfect example of the way that tribalism is hard to separate into religious and non-religious branches, in any meaningful way. The Pledge of Allegiance is still a weird sort of religion to a lot of people.
ttf_Baron von Bone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Baron von Bone »

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 16, 2017, 02:11PMI hate I've had to read Does Religion Cause Violence? in chunks, but I'll definitely be going back over it. Skimmed over the beginning of the third section and I'd say the author's just gone off course ...
Nope ... he never actually took it off course I'm happy to say. I had a lot of minor issues with his characterizations of secular ideology--at least from my initial reading they do all seem minor though. I think he and I reach mostly the same conclusions (at least as far as a lot of misconceptions regarding religion) from very different angles, so I expect there's plenty of disagreement behind our agreement, and we may not agree at all as to good ways of navigating the issues he raises (e.g. I don't think he'd care much for how I conceive of "religion"--dunno though--mostly I think of it as a ratio or spectrum between belief and evidence).
 
He never directly raised the issue of reification. I found that interesting--maybe he figured it was implied so pervasively it would have been patronizing or just redundant to address directly. Could also just be under his radar as yet. In any case, he's definitely an iconoclast. Oddly enough I identify with that ... heh.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

BVB, have you read some of the texts he references?

I have.  Their arguments are at the very least as compelling.

Anyway.  I've decided I don't belong in this discussion.  I seem to be an anachronism.  Even Richard Dawkins is softening up his stance these days.  When I first had a conversation with him he made me look like a priest.

Have fun folks!
ttf_timothy42b
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_timothy42b »

BillO,you do have a fresh perspective and it's nice to see some new voices here.  Hope you contribute more.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 16, 2017, 06:29PMBillO,you do have a fresh perspective and it's nice to see some new voices here.  Hope you contribute more.
Thanks Tim, but I'll make only one more comment and exit for a while.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 16, 2017, 03:46PMTo the contrary, that was a strong argument. The persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to conform to a nationalist ritual was a perfect example of nationalism mimicking, and maybe becoming, religion. The objection that led to that persecution would certainly be described as 'secular' in the traditional sense, because the objection was over a nationalist ritual, not a religious one.

The people who argued it contrarily as an example of (traditionally defined)) religion as creating violence got it exactly wrong, because the JH's weren't throwing rocks at anyone. It was a perfect example of the way that tribalism is hard to separate into religious and non-religious branches, in any meaningful way. The Pledge of allegiance is still a weird sort of religion to a lot of people.

I could not disagree more PM.  It seems the rhetoric swept you away (and I don't mean rhetoric in a derogatory manner.  Wow, it seem ridiculous I have to do this all the time.  It really bugs me that people use words to mean what they don't mean).  To me the JW were not objecting on nationalist, or anti-nationalist grounds at all.  I say this from a perspective outside this article as I have read accounts of this before.  They were objecting due to their doctrine.  Then the Christians acted like any fundamentalist religious body would when their beliefs were were under what they would see as attack.

I'm surprised that you see this as secular.  I mean, you're certainly welcome to your interpretation, but I'm so surprised at that interpretation.  For me it had precious little to do with nationalism as the JW would never consider the nationalistic slant.  They would never pledge their allegiance anything but God for any reason.  I'll bet dollars to doughnuts 'nationalism' never enters their religious discussions one way or another.  I'm pretty familiar with the JW and I'll warrant that nationalism is not high on their list - ever.

One thing you are right about is the JW were not throwing rocks at anyone.  They just (inadvisedly) butted into the practices of another religion because the conduct of that religion was contrary to theirs.  When it comes to religious criticism, no one has less tolerance than the Christians.

