Sunday, March 15, 2009
Religion
I think this is one of the most basic and yet far spanning discussions that one can hope to embark upon, what is religion to you? How do you relate to religion? Do you believe that If you truly hold to your beliefs you should try to swing others to those beliefs? This is a post to say anything and everything you think about the topic or religion, spirituality, or even things barely related to it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see religion as a bane to society, a dogmatic system created to keep the majority under the control of the minority and to impinge upon spirituality.
ReplyDeleteHistory is littered with "Holy Wars" and other such cases of people doing ungodly things in the name of a higher power. Telling people to believe barring any reasonable proof, in fact relishing in that lack of proof is counterproductive to society moving forward and making advances, but even more fundamentally, I wonder why we need religion in the first place.
If someone can tell me why we need a SYSTEM of beliefs, I will be eternally grateful.
I am a strong believer in ethical principles, and the two types are religious or secular ethics, so I have no problem with individuals practicing religion if they choose to.
ReplyDeleteThe time when religion becomes a problem is when it becomes a theocracy and beliefs are forced onto people via violence or social pressure, or when people use mysticism as a substitute for empiricism and logic when trying to justify an idea, concept or action.
I agree that systems of beliefs are unnecessary and are inherently coercive. However, there are many examples in history of aggressive secular belief systems. For example, Confucianism was pushed down the ancient Chinese peoples' throats, and more modern examples would include Marxism, Nationalism, Racism, or even Environmentalism to a degree (force people to "live green" via "green laws").
I attribute the Holy Wars and conflicts throughout history not to religion specifically, but rather any forms of collectivist thinking. We are all individuals, but we often group individuals together into groups whether it be by skin color, religious beliefs, political beliefs, culture, ETC. and try to force these "collectives" to become just like our own "collective." We are all unique individuals, and hence should be treated as such. I am strongly in opposition to universalist and evangelical religions, but individualistic religions like Buddhism, Daoism, or even some sects of Christianity and Hinduism I am perfect fine with.
Two points to make:
ReplyDelete1. "Do you believe that If you truly hold to your beliefs you should try to swing others to those beliefs?" NO. Absolutely not. People doing this is my one major problem with organized religion.
2. WOAH. I'm a tad bit offended by the inclusion of environmentalism in that list of "aggressive secular belief systems" in the above post, especially by the implied comparison to racism. We had the civil rights movement; we now have laws against racism [check out those "equal opportunity employer" statements and whatnot] because the discriminatory actions of one group of people negatively affected the lives of others. The same goes for the green movement. Environmentally detrimental actions by one group [company, factory, nation, whatever] will eventually affect the whole world on some scale. By not passing laws against that, we'd basically be saying it's okay to detract from others' quality of life for the short-term betterment of your own. If you think that's acceptable, I don't know what to say to you. Environmentalism does not belong in any category with racism, and in this particular case it's the exact opposite.
In response to the above post, I am speaking of militant political environmentalism.
ReplyDeleteBy what moral authority do you have to FORCE me to live a certain lifestyle? Why cannot I use incandescent light bulbs? Why should I be taxed more for owning a gasoline-powered car than a hybrid?
I made no implications of comparing racism to political environmentalism. However, what both ideologies have in common is the forcing of a doctrine onto someone else. Being green is perfectly fine and in fact I prefer to not waste electricity and do prefer to recycle.
However, ideas such as carbon taxing, prohibition of incandescent light bulbs, prohibition of gasoline-powered cars, ETC. are coercive (if you don't do it, you get fined or jailed) and force a "green" lifestyle onto someone in the same way that the Han Chinese forced Confucian values onto everyone.
To be completely honest and OBJECTIVE, there is little difference between forcing someone to follow an environmentally-friendly lifestyle than forcing someone to follow a Christian lifestyle. You can argue collective justifications for both (public health v. public morality), but at the end of the day they both attempt to change the lifestyle of someone else.
And to be corrective, the exact opposite of racism is tolerance not environmentalism. Environmentalists whom support green legislation such as what I described above are intolerant of people who do not submit to a green lifestyle.
