Forums > Social Discussion > When does religion become extremeism
Login/Join to ParticipateIts a bum with an afro...
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posted:
I guess the most obvious form of religious extremeism is terrorism which we all know of.....
But what about other forms?
The one i most remember is the last election when the new party called the Family First party, a christian party, first came into the spotlight. A party member said in an interview that lesbians should be burnt at the stake as witches and that buddhist temples, Mosques, bottle shops and synagoues(sorry about the spelling) are "satan stronholds"
This sort of narrow minded descrimination sh!ts me so much, just wondering what you guys think or know about it.
I guess the most obvious form of religious extremeism is terrorism which we all know of.....
But what about other forms?
The one i most remember is the last election when the new party called the Family First party, a christian party, first came into the spotlight. A party member said in an interview that lesbians should be burnt at the stake as witches and that buddhist temples, Mosques, bottle shops and synagoues(sorry about the spelling) are "satan stronholds"
This sort of narrow minded descrimination sh!ts me so much, just wondering what you guys think or know about it.
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction
Ed: geek, staffer, past participle
122 posts
Location: London, UK
122 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Yes! A most excellent book although I can't remember anything about it (was about 10 years ago), so that's not really helpful.
It was about the reaction of a people in a binary sun system who experience an eclipse, and therefore darkness, for the first time. Right? What happened then? And where is that damn book? >scurries among shelves<
Yes! A most excellent book although I can't remember anything about it (was about 10 years ago), so that's not really helpful.
It was about the reaction of a people in a binary sun system who experience an eclipse, and therefore darkness, for the first time. Right? What happened then? And where is that damn book? >scurries among shelves<
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Sure ed 209, fair enough I agree on the greed. And I’m not having a go when I say the concept of “religion is the tool of all evil”, has a ring of truth.
Written by OWD
Dave, what can I say? As a cartolic, I could say the divil made me do it. But to answer your question. No! Maybe u should read Bumfro’s original post re: when does religion become extremism?
Perhaps I waz led astray, and off topic. But Dave, despite your chicken and egg anecdotes, The Family First party is backed by a right wing christian church. They have no place in politics, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Bush and the Iraq invasion are also backed by right wing christian extremists.
I don’t want to live in a country (world) governed by some idiots uneducated, yet infallible, literal interpretation of the bible. Where creatism and bigotry are taught in schools, where women are subjugated, where lesbians and witches are burnt at the stake, where family planning is replaced with a coat hanger and everything is censored.
Think I’m overreacting? Like many, I underestimated this party at the last Federal election, and these narrow minded bigots nearly won the balance of power in the senate.
Icer, cross-cultural comparisons and universal comparisons are not even on my radar. So, I will ask, why are you trying to lump belief in a supernatural omnipotent god figure, as represented by the mainstream religions, in with the more earth based beliefs of other cultures?
Is there not a word or definition more suited to describe these cultural differences. I would expect the cultural significance of which you speak is lost in the mainstream, by comparison with the big three.
Sure ed 209, fair enough I agree on the greed. And I’m not having a go when I say the concept of “religion is the tool of all evil”, has a ring of truth.
Written by OWD
Written by:
I'm going to ask you to consider whether your perspective is a little distorted on this matter.
Dave, what can I say? As a cartolic, I could say the divil made me do it. But to answer your question. No! Maybe u should read Bumfro’s original post re: when does religion become extremism?
Perhaps I waz led astray, and off topic. But Dave, despite your chicken and egg anecdotes, The Family First party is backed by a right wing christian church. They have no place in politics, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Bush and the Iraq invasion are also backed by right wing christian extremists.
I don’t want to live in a country (world) governed by some idiots uneducated, yet infallible, literal interpretation of the bible. Where creatism and bigotry are taught in schools, where women are subjugated, where lesbians and witches are burnt at the stake, where family planning is replaced with a coat hanger and everything is censored.
Think I’m overreacting? Like many, I underestimated this party at the last Federal election, and these narrow minded bigots nearly won the balance of power in the senate.
