OT - Is there an All Powerful entity out there?

Wallace1492

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

The examples given above are of violence in the 'name of religion' rather than directly due to the truth of the religious teaching or belief.

I disagree (but in a nice, agreeable way) I don't think you can really seperate the two.
If the religion preached peace love understanding etc, and you believed it, then you could not carry out violence "in the name of it". The two go hand in hand. Always have, always will.

Until the human species has evolved enough to leave religion behind there will always be this problem. I believe we will eveolve, but will it be in time to save ourselves, that is a different question, and DDD raised that in Global Warming.

MonkeyMonster

I think religion/faith had has many good uses/benefits in the past in that in that it helped bring about/promote/assist in the writing/printing/reading process by quite a way. It being the cause/initiation of wars etc... tis hard to find any war/big fight that it didn't have a hand in.

I think as CJ has eloquently put before - its a crutch [for those unwilling to admit they can't or won't ever understand the universe/world/human beings/chance/random factors]. One of my best friends is an evangelical christian another is a vicar, both sound lads - we've had interesting chats before and now know not to discuss such things

As a reader of sci-fi I've always found it entertaining when almost all good (imho) writers always put in a few comments (in future based novels) regarding how religions faded out as more could be understood of the fabric of the universe.

There will always be believers of all sorts of bizarre and nonsensical things. DDD thinks he has big thighs...

</my2cents>

Splottboy

You mean you've never met my Mother-in-law?

Trailradar

Wallace1492 wrote:

PBo wrote:

so you are now advocating brainwashing as a way to contol the masses???

Bingo!! - that is exactly what organised religion is all about. It is not a new concept at all, just to let you know, it has been around since Noah was a boy. Brainwash the masses, control them, fleece them.

is it really that bad braiwashing the masses (if thats what you want to call it? I can think of better terms - seems a bit harsh saying brainwashing)?

Going back to my 'sink-estate' example consider this you have a typical run down council estate full of graffiti, rubbish, broken windows, drug dealers, hookers, single mums, high majoirty of unemployed people (single mums, singeltons, couples, married and everything in between), its a real eyesore, crime rates are soaring. Their is kids, teens, young adults and adults on smack, crack-heads, dope-heads, junkies and crack-babies. Chavs getting sozzeled (p!ssed up) on alcopops, cider and spirits. Little toe-rags going around smashing up phoneboxes, bus shelters and breaking car aeriels - and thats when they are in good mood!

Loads of kids bunk off school, the place is loaded with 'hoodie chavs' all thinking its cool to get the next best ASBO, now if you lived in this so called sink estate you might be their next victim. The rozzers dont do f#ck all, take ages to turn up, thats if they do. They probably skip doing the patrol cars their too. These ASBO louts dont give two hoots about the rozzers. The neighbours would probably rather give you a slap than be good neighbours. The evergrowing list of depressing scenerios goes on and on, and yes, they all don't probably believe in the 'omnipotent geezer upstairs'.

On the other hand, in an hypothetical situation you have another another council estate which has >75% of devoted people who believe in the 'omnipotent geezer upstairs', they go to church often, are good citizens, decent people, the estate is clean and tidy, crime is low, very low; if their was any crime it was probably the neighbouring 'godless' sink estate lot anyway.

Their is no single mums, dealers, etc. etc.; basically the opposite to sink estates. Their is a sense of community and its a nice neighbourhood to live in. Even if I was an atheist, agnostic or what-ever I know which 'hood I would rather live in, and no its not in the 'hood living next to a smack-head looking for next fix.

So all this talk about brainwashing, its not that bad if you compare the two different estates. I bet if the sink estate all started beleiving in the 'omnipotent geezer upstairs' and became religious, and went to church often then we would see a massive transformation, over time. And all this coming from an agnostic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

always_tyred

There just isn't time in 2010 to challenge all of these sweeping statements and middle class assumptions.

I bet you vote Tory.

DonDaddyD

Trailradar wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

PBo wrote:

so you are now advocating brainwashing as a way to contol the masses???

