He was still tortured and had his life played with just because God wanted to prove a point. that's not nice. If God was benevolent, he wouldn't be hurting people just to show no matter what he does, they'll still kiss his ass.
The problem with this is attributing something like benevolence to a creator. If you're an omniscient and omnipresent being and have only ever been that, why would his emotional capability be constrained and made to fit in a sort of human sensibility? Is it this way simply because it's easier for us to grasp, or is the simple answer of him being created by man himself more likely? To me, it's rather obvious.
The problem with this is attributing something like benevolence to a creator. If you're an omniscient and omnipresent being and have only ever been that, why would his emotional capability be constrained and made to fit in a sort of human sensibility? Is it this way simply because it's easier for us to grasp, or is the simple answer of him being created by man himself more likely? To me, it's rather obvious.
Because man made God look to be a compassionate and kind being, no? Meaning if he cares about his "children," he shouldn't even think of giving them miserable lives, from proving loyalty to not doing anything about natural disasters.
I think him being created by man is kinda obvious going by the Bible, which was created by men and changed around at least once.
How exciting. Anyway, I hope religion and government will be completely separated, at least in the US, one day. combining both does bad things, mainly limiting freedom.
Anyway, I hope religion and government will be completely separated, at least in the US, one day. combining both does bad things, mainly limiting freedom.
Unfortunately, I can't see that ever truly happening - at least not in the near future, and certainly not in the states...
Not only do some politicians genuinely believe that forcing their beliefs on others is a just and good thing, but it has always been a great way to pander to a particular demographic (and thus, increase their chances of being elected).
Well that is sad to here about those Muslims,I didn't even know that there are still ethnic groups of Muslims in China, I thought most of the migrated.
Muslim world cares only about the Arab Muslims. They remain silent when Muslims in other places are treated horribly like Myanmar, maybe India & some other African Countries.
How exciting. Anyway, I hope religion and government will be completely separated, at least in the US, one day. combining both does bad things, mainly limiting freedom.
This should happen everywhere, not in US only. However, like Zimby stated, it's not really possible. Politicians will always want to win over the majorities. Religion is a good way to separate people by majority & minority.
Unfortunately, I can't see that ever truly happening - at least not in the near future, and certainly not in the states...
Not only do some politicians genuinely believe that forcing their beliefs on others is a just and good thing, but it has always been a great way to pander to a particular demographic (and thus, increase their chances of being elected).
Not to mention, the religious nuts that make it impossible. Still, if politicians are willing to go tell people to get over it or go fuck themselves when they start detaching religion from government, we could make improvements.
Muslim world cares only about the Arab Muslims. They remain silent when Muslims in other places are treated horribly like Myanmar, maybe India & some other African Countries.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
This should happen everywhere, not in US only. However, like Zimby stated, it's not really possible. Politicians will always want to win over the majorities. Religion is a good way to separate people by majority & minority.
Not to mention, the religious nuts that make it impossible. Still, if politicians are willing to go tell people to get over it or go fuck themselves when they start detaching religion from government, we could make improvements.
Given what some people from most European countries have said, it seems US is the only Western country with such problem. But then again, who knows.
It's a little more complicated than that. Europe does have lots of different states, so there also is a wider variety ranging from a complete seperation of state and church to systems that have religious parties and a state-funding / tax collection for churches.
Weirdly enough, religious nutjobs are not really gaining traction in our political systems. Might have to do with the parties being more than platforms for self-identification.
As I said before, no need to thank me - it has been an interesting discussion.
However, I feel we have gone far past the point of this thread, and I feel that we seem to have a fundamental difference in our opinions of humanity (especially how special we are in the grand scheme of things), so, before we get into a never ending loop of examples and counter examples, I will stop it here.
Yo !
I just saw that this thread exist, and it's interesting. I didn't read all the comments, sorry if I say something redundant.
For having discussed about religion with "religious" people, more or less adherent, there is something I found creepy about it. People are proud of their religion. You can be proud of something you've done, but you can't be proud of something you haven't chosen — religion is mostly received by parental / country tradition. When I asked why were they proud of it, they weren't able to give a coherent response. Because there is no (good) answer.
Those people didn't like when I criticized their religion, their holy book and their dogma. Because religion is untouchable, and is can't be questioned. However, I heard a lot of "Atheist, you're doomed", or other disdain about this faith (or non-faith actually). Of course, atheism is anarchy, because there is no ethics, and the world will be hell — it's sarcastic here, society existed before the big religions came. But when you point out some of the big fail of the religions of peace, like the discrimination, women's place, or the massacre perpetuated, people tended to be more deist than religious...
The conservative is pretty strong here too. Homosexuality is bad, women are inferior, abortion is bad, evolution theory is a joke, don't draw the prophet, etc. At least for the abrahamic religions, I don't know for the others, but when I see the casts in Hinduism, it doesn't seem very different.