See it whatever way you like PM.  You, like everyone else, is entitled to your take on things.
ttf_Baron von Bone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Baron von Bone »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 16, 2017, 03:22PMNo, like I say, he was not really addressing my paradigm.  I felt no threat in what he wrote against my position.  He just lost precision and conviction.  Once he argued the difficulty in defining religion and the lack of distinction between secular and religious, he just seemed to loose focus.  I also found some of his arguments lacking.  For instance the part about the Christian persecution of the Jehovah Witness.  I don't see anything secular about that.  the JW do not believe man should pay homage to anything but God.  Their mistake was making a point of it and the Christians took offense.  If they had kept their beliefs to themselves and let the Christians do likewise, there would have been no violence.  But that event was religious violence, there was nothing secular about it.There was nothing secular about the JW's refusal to practice patriotic rituals, sure, but the Christians who met that with violence were motivated by nationalistic zeal. I agree with you though, in that I consider both religious thinking and behavior as well--I agree with Cavanaugh that this kind of thinking and behavior is common ground between the practices trained and nurtured by what we consider religious institutions and nationalism, but it's certainly a reasonable or at least understandable (standard issue) take not to consider nationalism religious in nature. Still, I'd argue that calling the religious thinking taught by "official" religious institutions religious, and nationalism like this not religious is a distinction without a difference, just as Cavanaugh argues, but it's also a distinction we're socialized to make. I think the confusion comes if you try to separate identical mindsets because of arbitrary differences, but socialization bypasses reasoning, at least until serious enough problems are discovered. In any case, when someone is accused of behaving religiously it's because s/he's holding strongly to a belief that isn't grounded in evidence. There's a very good reason we ID that as religious thinking, and for why we don't consider it actually religious at the same time.
 
Quote from: BillO on Jun 16, 2017, 03:22PMOf course there is a problem defining religion.  If you define what religion is to , say, a Catholic, Muslim's are not going to agree and vice versa.  That does not mean everyone will confuse religious with secular.  Secular rarely involves an unquestioning spiritual faith in a supernatural entity.  Monotheistic religions (the most prone to be associated with violence) invariably do.  I know that is certainly not going to be a sufficient definition to fully satisfy the devout, but it serves fairly well to separate religious from secular.I'd say it's about holding beliefs regarding things external to the self (i.e. not about one's tastes and opinions and such) without evidence (usually outside the realm of evidence--unverifiable/unfalsifiable--generally supernatural and theistic), or with dubious evidence, or with evidence if the term is re-defined to accommodate the given beliefs (i.e. without evidence).
ttf_Piano man
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Piano man »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 16, 2017, 07:09PMI could not disagree more PM.  It seems the rhetoric swept you away (and I don't mean rhetoric in a derogatory manner.  Wow, it seem ridiculous I have to do this all the time.  It really bugs me that people use words to mean what they don't mean).  To me the JW were not objecting on nationalist, or anti-nationalist grounds at all.  I say this from a perspective outside this article as I have read accounts of this before.  They were objecting due to their doctrine.  Then the Christians acted like any fundamentalist religious body would when their beliefs were were under what they would see as attack.

I'm surprised that you see this as secular.  I mean, you're certainly welcome to your interpretation, but I'm so surprised at that interpretation.  For me it had precious little to do with nationalism as the JW would never consider the nationalistic slant.  They would never pledge their allegiance anything but God for any reason.  I'll bet dollars to doughnuts 'nationalism' never enters their religious discussions one way or another.  I'm pretty familiar with the JW and I'll warrant that nationalism is not high on their list - ever.

One thing you are right about is the JW were not throwing rocks at anyone.  They just (inadvisedly) butted into the practices of another religion because the conduct of that religion was contrary to theirs.  When it comes to religious criticism, no one has less tolerance than the Christians.

See it whatever way you like PM.  You, like everyone else, is entitled to your take on things.

I'll join Timothy42B in hoping you don't drop out of the conversation.

Now let's disagree.

I'm not claiming that the JWs' objection to the Pledge was nationalistic rather than religious--I'm saying that the attacks on them were nationalistic rather than religious. As the author shows, there's precious little daylight in that distinction.

Let me remind you that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. The quarrel wasn't between Christians and non-Christians, but between Christians who wanted to force people to follow a nationalistic ritual and ones who didn't want to follow it, or didn't want their children to be forced to follow it.

The author acknowledges that the Jehovah's Witnesses were raising a religious objection (in the traditional sense), as do I. I don't see it as a 'secular' argument on their side at all.