Bingo!! - that is exactly what organised religion is all about. It is not a new concept at all, just to let you know, it has been around since Noah was a boy. Brainwash the masses, control them, fleece them.

is it really that bad braiwashing the masses (if thats what you want to call it? I can think of better terms - seems a bit harsh saying brainwashing)?

Going back to my 'sink-estate' example consider this you have a typical run down council estate full of graffiti, rubbish, broken windows, drug dealers, hookers, single mums, high majoirty of unemployed people (single mums, singeltons, couples, married and everything in between), its a real eyesore, crime rates are soaring. Their is kids, teens, young adults and adults on smack, crack-heads, dope-heads, junkies and crack-babies. Chavs getting sozzeled (p!ssed up) on alcopops, cider and spirits. Little toe-rags going around smashing up phoneboxes, bus shelters and breaking car aeriels - and thats when they are in good mood!

Loads of kids bunk off school, the place is loaded with 'hoodie chavs' all thinking its cool to get the next best ASBO, now if you lived in this so called sink estate you might be their next victim. The rozzers dont do f#ck all, take ages to turn up, thats if they do. They probably skip doing the patrol cars their too. These ASBO louts dont give two hoots about the rozzers. The neighbours would probably rather give you a slap than be good neighbours. The evergrowing list of depressing scenerios goes on and on, and yes, they all don't probably believe in the 'omnipotent geezer upstairs'.

On the other hand, in an hypothetical situation you have another another council estate which has >75% of devoted people who believe in the 'omnipotent geezer upstairs', they go to church often, are good citizens, decent people, the estate is clean and tidy, crime is low, very low; if their was any crime it was probably the neighbouring 'godless' sink estate lot anyway.

Their is no single mums, dealers, etc. etc.; basically the opposite to sink estates. Their is a sense of community and its a nice neighbourhood to live in. Even if I was an atheist, agnostic or what-ever I know which 'hood I would rather live in, and no its not in the 'hood living next to a smack-head looking for next fix.

So all this talk about brainwashing, its not that bad if you compare the two different estates. I bet if the sink estate all started beleiving in the 'omnipotent geezer upstairs' and became religious, and went to church often then we would see a massive transformation, over time. And all this coming from an agnostic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feck me, God Hugs a Hoodie!

I'm sure I've read the above poppycock before in the Daily Mail, a credible newspaper that. :roll:

I don't know what is worse in this post. The blinkered negative assumptions of socio-economically deprived communities or the blinkered and frankly hard to fathom notion that you think religion can change said communities.

Have you ever lived in such an communities, lived near to one or worked/interacted with the people from said community?

Take it from someone who knows, most of those poor areas, especially with high levels of ethnic diversity tend to have high levels of church going people. People with less, I'm sure this has been proven, tend to turn to God for some solace.

Lastly, history has taught us that socio-economic issues cannot be solved by solely indoctrinating people with religious beliefs. Though it may solve some problems it can create far worse ones.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't know what is worse in this post. The blinkered negative assumptions of socio-economically deprived communities or the blinkered and frankly hard to fathom notion that you think religion can change said communities.

Have you ever lived in such an communities, lived near to one or worked/interacted with the people from said community?

Take it from someone who knows, most of those poor areas, especially with high levels of ethnic diversity tend to have high levels of church going people. People with less, I'm sure this has been proven, tend to turn to God for some solace.

Lastly, history has taught us that socio-economic issues cannot be solved by solely indoctrinating people with religious beliefs. Though it may solve some problems it can create far worse ones.

In your experience has the influence of religion, religious belief and the church community had a positive, negative or neutral effect on the lives of the people in these areas?

DonDaddyD

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't know what is worse in this post. The blinkered negative assumptions of socio-economically deprived communities or the blinkered and frankly hard to fathom notion that you think religion can change said communities.

Have you ever lived in such an communities, lived near to one or worked/interacted with the people from said community?

Take it from someone who knows, most of those poor areas, especially with high levels of ethnic diversity tend to have high levels of church going people. People with less, I'm sure this has been proven, tend to turn to God for some solace.

Lastly, history has taught us that socio-economic issues cannot be solved by solely indoctrinating people with religious beliefs. Though it may solve some problems it can create far worse ones.