Then, God. I don't like how it's portrayed, it's too human "emotionally", and focused on the humans. We can't prove if something superior exist or not — at least know —, but God in religion is more a stop-gag than anything, to fill the lack of knowledge...
And I don't think believing or not in some superior entities is the problem, it's the religion. I always compared the religion to totalitarian regimes, with more or less degrees of brainwashing, because people aren't able to do critical thinking. And because religion wants to be unquestionable, its slows down the world intellectual development.
Those people didn't like when I criticized their religion, their holy book and their dogma. Because religion is untouchable, and is can't be questioned. However, I heard a lot of "Atheist, you're doomed", or other disdain about this faith (or non-faith actually). Of course, atheism is anarchy, because there is no ethics, and the world will be hell — it's sarcastic here, society existed before the big religions came. But when you point out some of the big fail of the religions of peace, like the discrimination, women's place, or the massacre perpetuated, people tended to be more deist than religious...
It's mostly because the people you talk to aren't the ones committing those acts (I hope), so it's easy for them to dismiss them because it isn't something they need to reconcile with themselves...that they aren't "true believers", etc. But when it comes to scriptural inerrancy, it's oftentimes the opposite.
The conservative is pretty strong here too. Homosexuality is bad, women are inferior, abortion is bad, evolution theory is a joke, don't draw the prophet, etc. At least for the abrahamic religions, I don't know for the others, but when I see the casts in Hinduism, it doesn't seem very different.
Then, God. I don't like how it's portrayed, it's too human "emotionally", and focused on the humans. We can't prove if something superior exist or not — at least know —, but God in religion is more a stop-gag than anything, to fill the lack of knowledge...
I think it's somewhat obvious that the religious "God" is made in man's image, not the other way around. Either that, or you need to make the assumption that God is this way only so his being is more easily digestible by man.
And I don't think believing or not in some superior entities is the problem, it's the religion. I always compared the religion to totalitarian regimes, with more or less degrees of brainwashing, because people aren't able to do critical thinking. And because religion wants to be unquestionable, its slows down the world intellectual development.
Well, like Hitchens said, true belief in the Abrahamic God is essentially giving in to the essence of sadomasochism. You must love someone you don't know, but you're also taught to fear them. That you are not only deemed guilty for what you say, but also guilty for what you think. If you're looking for the inspiration for fascism, look no further.
It is true today that it's the religion and the rhetoric that tends to spoil what most believers tend to think is the true message. But this "true message" is more of a philosophical one (and a universal one, ironically) and doesn't actually hinge on belief at all. That's not a coincidence either. And this is why secularism and humanism exist as the result of deism. The rejection of the notion that belief in a God requires some sort of supernatural revelation. That's what the Age of Enlightenment was all about really.
I always compared the religion to totalitarian regimes, with more or less degrees of brainwashing, because people aren't able to do critical thinking. And because religion wants to be unquestionable, its slows down the world intellectual development.
Actually, people in general don't really do critical thinking, why do you think that things such as hype trains or grapevines even exist, as well as other's such as bubbles(like the real estate bubble.) or even mob mentality, it plainly displays that many, many people find it easier to fit in, and just follow the mob.
Religious people are no different from anyone who forms his own opinion on reading a book,except that they are convinced that theirs and only their definition is correct and when you make them feel compelled to spread their interpretation, oh boy, you got a killing coming your way.
This behavior should not be targeted or frowned upon, when it comes to politics, sports, significance of events,significance of jobs, basically anything that can comprise someones world view, people can get into similar frenzies as religion, it is a fundamental human phenomenon.
Religious people are no different from anyone who forms his own opinion on reading a book,except that they are convinced that theirs and only their definition is correct and when you make them feel compelled to spread their interpretation, oh boy, you got a killing coming your way.
It is not like religion is the only thing that can create people who don't want to change their opinions about something and feel a need to get everyone to agree to their view, politics can do the same, as can anything when you don't have someone or the other to maintain some sense of decency and law and order.
It is not like religion is the only thing that can create people who don't want to change their opinions about something and feel a need to get everyone to agree to their view, politics can do the same, as can anything when you don't have someone or the other to maintain some sense of decency and law and order.
The point is that by definition, they can't change their opinions while maintaining the same belief. Sure, people might treat other things with religious fervor, but the conviction can't really be the same.
The point is that by definition, they can't change their opinions while maintaining the same belief. Sure, people might treat other things with religious fervor, but the conviction can't really be the same.
Actually this is the biggest criticism I have of those who are religious,a majority are not that dogmatic,but they let those who are,interpret religious texts to suit their dogma and maintain a monopoly on the interpretation,leading all the problems that religion has caused.
And not all religions are dogmatic,Hindhuism inspire of its ills does not emphasise that there is only one truth and dissenters are given s lot of respect.
Buddhism also encourages its patrons to seek their own truths.