Icer, cross-cultural comparisons and universal comparisons are not even on my radar. So, I will ask, why are you trying to lump belief in a supernatural omnipotent god figure, as represented by the mainstream religions, in with the more earth based beliefs of other cultures?
Is there not a word or definition more suited to describe these cultural differences. I would expect the cultural significance of which you speak is lost in the mainstream, by comparison with the big three.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Stone, I wasn't talking about extremeist religious groups being a problem- I take it for granted that most of us here realise that extremist religious groups are indeed a problem.
I was simply replying to your "when aren’t people twisted by religion?" question, which, to me, came across as implying that religious=twisted.
There are a huge number of people who partake in religion without being twisted or adversely affected.
Stone, I wasn't talking about extremeist religious groups being a problem- I take it for granted that most of us here realise that extremist religious groups are indeed a problem.
I was simply replying to your "when aren’t people twisted by religion?" question, which, to me, came across as implying that religious=twisted.
There are a huge number of people who partake in religion without being twisted or adversely affected.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
there isnt a word better suited to describe theological and ideological beliefs of different cultures. religion works well enough once ppl get it into their heads that it isnt just simple mainstream religions that need to be considered as religions.
and the original question was "when does religion become become extremism?" i didnt see anything that specifically narrowed it down to any mainstream theologies. i was trying to get ppl to see past the wall of ignorance most ppl have about what constitutes religion.
ok, i said i was going to step out of this discussion. and i will now. im not going to change my view and im not going to keep trying to change other peoples. we'll have to agree to disagree.
there isnt a word better suited to describe theological and ideological beliefs of different cultures. religion works well enough once ppl get it into their heads that it isnt just simple mainstream religions that need to be considered as religions.
and the original question was "when does religion become become extremism?" i didnt see anything that specifically narrowed it down to any mainstream theologies. i was trying to get ppl to see past the wall of ignorance most ppl have about what constitutes religion.
ok, i said i was going to step out of this discussion. and i will now. im not going to change my view and im not going to keep trying to change other peoples. we'll have to agree to disagree.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, I completely missed that. Twisted is not a word I normally use. I think was replying to something e209 quoted.
Icer, try paganism.
Dave, I completely missed that. Twisted is not a word I normally use. I think was replying to something e209 quoted.
Icer, try paganism.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
Question:
Does anyone know when the crusades actually ended?
Question:
Does anyone know when the crusades actually ended?
GOLD Member
Fool
2,020 posts
Location: Cornwall, UK
Fool
2,020 posts
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posted:
When does religion become extremism?
When people feel the need to call their belief system a "religion" and inevitably try to impose it on others.
When does religion become extremism?
When people feel the need to call their belief system a "religion" and inevitably try to impose it on others.
"I believe the cost of life is Death and we will all pay that in full. Everything else should be a gift. We paid the cover charge of life, we were born."
Bill Hicks, February 1988
Its a bum with an afro...
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posted:
Definately interesting reading all of your posts, alot of my thoughts have already been said by you. But keep questioning religion, gotta make sure it doesnt get out of hand!
Colin, cant say i know when they ended....anyone?
Definately interesting reading all of your posts, alot of my thoughts have already been said by you. But keep questioning religion, gotta make sure it doesnt get out of hand!
Colin, cant say i know when they ended....anyone?
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Mags, good point.
I came across “chosen people syndrome” at wikipedia, and I can certainly see ethnocentricity being a real driving force.
Ethnocentricity being defined as the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. Many claim that ethnocentrism occurs in every society; ironically, ethnocentrism may be something that all cultures have in common.
Mags, good point.
I came across “chosen people syndrome” at wikipedia, and I can certainly see ethnocentricity being a real driving force.
Ethnocentricity being defined as the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. Many claim that ethnocentrism occurs in every society; ironically, ethnocentrism may be something that all cultures have in common.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Diamond In The Rough
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posted:
Your religion (or anything else for that matter) becomes extremeism when you make it affect someone else.