In your experience has the influence of religion, religious belief and the church community had a positive, negative or neutral effect on the lives of the people in these areas?

As a whole or on a case by case basis?

What I'm saying is that "'giving religion to the people" is not an effective method of attempting to solve socio-economic issues.

And if it was, it would have solved those problems by now. :roll:

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't know what is worse in this post. The blinkered negative assumptions of socio-economically deprived communities or the blinkered and frankly hard to fathom notion that you think religion can change said communities.

Have you ever lived in such an communities, lived near to one or worked/interacted with the people from said community?

Take it from someone who knows, most of those poor areas, especially with high levels of ethnic diversity tend to have high levels of church going people. People with less, I'm sure this has been proven, tend to turn to God for some solace.

Lastly, history has taught us that socio-economic issues cannot be solved by solely indoctrinating people with religious beliefs. Though it may solve some problems it can create far worse ones.

In your experience has the influence of religion, religious belief and the church community had a positive, negative or neutral effect on the lives of the people in these areas?

As a whole or on a case by case basis?

What I'm saying is that "'giving religion to the people" is not an effective method of attempting to solve socio-economic issues.

And if it was, it would have solved those problems by now. :roll:

Generally will do initially, but if you could cite some case by case examples to illustrate your points that would be great


I agree that "giving religion to the people" doesn't solve all socio-economic issues any more than the enforced removal of religious belief and practice liberates people.

However this doesn't mean that religion can't have a positive influence on peoples lives and be a force to improve the lives of each individual and that of the community as a whole

Surely thats not too hard a notion to fathom?

DonDaddyD

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Generally will do initially, but if you could cite some case by case examples to illustrate your points that would be great


I agree that "giving religion to the people" doesn't solve all socio-economic issues any more than the enforced removal of religious belief and practice liberates people.

However this doesn't mean that religion can't have a positive influence on peoples lives and be a force to improve the lives of each individual and that of the community as a whole

Surely thats not too hard a notion to fathom?

My trouble with numerous religions isn't the teachings its the people who interpret those teachings and or use the name of a God to justify a whole range of actions some good and some bad.

I've known, in said socially-deprived areas, people to use 'religion' to further their own personal gains at the expense of the less fortunate.

Quite often the less-fortunate are more susceptible as they are looking for answers or a rationale for their frustrations and their fears. These being easily manipulated for the persons or groups gains. (Think BNP, time was they'd prey on the less-fortunate claiming that "them next door" have taken all the jobs and that's why you're unemployed).

Then there are those that use religious titles or religion (ordained or whatever or not) to fleece those out of money. Example "Pastor something" asks for £3,000 to help out an African lady get her papers in order to stay in the country - she lives in the so called sink estate. Her English isn't good and doesn't have a great understanding of how the system works. Intimidated she doesn't want to go to the immigration office, even though she is well within her right to stay. She contacts the Pastor, a Man, who in many Black Christian communities carries a lot of respect and trust. He does one of two things: (i) Runs off with her money. (ii) Gets her papers but it costs £500 (if that) and he pockets the rest.

Practice religion if you want, I think it should be something private unto the individual. But I have no time for those who claim it will help better society. America - great example - has one of the most fevered religious followings ever, I don't see some of their communities (of which some of my family belong) as being better in fact far far worse. Same as in Jamaica, my Family own a Parish down there, great wholesome practicing Christians, trouble what some get up to on the other six days of the week.

I get agitated when people claim religion can make you, the World, society or life as a whole better those without. That's just human arrogance and the need to feel better than someone and to be able to look down your nose at others. Its about as pathetic as the British class system.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Generally will do initially, but if you could cite some case by case examples to illustrate your points that would be great


I agree that "giving religion to the people" doesn't solve all socio-economic issues any more than the enforced removal of religious belief and practice liberates people.

However this doesn't mean that religion can't have a positive influence on peoples lives and be a force to improve the lives of each individual and that of the community as a whole

Surely thats not too hard a notion to fathom?

My trouble with numerous religions isn't the teachings its the people who interpret those teachings and or use the name of a God to justify a whole range of actions some good and some bad.

