[QUOTE="Zealot_02_basic"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Zealot_02_basic"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Zealot_02_basic"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The same thing that causes most problems... religion...CptJSparrow
Oh, yes, another one of these. If you have already heard this spiel, then you're going to hear it again anyways. Religion is not the problem, it is the justification for the problem, human nature. If you fight against the justification, then you simply allow the root problem to shift itself to another outlet, such as science or government. Trying to destroy religion is like trying to kill a full grown tree by plucking off one leaf. It would be completely ineffective in combatting the true problem. Destroying organized religion and making it as humiliating as acne will end the trend of nonthinking and easy-indoctrination that is employed with religion. Of course there will always be stupid people, but without religion, the mental virus doesn't have its holy rationalization.Of course! Its so simple!
Love the use of buzzwords, I couldn't help but notice your entire minor premise is entirely ad-hominem and full of hasty generalizations.
You fall under seeing only one side of the argument. By your prose one could conjecture that you claim to be an authority on theological origins and sociology, when in reality your statements sound more suited for opinion (rant perhaps) rather than fact.
Then you misunderstood what I was saying. It is a fact that religion has been and continues to be used in some cases to coerce ("he trend of nonthinking and easy-indoctrination that is employed with religion."). It is also a fact that the 'mental virus' (meme if you will, as it is passed down generation-to-generation) is rationalized by sacred doctrines and myths. I by no means said that I am a professor on the subject, but it is apparent that people under the influence of propaganda don't see who's holding the spoon that's feeding them. That being said, what is the other side of this argument? Enlighten me.I do not seek to "enlighten" as you would so presuppose. I only argue for the theistic side. Also do not try to sound like Dr. Dawkins or preach him to me, I hardly doubt you or I can grasp the principles of evolutionary biology and use them as an instrument to form such arguments. The man in the flesh I respect very much, but using his arguments in such a blunt fashion seems to be a little presumptuous.
Religion has of course been used in cases to coerce, but that does not make it inherently bad or good.
Dawkins applies meme theory to the evolution of religion and to its process of permitting nonthinking. I don't use someone's argument unless I know that they have something good going for it. I can vouch that I know more about evolutionary biology than you, though that is a presumption. As for the last line, I said "organized religion" for that specific purpose. I understand that destroying religion utterly is impossible, however decreasing its influence is possible. All that I am arguing is that doing so is beneficial because of the fact that religion is a great authority to invoke anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. As Martin Luther himself said, "reason is the enemy of Christianity."I can similarly argue it is a great authority which pioneered social justice and responsibility to one's community. It may not be as widespread publicized as the atrocities of religion, but the fact it exists gives credence to the whole idea that religion, mainly Christianity in recent times, is more complicated than to say it invokes "this or that" and for "this or that" reason, we must try to abolish or undermine it. I am under no circumstances advocating for some evangelical upheaval, I do believe organized religion formally staying out of state affairs. I am merely stating that religion is not so simple as to decrease its influence will make the world a better place. I do believe the United States has gone a little to far in some respects, but they tend to do things in extremes (nacho chips for example), but the rise in secularism in Europe must be examined closely before a truely informed decision can be made.
I'm glad you mentioned religion pioneering responsibility to one's community. This is a clear indication of religion having a role in natural selection. In earlier times, it would have been very beneficial for a village to have beliefs that tied them together in this way and led to group-improvement, no doubt. This would have been very efficient for the group's survival, and would have at the same time allowed the religion to spread. Religion became the tool of spin doctoring as the skill developed. In this light, religion has been extremely beneficial to our ancestors. On the reverse side of the coin, religion no longer has the same effect in modern society. As I previously stated, the development of spin doctoring has tainted the usefulness of religion and made a good thing into something that will always be corrupted by a minority of selfish individuals and spread into violence. Obviously religion hasn't totally lost it's benefits, as it continues to give a reason for many otherwise lazy bums to provide relief missions, etc, etc. The problem with arguing that as a defense is that we do not require religion to accomplish this. What I have been developing for the last year is a collection of doctrines that will make religion obsolete while retaining religion's assumed altruism. What I have noticed is that humans do not need a divine surveillance to be altruistic, and if they do they are truly immoral people. This system, though not yet perfect, will ultimately erase the clever medium for the work of spin doctors. As said a few posts above, PM me if you want to continue.Well if that is your line of reasoning, then this discussion is over.
Log in to comment