His point is that other Christians' persecution of them was based purely on nationalism, and that nationalism was essentially indistinguishable from a religious persecution. I think it's a compelling argument. If you are willing to torture another person to get them to recite a nationalist oath, the distance between the consequences of 'cosmic' and 'worldly' argument has surely narrowed, just as the author says, as has the distance between secular nationalism and religion.

If you look at the practical aspects of the conflict, this becomes more plain. The Pledge of Allegiance is an odd artifact--it was actually written well after the Civil War as an entry in a magazine contest. What disadvantage is there if schoolchildren aren't compelled to recite a dimly understood loyalty oath? Obviously, none. The fact that JWs were jailed over a pointless ritual supports the author's point.

Were they 'inadvisable' in pursuing their religious beliefs? I think so, because if I were forcibly castrated for refusing to salute the flag based on a supernatural belief, I'd feel I went down a wrong road. But many people today would agree that children shouldn't be forced to recite a loyalty oath as a condition of attending school.
ttf_Baron von Bone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Baron von Bone »

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 17, 2017, 12:24AMI'll join Timothy42B in hoping you don't drop out of the conversation.
Damn ... I meant to second that above.
 
I third Tim's encouragement to stick around ...
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

One of the main reasons I feel I need to exit this thread is that I tend to get involved in interesting problems.  This has been a quality that has done me well in my working life, but I find that in my retirement it tends to distract me from things I should be doing.  Like practicing my trombone and refinishing the kitchen.  My wife agrees on the latter.

Another reason is JtT.  My presence here seems have incensed him to the point that he's implied my POV is somehow not as important as his POV, which he freely disseminates.

After some thinking I have come to realize that 2nd reason is John's problem.  Not mine.  However I don't like to upset people to the point they feel they need to insult me out their love for me.  I can probably live with it though.

As to the 1st reason stated, it will bear on my level of participation.  After the kitchen is done, we've got a bathroom to re-model, a roof to re-shingle and a gymnasium with dry sauna to build.  All this year.

Now, to the discussion.

As I said, I tend to get involved - so I've been doing a lot of thinking on this.  I decided to use my troubleshooting skills on this and do some thought experiments to see if I can find a smoking gun to the situation between the JW and the nationalists.  See if I can nail down the blame.

So, I first tried removing nationalism from the situation.  Indeed logic dictates that the conflict goes away.  Then I tried removing religion - again the conflict goes away.  So now I am left with having to change my thinking about this situation and I have to agree that there was indeed pivotal secular causes.  If you are going to tabulate violent acts with a column for those with secular causes and another column for those with religious causes, then the nationalist persecution of the JW would get a count in both columns.

While that exercise was useful I felt the total removal of either nationalism or religion from the situation did not really help my POV much.  Kind of like getting rid of the backfiring in your car by first trying to remove the ignition, then the carburetor.  In both cases the the backfiring is effectively eliminated, but neither is very practical as you no longer have a working car.  So I next tried slightly different adjustments to both the nationalist behavior and the religious behavior.  I just wanted to make small changes that would allow both groups to still be what they are, but have gotten them through the situation unscathed.  I'm sorry to say that after dozens of attempts I couldn't.  Each group acted true to itself and there was no way I could adjust them to prevent the violence and still leave them basically intact.

Well, I'm not ready to entirely give up on my POV yet, but maybe I'm ready to admit it could use some adjustment.



ttf_ronkny
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_ronkny »

Why is there not an "atheism matters" thread?
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 17, 2017, 12:29PMWhy is there not an "atheism matters" thread?
Start one.
ttf_ronkny
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_ronkny »

Quote from: BillO on Jun 17, 2017, 01:10PMStart one.
it was kind of a rhetorical question. Bvb, an atheist, started this thread. Not sure why. My OPNION is that he doesn't understand why people in the modern world believe in "fairies".  Maybe he proselytizing (that's not working out very well). And even though some here accuse the religious of proselytizing on a "religious matters" thread you don't see a religious person starting an atheism thread to see why some don't believe in God and maybe convert them.  And thus have posts such as some here mocking "zealots" but aimed at atheists.
Interesting.  What it tells me is that the atheists are either worried about not believing in God and they are defensive or they really thing we are weirdos and it's just for mocking sport. Or something else.
I don't seek to proselytize. But I have shard time tolerating those who seek to belittle faith by using extreme and rare or dated examples of  religious extremenism.  And to compare examples of of radical Christianity of old with Radical moderm Islam is just silly.  The world is at peace now more than ever. Radical Islam (in the millions of followers) is much more of a problem than modern Christianity or Judaism or any other religion.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_BillO »