<snip, good stuff, I just didn't want to requote it all >

I get agitated when people claim religion can make you, the World, society or life as a whole better those without. That's just human arrogance and the need to feel better than someone and to be able to look down your nose at others. Its about as pathetic as the British class system.

Yep, agree entirely with your first sentence.

Assuming you are correct about 'religion' what would take the place of religion in your idea of society, from where would people get a 'moral compass', a sense of a real consequence to their actions, what would motivate the 'good works' which go on in the world and what would take the place of a church, a mosque or a temple in binding a community together


Obviously I'm playing Devil's Advocate in a lot of my postings to this thread, while raised a Catholic in Northern Ireland I currently don't actively practice this or any other religion. I do however find the discussion interesting.

DonDaddyD

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Yep, agree entirely with your first sentence.

Assuming you are correct about 'religion' what would take the place of religion in your idea of society, from where would people get a 'moral compass', a sense of a real consequence to their actions, what would motivate the 'good works' which go on in the world and what would take the place of a church, a mosque or a temple in binding a community together

Truthfully, I think you've summed up a large portion of what I perceive as how religion and religious concepts limit people.

Human beings do not need an understanding of religion i.e. Ten commandments in order to have, acquire, gain or get a 'moral compass' a sense of consequence or motivate good work that goes on in the World. Dare I say that I had a moral compass and a conscience long before I understood religion. Dare I say that I do whatever good I do irrespective of religion existing.

Development of such things - moral compass, sense of consequence et al - are intertwined with our evolution and development of our self-awareness. They have existed in humans far earlier than when either the New testament or Old testament was first written - assuming that the Christian story 'Genesis' isn't the factual history of man and the scientific explanation is. (And assuming that we would first need to learn to create paper/papyrus and write said Old testament, even if you take the earliest examples of this in Egypt some 3000yrs before Christ, humans still existed, potentially, some 100,000 years before that. :roll: )

Moreover, if we go down the evolutionary route Humans past and present and those that existed prior to our current species are proven social beings. We survive, we thrive due to our instinctive nature to co-exist within a community. Even our genetic distant cousins, some if not all, have their own communities, societies and rules that work for them. Current evidence shows that they have no religious concept of an 'Ape God'. Yet they exist happily within the rules of their societies structure. Point? The ability to create society and its rules is inherent within our species and examples can be found within our distant genetic relatives above and beyond any need for a religion.

What I'm saying is that while as a species we do have an apparent desire to make deities of what we don't fully understand we don't need a religion in order to exist with each other in a healthy environment.

I have no problem with those that have or need faith or want something to believe in. I refuse to believe that having religion will make the World we live in better.

Jay dubbleU

Problem with belonging to one religion is that you're instantly condemned to Hell by all the others - best not to join in the first place

tailwindhome

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Problem with belonging to one religion is that you're instantly condemned to Hell by all the others - best not to join in the first place

Your logic is flawed.


Let X be the number of religions in the world.

Not picking one means you are condemned by X religions

Picking one means you are condemned by X-1 religions

Clearly therefore the logical choice is to pick one religion

Trailradar

When I was younger I visited a church and it had a book on testimomies from people who now accept Jesus into their life. Some of the people who converted had been drug addicts, hookers, been abused and others who had gone of the tracks.

They said that through the lord they were saved from a life of misery. The church helped to get people on their feet again and away from crime and drugs. They are now a reformed and better person.

I dont want to sound arrogant here BUT in that respect religion and believing in the omni potent geezer upstairs is a good thing. I bet that if all those ASBO lots and other low-lifes from sink estates found the lord they would become better people - drug free, crime free and maybe a life away from jail, and the neighbourhoods would have a postive transormation (no I did not read that in Daily Mail), just my own opinion from my experience of what it can do to people.

always_tyred

Trailradar wrote:

When I was younger I visited a church and it had a book on testimomies from people who now accept Jesus into their life. Some of the people who converted had been drug addicts, hookers, been abused and others who had gone of the tracks.

They said that through the lord they were saved from a life of misery. The church helped to get people on their feet again and away from crime and drugs. They are now a reformed and better person.