Hmm I'd definitely object to blanketing all religions or religions people as dogmatic. The tradition of religious philosophy easily demonstrates how someone can be committed to Christianity, Islam, or what have you yet still be fierce advocates for the advancement of reason, rational argument, and scientific inquiry. It's all a lense you view the world through.
A large portion of dogmatic religious groups/institutions are relatively new. Fundamentalist Christians are barely as old as the United States and Wahabism (the strict Islamic interpretation spread by Saudi Arabia or groups like IS, maybe minus the intense violence) didn't pop up until the 16th or 17th century and didn't catch on much until the Kingdom of Saud shows up in the 19th (I'm fuzzy maybe 18th) century.
I always feel like religious discussions get hung up on examples of the worst of the worst even though thousands of examples exist to the contrary. Religious belief is as diverse in every way as any other form of intellectual thought attempting to make sense of the world.
Actually this is the biggest criticism I have of those who are religious,a majority are not that dogmatic,but they let those who are,interpret religious texts to suit their dogma and maintain a monopoly on the interpretation,leading all the problems that religion has caused.
And not all religions are dogmatic,Hindhuism inspire of its ills does not emphasise that there is only one truth and dissenters are given s lot of respect.
Buddhism also encourages its patrons to seek their own truths.
I would not subscribe that . Hinduism is one cause for the caste system in india.
And the fights between Hindus and Muslims are both partially religiously fueled.
Their scriptures don't really bother with nonbelievers like the monotheist religions do, but the religion still is as harmful or harmless as any other.
Personally, i think every dogmatic belief about 'how things should be' is harmful if it is a foundation of a society, no matter whether those are religiously fueled or not (for example patriarchical ideas or social darwinism or communism and so on and so on).
And every religion, even buddhism, can inspire hate and shunning of others (as example, burma).
Hmm I'd definitely object to blanketing all religions or religions people as dogmatic. The tradition of religious philosophy easily demonstrates how someone can be committed to Christianity, Islam, or what have you yet still be fierce advocates for the advancement of reason, rational argument, and scientific inquiry. It's all a lense you view the world through.
A large portion of dogmatic religious groups/institutions are relatively new. Fundamentalist Christians are barely as old as the United States and Wahabism (the strict Islamic interpretation spread by Saudi Arabia or groups like IS, maybe minus the intense violence) didn't pop up until the 16th or 17th century and didn't catch on much until the Kingdom of Saud shows up in the 19th (I'm fuzzy maybe 18th) century.
I always feel like religious discussions get hung up on examples of the worst of the worst even though thousands of examples exist to the contrary. Religious belief is as diverse in every way as any other form of intellectual thought attempting to make sense of the world.
To paraphrase nietzsche: Sometimes advance can be archieved by making great effort to defend something wrong.
A lot of the science at least in christian regions was archieved by trying to prove the greatness of god, trying to erect more impressive cathedrals and art in his glory or trying to refute arguments against him.
I still really do not see that as a triumph of reason.
Throughout the times in which most scientific advance was made by religious people or even monks, people with radical ideas which turned out correct were shunned.
The really uncomfortable questions could only be asked once the power of religion diminished.
Similarly, the time of scinetific advancements in the islamic world were mostly made in times in which the enforcement of islamic rules was less strict.
We also may not forget that a lot of advance stems from war, which both christianity and islam did inspire.
I still dont think the inventions made for war can be called a triumph of reason.
A religious person can absolutely be reasonable and interested in philosophical discussions, the religious institutions itself almost never are, tho, because it means a loss in power (and if they are it is usually, like with the catholic church, because they think they will lose even more power if they don't change up some things).
That is true for the catholic church, that is true for the islamic jurisprudence throughout history.
Of course there is change in opinions about certain matter, like there are different schools and in most big religions.
But once a person who brought this change is in power, he will defend the thesis with tooth and nails.
And they will always have a big chunk of people blindly believing it.
Do good deeds erase bad ones? I don't think it's strange that people get "hung up" on the heinous things done in the name of religion. The average enlightened individual isn't going to find an excuse to rape, murder or commit genocide by reading Voltaire, Spinoza, or Thomas Paine. You can't say the same thing about the most religiously devout and what sort of ideas they tend to consume. Not all "ways of thinking" are created equally.
Do good deeds erase bad ones? I don't think it's strange that people get "hung up" on the heinous things done in the name of religion. The average enlightened individual isn't going to find an excuse to rape, murder or commit genocide by reading Voltaire, Spinoza, or Thomas Paine. You can't say the same thing about the most devout and what sort of ideas they tend to consume. Not all "ways of thinking" are created equally.
I would argue that actually some peopple got the idea to do horrible things by reading the philosopher's of the enlightenment.
Those names got abused too, for example nietzsche in the nazi era. And the british and others partially defended their slavery by thinking that they are enlightened while a lot of the rest of the world are barbarians.
Many of the european thinkers had a very eurocentric point of view.
Kant for example thought that american natives are genuinely incapable of reason and thus usual human rights shouldnt apply to them.