And I will remind you that I see nothing wrong with environmentalism, and for the same reason I see nothing wrong with religion.
ReplyDeleteBut when it is forced upon me and I cannot resist without having my property or even my liberty being taken away from me unjustly, I have a BIG problem with it. And if you bring up the "greater good" being more important than individual liberty, I direct you to my first post about the dangers of collectivism, which has taken many forms and caused much suffering and violence throughout our history. The environment exists only as a collective concept, like nations and societies. There is as much moral justification for a preemptive strike against pollution as there are against preemptive wars against nations )e.g. Iraq). If an individual pollutes another individual's property, then the accused should be put on trial. If a society pollutes an environment, there are no individuals being tried and hence no actual crime that can be JUSTLY PROVEN.
I see no moral justification for any violence for the "greater good", whether that goal is a strong nation, a happy deity, a prosperous working class, a racially pure society, or, no matter how hard it hurts, a clean environment.
At this point, religion to me is on the same level as Hitler and the Nazis :0 Organized religion, that is.
ReplyDeleteI believe in spirituality, but that is much much different than supposedly having anything like it through an organized religion.
The purposes of religion in a society are to:
1. Bring people together.
2. Inspire and give faith.
Both of these reasons have their tricks to them.
1. Yes, it brings people together. It brings certain people together. The rest are seperated and sometimes even greatly disliked. It's very similar to think about it in terms of cliques in school. Ultimately, the seperation is the most notable aspect of it.
2. It gives people "faith." Religion does not give people faith, nor do priests or reverends or whatever other funny name you want to slap on a regular joe. The individual choses to be faithful. Thinking inspiring thoughts and optimism is a very powerful mental device.
I don't like religion because it is just another excuse. People will pray instead of make things happen. The faith in organized religion gives the power one could assume over one's own life to a higher, possibly non-existent being.
Do we really want to sacrifice that?
Religion has more to do with fate than anything. Organized religions have the sort of mentality that life is so awful and cruel that we need to make up a fantasy world to dream about and possibly get to when we die. It just seems like everyone in organized religion is just waiting around to die so they can go to heaven.
I don't know about you, but that is one shitty life I'm thinkin of.
Think of all the time people spend in church or praying when they could be doing something else with their lives, something that would be more satisfying? Like maybe taking control and doing some actual good? The two hours you spend in church on Sunday could be spent contemplating your existence on earth, for example :)
It just seems so silly to me that people so readily give their freedom away.
On the other hand, religion is a good guiding tool for the people who are "lost". It instills values in people who cannot make up their own, and that may be good, but I generally think people would do just fine coming up with their own values without religion. I mean "lost" by they don't exactly know what to do with themselves.
I think a lot of people feel that way. It's the ultimate question in life, "What am I here for?"
It misguides them into thinking that they are there to be subserbiant to God.
Honestly, some people just can't handle this stuff. It's really a matter of simplicity. It's so much easier to believe in something without figuring out the truth behind it. It's so much easier to stick with your same old views than be patient and hear what someone else has to say. Some people are so god damn lazy.
Take out the bible, read it cover to cover. It is the most powerful force for atheism on this planet. We clearly do not take any morals FROM the bible, as we pick and choose which instructions to follow. We are able to determine that it is right NOT to murder, and wrong to sell your own daughter as a sex slave, Exodus 21:7-11: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."
ReplyDeleteTo pick on Christians, there are more than one set of ten commandments. More than one. There are two different sets of commandments, and also ten "punishments" - with happy ideas such as: Exodus 31:15: "Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
For those Christians who don't believe in Hell, or don't think the wafer during communion PHYSICALLY and LITERALLY transforms into the flesh of Jesus, or don't take the bible as the word of God - disassociate yourselves with the bible thumpers and fundamentalists ASAP before you too are lumped into the category of ignorant twat.
First, Props to Big Heb for throwing down the gauntlet.
ReplyDeletesecondly, environmentalism id something that really does need everybody to pitch in, it's like being in a musical ensemble, if one person plays something wrong it ruins it for everybody else.