I dont want to sound arrogant here BUT in that respect religion and believing in the omni potent geezer upstairs is a good thing. I bet that if all those ASBO lots and other low-lifes from sink estates found the lord they would become better people - drug free, crime free and maybe a life away from jail, and the neighbourhoods would have a postive transormation (no I did not read that in Daily Mail), just my own opinion from my experience of what it can do to people.

Do any religious people commit crime?

Are people who live on council estates "low-lifes". I should tell my in-laws since they may be unaware of their sub-societal status.

Go away, you ignorant person.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

A little phrase I heard on tv goes something along the lines of...

"There will always be good people, who will do good things, as there will bad people who do bad deeds. But then religion can make good people do evil things."

Jay dubbleU

Personally I'm against anything which divides people into groups whether it's religion, nationality, gangs, whatever
Historically more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other single cause

Crusades
Inquisition
English Catholics v Protestants
30 Years War - Magdeburg
Irish Sectarianism

Trailradar

Always Tyred wrote:

Go away, you ignorant person.

TROLL ALERT!!

roger_merriman

Trailradar wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Go away, you ignorant person.

TROLL ALERT!!

you think? mr pot.

Mithras

We still pay homage to the old gods...Tyrsday, Wodensday,Thorsday, Friggsday,
Then you get Roman and Greek influence with Saturnsday, Sunsday Moonsday.

Obviously Tuesday to Friday are the best days of the week!

Wallace1492

Trailradar wrote:

When I was younger I visited a church and it had a book on testimomies from people who now accept Jesus into their life. Some of the people who converted had been drug addicts, hookers, been abused and others who had gone of the tracks.

They said that through the lord they were saved from a life of misery. The church helped to get people on their feet again and away from crime and drugs. They are now a reformed and better person.

I dont want to sound arrogant here BUT in that respect religion and believing in the omni potent geezer upstairs is a good thing. I bet that if all those ASBO lots and other low-lifes from sink estates found the lord they would become better people - drug free, crime free and maybe a life away from jail, and the neighbourhoods would have a postive transormation (no I did not read that in Daily Mail), just my own opinion from my experience of what it can do to people.

Firstly, Jesus does not exist as some "thing" that can come into your life, but is merely a symbol in this instance of someone helping themselves, with help from other people. These people that were saved from a life of misery were helped by the church, yes, but could easily have been another non religious charitable organisation as plenty are helped though. They were not saved "through the Lord" but by the work of some kind heearted people.

The people you refer to in sink estates will not be saved by religion, but by education, and escaping a life of no opportunities. Religion has nothing to do with it.

DonDaddyD

Wallace1492 wrote:

Trailradar wrote:

When I was younger I visited a church and it had a book on testimomies from people who now accept Jesus into their life. Some of the people who converted had been drug addicts, hookers, been abused and others who had gone of the tracks.

They said that through the lord they were saved from a life of misery. The church helped to get people on their feet again and away from crime and drugs. They are now a reformed and better person.

I dont want to sound arrogant here BUT in that respect religion and believing in the omni potent geezer upstairs is a good thing. I bet that if all those ASBO lots and other low-lifes from sink estates found the lord they would become better people - drug free, crime free and maybe a life away from jail, and the neighbourhoods would have a postive transormation (no I did not read that in Daily Mail), just my own opinion from my experience of what it can do to people.

Firstly, Jesus does not exist as some "thing" that can come into your life, but is merely a symbol in this instance of someone helping themselves, with help from other people. These people that were saved from a life of misery were helped by the church, yes, but could easily have been another non religious charitable organisation as plenty are helped though. They were not saved "through the Lord" but by the work of some kind heearted people.

The people you refer to in sink estates will not be saved by religion, but by education, and escaping a life of no opportunities. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Clap my hands together, frame this post and you win the Internet!

Well said

+1

It amazes that some think only religion and religious people can only do good.

What I truly find vile and repulsive about Trailrider's post is a number of things:

Like most propaganda merchants he is preying on the very vulnerable in his examples - "the drug addicts, hookers and those who have been abused" - to support his claims that religion saves all.