I don't think there are too many millions of followers of radical Muslims, but I get your point.  They do seem the be the religious wackos of the present day.  I'm beginning to believe their radicalism is not even well connected to their religion at all.  Nutbags are nutbags.  But Being a religious person can bring with it some things that help the radicalism along.

And please understand, I don't have a huge quibble with religious people as long as they keep it to themselves.  Right now radical Islam is not doing that.  I think we can probably agree on that.  However, I do see a lot of folks just generalize the acts of these nutbag radicals to all Muslims.  That is just plain wrong from any perspective.  Unfortunately, in my circle those folks are more often than not (way more, actually) religious people.

However, being an anti-theist I do believe religion has had it's time.  The need to muster up some supreme being that everyone needs to live if fear of, in order to live reasonably with each other, has past.  A lot of effort goes into keeping organized religion going.  If you really want to do good, put those resources into actually helping people in need, or animals in need, or into research for the betterment of mankind.  Don't waste it on building a new church, or supporting an immense hierarchy of otherwise useless clerics like the RC church.

Following doctrine has never been a great way for man to develop.  It teaches you to not be open to new ideas.  I'm not sure which branches of Christianity that you, John and Dusty belong to, but I'm sure you are all aware that some Christians (as well as other religions) look at genesis as being an historical account (despite the numerous contradictions and other problems with that concept).  They believe the universe is only ~ 6500 years old.  Yet those same people own and use modern cars, fly in airplanes, and use the internet without realizing that the very existence of modern cars, airplanes and the internet demand that the universe be billions of years old.  Seriously, you can't have it both ways.

Putting effort into keeping such archaic concepts going seems, to me, like a waste of valuable resources.

Another thing I have no problem with are the teachings of Jesus.  It is a little difficult to get them exactly right as the new testament is very inconsistent.  However, one gets the feeling he taught thing like peace, love, helpfulness, acceptance and tolerance.  These are good things.  But we know that anyway, don't we?  Do we really need to be involved in an organized religion to adopt these principles?  Do we need the adherence to doctrine and authoritarianism that comes with that?  Do we need minds molded to follow doctrine and authoritarianism?  Do we need faith to be good people?

One of the nasty things about religion is that every religion is 100% sure they got it right and all the rest have it wrong.  Personally I have a problem with this.  Not that I'm the worlds most open mined person, but it is just plain hubris.  That smells.  It smells bad.  One way I have of keeping religious people from attempting to proselytize me is to ask them to explain to me how their religion is better than another.  I have done this most the JW, as they used to come around here quite a bit, but I've done it with other folks too when they have tired to push religious beliefs on me.

Do you know what?  Not one has ever accepted the challenge.  Not a single one.

ttf_Piano man
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

Religion Matters: Take 3

Post by ttf_Piano man »

Ronkny, I think you're trying way too hard to choose up sides. This thread in no way lines up as 'atheists vs. believers', because there's just as much disagreement within those groups as between them.

To name only a few examples from very recent posts:

I liked JtT's article, but T42B, a believer, didn't.

BvB and BillO aren't believers, but they strongly disagree on the relevance of historical violence compared to current violence vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam, which puts him in agreement with your most recent post.

I'm an atheist, but I agree with the Theologian's article that persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses was more secular than religious, and that nationalism closely mimics religion. BillO, who is a fellow atheist, disagrees with John and me.

I agreed with you that defining people who devote their lives to religion as 'zealots' was too broad.

I don't see any point in an 'atheist' topic, because what the heck could you write about? I get the sense that you're trying to create rancor where there is none, and maybe you're a little frustrated that the sides don't draw up quite as cleanly as you like. I'm not in here to lob shots across anyone's bow. It seems like a good discussion to me.
Post Reply

Return to “Chit-Chat”