People who live in the woods eating berries, praying to grasshoppers and having 8 wives are not extrmeists. But the minute they ask me to join them, they become extreme by overstepping the bounds that make religion OR faith what it is, a personal, soulful experience.
Hey, wait a minute--8 wives? [runs off to the woods]
Your religion (or anything else for that matter) becomes extremeism when you make it affect someone else.
People who live in the woods eating berries, praying to grasshoppers and having 8 wives are not extrmeists. But the minute they ask me to join them, they become extreme by overstepping the bounds that make religion OR faith what it is, a personal, soulful experience.
Hey, wait a minute--8 wives? [runs off to the woods]
Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.
Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
damn it, cant seem to stay away from this thread. i would dearly like to comment on things that have been said, but it wil get no where.
i am just goin to add this link to a site giving a chronology of the crusades...
https://users.commkey.net/fussichen/otdcru.htm
it is hard to say when exactly the last crusade was, the reasons behind the crusades were varied and very little to do with actual christian principles (if you disagree go read the bible). some ppl say it was the 8th crusade that was the last one, circa 1270AD others argue that it was when the knights templars were killed, but htey were repeated attacks kead by 'christians', that were called crusades to help legitimise what they were doing...not that the crusades were in anyway legitimate christian movements- but thats a whole nother story.
even tho i said i was leaving this thread, i feel i need to add that for once i agree with stone, ethnocentrism IS something that all cultures have in common. it is one of the underlying problems when we deal with any culture (even our own). relates to something 'monkey of the void' said in another thread " all experience is filtered through the human consciousness, providing a built in bias that cannot be avoided".
damn it, cant seem to stay away from this thread. i would dearly like to comment on things that have been said, but it wil get no where.
i am just goin to add this link to a site giving a chronology of the crusades...
https://users.commkey.net/fussichen/otdcru.htm
it is hard to say when exactly the last crusade was, the reasons behind the crusades were varied and very little to do with actual christian principles (if you disagree go read the bible). some ppl say it was the 8th crusade that was the last one, circa 1270AD others argue that it was when the knights templars were killed, but htey were repeated attacks kead by 'christians', that were called crusades to help legitimise what they were doing...not that the crusades were in anyway legitimate christian movements- but thats a whole nother story.
even tho i said i was leaving this thread, i feel i need to add that for once i agree with stone, ethnocentrism IS something that all cultures have in common. it is one of the underlying problems when we deal with any culture (even our own). relates to something 'monkey of the void' said in another thread " all experience is filtered through the human consciousness, providing a built in bias that cannot be avoided".
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
cheers Icer
Within the context of ethnocentrism, I think I resent the instintution that programmed some of the “in-built” bias in, not the least being some historic errors.
cheers Icer
Within the context of ethnocentrism, I think I resent the instintution that programmed some of the “in-built” bias in, not the least being some historic errors.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
The crusades haven't ended. That whole mess is still going on in one form or another...
Whats the point of religon when just about every war used it as an excuse, and still does in some cases...
The crusades haven't ended. That whole mess is still going on in one form or another...
Whats the point of religon when just about every war used it as an excuse, and still does in some cases...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Religion hurts more than it helps, but don't let that blind you to the fact that it DOES help some people. Charities etc get a lot of funding from Religions, and many Religious are havens for the prosecuted and homeless.
Religion hurts more than it helps, but don't let that blind you to the fact that it DOES help some people. Charities etc get a lot of funding from Religions, and many Religious are havens for the prosecuted and homeless.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
ok, if we talking about 'The Crusades' then they finished a long time ago. people still go on crusades, but not on Papal sanction wars with the aim of reclaiming the Holy Land from the Muslims. Calling the campaigns waged today for various causes crusades is confusing a crusade with The Crusades.
however, this might be another case where an arguement starts b/c of different definitions.
i would be reluctant to say whether or not religion has done more harm than good. it is hard to make a quantitative (measurable) statement about something that is qualitative. how do you measure harm and help?
what quantity does giving a person meaning and purpose for they life have? does giving someone 'spiritual' life balance the loss of physical life of someone else. what is a human life worth? can it be measured?
i dont have the answer, and im not advocating religous wars, but i just wanted to say thats not a good idea to make sweeping generalisations about these sort of things. im sure some ppl will disagree with me, but they just my thoughts on the matter.