Lets ackbnowledge that these people are a minority, though shouldn't be overlooked. Lets acknowledge the fact that these people rely on "need" whether substance, physical, metaphysical or psychological support. You could argue that by turning to religion they are just substituting one support mechanism for another - the effectiveness and healthiness of which is open for debate. Better these people learn to support themselves and have need of no one and nothing but themselves.

I wonder why Trailrider hasn't focused his efforts/examples on the larger majority of people to advocate societies "need" for religion.

I don't like the fact that he attributes the aforementioned people, coupled with 'ASBO lots and "low-lifes" as the only type of people who live in Council estates of any quality. Its that type of generalisation, segementing bollocks that I hate about religion. "Follow us and be 'saved'. Don't and you're evil". Most are just as bad as the hate they claim to fight against. It is vile and repulsive.

bails87

DonDaddyD
+1

Also, the 2 council estate argument mentioned above doesn't demonstrate anything. Yes I'd rather live on the nice estate, but that's because it's a nicer place to live (ignoring any preaching that may go on). You may as well say there are two estates, one where every car is pink ('nice' estate), and one where every car is blue ('bad' estate).

I'd prefer a blue car, but I'd rather live on the 'pink' estate because there's less chance of being stabbed/mugged/burgled. But that isn't because of the colour of people's cars. I can be a nice person even if I have a blue car, just like I could be a bad person even if I had a pink car.

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Trailradar wrote:

When I was younger I visited a church and it had a book on testimomies from people who now accept Jesus into their life. Some of the people who converted had been drug addicts, hookers, been abused and others who had gone of the tracks.

They said that through the lord they were saved from a life of misery. The church helped to get people on their feet again and away from crime and drugs. They are now a reformed and better person.

I dont want to sound arrogant here BUT in that respect religion and believing in the omni potent geezer upstairs is a good thing. I bet that if all those ASBO lots and other low-lifes from sink estates found the lord they would become better people - drug free, crime free and maybe a life away from jail, and the neighbourhoods would have a postive transormation (no I did not read that in Daily Mail), just my own opinion from my experience of what it can do to people.

Firstly, Jesus does not exist as some "thing" that can come into your life, but is merely a symbol in this instance of someone helping themselves, with help from other people. These people that were saved from a life of misery were helped by the church, yes, but could easily have been another non religious charitable organisation as plenty are helped though. They were not saved "through the Lord" but by the work of some kind heearted people.

The people you refer to in sink estates will not be saved by religion, but by education, and escaping a life of no opportunities. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Clap my hands together, frame this post and you win the Internet!

Well said

+1

It amazes that some think only religion and religious people can only do good.

What I truly find vile and repulsive about Trailrider's post is a number of things:

Like most propaganda merchants he is preying on the very vulnerable in his examples - "the drug addicts, hookers and those who have been abused" - to support his claims that religion saves all.

Lets ackbnowledge that these people are a minority, though shouldn't be overlooked. Lets acknowledge the fact that these people rely on "need" whether substance, physical, metaphysical or psychological support. You could argue that by turning to religion they are just substituting one support mechanism for another - the effectiveness and healthiness of which is open for debate. Better these people learn to support themselves and have need of no one and nothing but themselves.

I wonder why Trailrider hasn't focused his efforts/examples on the larger majority of people to advocate societies "need" for religion.

I don't like the fact that he attributes the aforementioned people, coupled with 'ASBO lots and "low-lifes" as the only type of people who live in Council estates of any quality. Its that type of generalisation, segementing bollocks that I hate about religion. "Follow us and be 'saved'. Don't and you're evil". Most are just as bad as the hate they claim to fight against. It is vile and repulsive.

Each to their own. Trailrider has their own views, and i respect that. They are completely wrong, and mistaken, but like we have the Daily Mail, people are entitled to wrong views. (In my opinion!!)

I fear it will be a long time before we (the Human Race) are able to move away from religion, as too many people still stick with it. Too many countries, ours included still have it enshrined in the constitution and psycie of the nation. It is time we start the movement away from this. I am not against personal freedom, but the sooner religion is banned the better.