Religion is exactly the opposite the way i see it, one person practicing a religion and having their own personal dogma is no problem, it's the path they make for themselves, but large groups or religious fanatics or even mild believers have a way of endangering the sovereignty of the individual.
While collectivist thinking may be to blame for some aspects, allowing people to believe things without proof is opening pandora's box, telling them t do so as a group is supercharging the problem.
Judges 15:15 "And he [Samson] found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith."
ReplyDeleteRELIGION IS SO BADASS
sam, i don't see what's so odd about this passage. seriously man tsa dosn't let you bring ass jawbones on planes for just this reason
ReplyDeleteThe difference, however, between a musical ensamble and political environmentalism is that the ensamble is voluntary. If I'm ruining it for everyone and no longer want to play, I can choose to quit the orchestra. I am not forced against my will to be on the orchestra, but I do not have the choice to not be a part of the environment. Hence, I believe the involuntary force of environmental politics as I detailed above is still a form of coercive collectivism, although a weaker form than the other examples I gave.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would love for people to think rationally about everything and not just buy into bullshit without proof, it is either accepting the individuals' right to do so or using aggression to force them against their will to comply with logic. Faced with these two choices, I would take liberty over tyranny any day.
you, however do have that liberty, and that is the brilliant thing about it, you can buy that suv if you want, but is i really nessacary?
ReplyDeletedo you think that your right to drive a tank outweighs everybody else's right to breathe clean air?
The environmentalist movement is not forcing you to do anything other than listen. Maybe there needs to be some kind of environmental slide rule, but no one is going to forcibly take anything from you, the idea is to create change, stagnation is not good for anyone, we as a race need to evolve, and look a little farther down the line. If you want to sacrifice a little bit of clean air for your Hummer, the least you can do is give a little something back, the Hummer is a want item not a need item, so you should pay duly for the consequences of your actions, waste more pay more, the concept preserves free choice but brings about change. If your against it, your standing against the possibility of a better life with very little in the way of drawbacks.
Finally, I would like to point out that this is really the exact opposite of religion, religion takes the efforts of everybody and puts it all into one concentrated machine. Environmentalism is about the greater good, it is an effort dispersion device, by doing something you can make both yours and the lives of many other people better. Religion simply asks for obedience with the promise of a theoretical reward.
"Religion simply asks for obedience with the promise of a theoretical reward."
ReplyDeleteBut this is false.
Religion does not ASK for anything, and the real issue is HELL. The punishment, or NOT getting into heaven is the real mechanism. Fear is the driving force behind religion, because humans naturally fear the unknown.
Again, that form of environmentalism I am perfectly fine with. It is just when politics gets mixed in that it becomes involuntary as the government forces the lifestyle onto everyone via laws and regulations. It is then that I do not tolerate it.
ReplyDeleteReligious people would say the exact opposite. They would say their religion is for the Greater Good as it would allow people to live happy and morally, hence improving the lives of everyone. They would argue environmentalism argues for only sacrifice and obedience to an unproven scientific theory (man-made global warming). Just playing Devil's Advocate.
But I am still suspicious of all "greater good" collectivist movements, however. Not because I am selfish, but because I think the individual and his or her choices and beliefs (not only me, but every individual), otherwise known as individual liberty, should be held as supreme regardless of its supposed effects on society as a whole. I don't think one individual has the authority to say what the "right moral thing to do" is for everyone else, and that that is a power reserved to the individual to make for his or herself.
there is absolutely no proof to the notion of a religion giving anybody a moral compass, you do the right thing not because god tells you to but because it is what is best for you in the long run as well, my issue is having to believe that the only reason humans do anything correctly is in the worship of another being. Mabye it's not even religion that angers me, maybe it's simply people taking religion too seriously
ReplyDeleteI have much more to say about this but not much time at the moment, so for now I just want to put this out there:
ReplyDeleteHas anyone ever thought about Unitarian Universalism? It builds the sense of community and comraderie without ever dictating a certain way of life. What do you think about that as an organized religion?
UU seems to pick and choose the most rational bits of other religions. There's nothing wrong with this, but it seems like a beautiful patchwork quilt that isn't actually sown together properly.
ReplyDelete