EDITED_BY: Icer (1120531760)
ok, if we talking about 'The Crusades' then they finished a long time ago. people still go on crusades, but not on Papal sanction wars with the aim of reclaiming the Holy Land from the Muslims. Calling the campaigns waged today for various causes crusades is confusing a crusade with The Crusades.
however, this might be another case where an arguement starts b/c of different definitions.
i would be reluctant to say whether or not religion has done more harm than good. it is hard to make a quantitative (measurable) statement about something that is qualitative. how do you measure harm and help?
what quantity does giving a person meaning and purpose for they life have? does giving someone 'spiritual' life balance the loss of physical life of someone else. what is a human life worth? can it be measured?
i dont have the answer, and im not advocating religous wars, but i just wanted to say thats not a good idea to make sweeping generalisations about these sort of things. im sure some ppl will disagree with me, but they just my thoughts on the matter.
EDITED_BY: Icer (1120531760)
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
Its a bum with an afro...
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posted:
Dam, you know ur stuff icer!
"how do you measure harm and help?"
Now thats a good question!
Dam, you know ur stuff icer!
"how do you measure harm and help?"
Now thats a good question!
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Well I personally think that an approximate count of every casualty of every war where the person in charge said "God is on our side" vs The number of people who have had their lives saved by someone saying "I do good things cos my Religion says so" would give a reasonable approximation of how "Beneficial" religion has been.
I appreciate that it is very difficult to measure these things, but I can confidently state that almost every war since The Crusades has been accompanied by a toccata and theme on the lines of "God is on our side".
It is MUCH more difficult to measure how many people have been saved from starving, freezing, bleeding, torture etc etc by Religion, but I'm willing to bet good money that it doesn't approach the casualty figures from those wars (including WW 1+2).
Now I know that Religion isn't the sole motivation for these conflicts, but if it wasn't there then it would be one less reason to fight each other. The politicians would have to find another (maybe slightly less convincing) jingoistic phrase.
And to answer one of your questions Icer, I think a life is better than a death. And no-one can say that a life with Religion is somehow "better" than a life without it. I'll fight against that as long as I draw breath. A "Moral" life is better than an "Immoral" one, but Religion isn't that simple. Anyway, most Religion's judgement on what is Moral and what is not I find seriously flawed anyway.
Good reminder of the Qualitive/Quantitative argument btw.
Well I personally think that an approximate count of every casualty of every war where the person in charge said "God is on our side" vs The number of people who have had their lives saved by someone saying "I do good things cos my Religion says so" would give a reasonable approximation of how "Beneficial" religion has been.
I appreciate that it is very difficult to measure these things, but I can confidently state that almost every war since The Crusades has been accompanied by a toccata and theme on the lines of "God is on our side".
It is MUCH more difficult to measure how many people have been saved from starving, freezing, bleeding, torture etc etc by Religion, but I'm willing to bet good money that it doesn't approach the casualty figures from those wars (including WW 1+2).
Now I know that Religion isn't the sole motivation for these conflicts, but if it wasn't there then it would be one less reason to fight each other. The politicians would have to find another (maybe slightly less convincing) jingoistic phrase.
And to answer one of your questions Icer, I think a life is better than a death. And no-one can say that a life with Religion is somehow "better" than a life without it. I'll fight against that as long as I draw breath. A "Moral" life is better than an "Immoral" one, but Religion isn't that simple. Anyway, most Religion's judgement on what is Moral and what is not I find seriously flawed anyway.