One day we will look on it like pagan worship and wonder why people were so gullible and worshipped some non entity.

suzyb

People will find a reason to hate each other and to fight each other regardless of whether religion exists or not. It's in our nature, a throw back to when we had to fight to survive and lived in small groups to do that.

Whether it's which god they believe in, or which character on a TV show they prefer, or which colour they like best. People will group with others of a similar mindset and in many cases be hostile to others who think differently.

DonDaddyD

Wallace1492 wrote:

Each to their own. Trailrider has their own views, and i respect that. They are completely wrong, and mistaken, but like we have the Daily Mail, people are entitled to wrong views. (In my opinion!!)

I take issue with opinions/generalisations that are of an unfounded derogrative nature that paints an entire group of people, unfairly, with one brush.

I fear it will be a long time before we (the Human Race) are able to move away from religion, as too many people still stick with it. '

We probably won't and we cannot be certain that their isn't a God or higher power whether self-aware or simply a function serving Universal consonance.

As part of our ability to think in abstract we also have a trend of worshipping what we don't understand or studying it.

One day we will look on it like pagan worship and wonder why people were so gullible and worshipped some non entity.

All future technology appears to be either witch-craft or magic. Take an iPhone and show it to someone born merely 200 years ago and they'll think its magic (i.e. Henry the VIII given an iPhone). Technology 200 years in the future would likely appear to be magic to many of us.

In other words what may seem 'Pagan' to us now wasn't 'Pagan' to them. What may seem 'Pagan' to people in the future won't seem 'Pagan' to us.

Hell the future of our species may figure that sex is too much of a risk and insist as a means of ensuring health and population control to only create humans through artificial means and make sex illegal. 10,000 years from then, we could evolve to lose the sexual use of our genitals. :shock: - After all no one thought smoking tabacco smoking would be banned when it was first introduced... OK that's a stretch even for a tangent.

Wallace1492

-null- wrote:

People will find a reason to hate each other and to fight each other regardless of whether religion exists or not. It's in our nature, a throw back to when we had to fight to survive and lived in small groups to do that.

Whether it's which god they believe in, or which character on a TV show they prefer, or which colour they like best. People will group with others of a similar mindset and in many cases be hostile to others who think differently.

Sort of agree here. Yes people will have conflict with other "tribes" and have always. However, history has shown that religious belief has caused more deaths than what TV character or colour is best.

As we have moved forward, we have become more tolerent, more accepting of others and have worked across different "tribes" for progress. But I really believe that religion is the biggest barrier to moving even further forward.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Hell the future of our species may figure that sex is too much of a risk and insist as a means of ensuring health and population control to only create humans through artificial means and make sex illegal. 10,000 years from then, we could evolve to lose the sexual use of our genitals. :shock:

Sounds like Huxley's 'Brave New World' . Recreational sex is encouraged though.

On topic alert - they all take a drug called Soma, which is the name of a bike brand!

tailwindhome

Wallace1492 wrote:

-null- wrote:

People will find a reason to hate each other and to fight each other regardless of whether religion exists or not. It's in our nature, a throw back to when we had to fight to survive and lived in small groups to do that.

Whether it's which god they believe in, or which character on a TV show they prefer, or which colour they like best. People will group with others of a similar mindset and in many cases be hostile to others who think differently.

Sort of agree here. Yes people will have conflict with other "tribes" and have always. However, history has shown that religious belief has caused more deaths than what TV character or colour is best.

As we have moved forward, we have become more tolerent, more accepting of others and have worked across different "tribes" for progress. But I really believe that religion is the biggest barrier to moving even further forward.

Going to come back to a lot of what has been posted on this thread, just don't have time now to do it justice right now.

For now I'd like to challenge the assertion that Religion has resulted in more deaths than anything else.

What are we basing this on? It seems to me a bit of a throw away comment with no real evidence to back it up.

Look at the major conflicts/ loss of life of the past century

World War I
World War II
The cold war and the advance of communism

Not a lot of religion there!

In previous centuries many conflicts included a religious element but I would argue that the religious element was a mere trojan horse for empire building and pursuit of power and wealth.


(I do recognise that the phrase quoted in bold is accurate, I was thinking more of the generalisation)