Good reminder of the Qualitive/Quantitative argument btw.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Ed: geek, staffer, past participle
122 posts
Location: London, UK
122 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Yes but if you look at how religions evolve in societies, they turn up once a group of people expands beyond a certain size - as a general rule, small family-based tribes don't have religions but larger groups do. Why? One idea is that religions present a way to stop people from killing each other - to control the values of large groups of people and prevent fatal infighting within those groups.
So you could therefore argue that without religion, none of us would have expanded beyond small hunter-gatherer groups.
Of course, it's ironic that since the initial purpose of religions was to *save* lives, once groups got very large in size, they became a reason to take them. But that's another argument. If you're toeing the line that religions have killed more people than they have saved, I say (a) you have no quantitative basis for making that statement, and (b) from an evolutionary perspective, it's a shaky argument.
Yes but if you look at how religions evolve in societies, they turn up once a group of people expands beyond a certain size - as a general rule, small family-based tribes don't have religions but larger groups do. Why? One idea is that religions present a way to stop people from killing each other - to control the values of large groups of people and prevent fatal infighting within those groups.
So you could therefore argue that without religion, none of us would have expanded beyond small hunter-gatherer groups.
Of course, it's ironic that since the initial purpose of religions was to *save* lives, once groups got very large in size, they became a reason to take them. But that's another argument. If you're toeing the line that religions have killed more people than they have saved, I say (a) you have no quantitative basis for making that statement, and (b) from an evolutionary perspective, it's a shaky argument.
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
As for the crusades ending. They didn't, they evoled a bit. The papacy doesn't have the the influence to move nations to war as easliy as it did. But fighting and dislocating Muslim nations has still been going on in the past years. For the holyland noless. I allways found it ironic that jerushalem sorta translates to garden of peace, or city of peace. hasn't seen that for a long time.
As for the crusades ending. They didn't, they evoled a bit. The papacy doesn't have the the influence to move nations to war as easliy as it did. But fighting and dislocating Muslim nations has still been going on in the past years. For the holyland noless. I allways found it ironic that jerushalem sorta translates to garden of peace, or city of peace. hasn't seen that for a long time.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Valid point Ed, but isn't the theory something along the lines that all the "Religious Tendencies" are focused on the social group rather than the external religion.
Small groups of hunter gatherers (like those who have totemism as their Reilgion) worship the social group they live in. I have no problem with this as it helps the members of society in their secondary socialization, and provides a good emotional framework to cope with problems.
The problem (IMO) is when the group expands, and comes into contact with other, different, social groups. You then have a conflict between the two groups ideologies, and one or both of them feel threatened by this. It doesn't take long for this to develope into physical conflict.
I realise that I have little quantitative data to hand, but extrapolation is possible.
1. Small Society, maybe 800 people. Little or no conflict with other groups. Estimate that maybe 50% will have a crisis that they will not survive without the established communal worship. E.g. traumatic deaths, illness, etc. Total Lives saved: Approx 400.
2. Larger society, maybe 200,000 people. Society comes into conflict with another, equal society. Armed forces make up 10-15% of population. Armed Forces=2000 people. To force a surrender of either side, 20% may be destroyed. 400 dead. Plus casualties from winning side, maybe 10%=200. Total Lives lost in conflict=600.
Saved: 400
Lost: 600
And the numbers grow exponentially the larger the society. Bear in mind that the nature of successful societies is to grow, so the numbers of small societies will shrink as time goes on. Now there are less than a dozen geographical locations where totemism or its equivalent is practised.
I am aware that I cannot prove this historically, It's just how I tend to think that the averages look like. Please don't attack the numbers, because they are just examples. Feel free to attack the point that Religion kills more than it saves though
.
Valid point Ed, but isn't the theory something along the lines that all the "Religious Tendencies" are focused on the social group rather than the external religion.
Small groups of hunter gatherers (like those who have totemism as their Reilgion) worship the social group they live in. I have no problem with this as it helps the members of society in their secondary socialization, and provides a good emotional framework to cope with problems.
The problem (IMO) is when the group expands, and comes into contact with other, different, social groups. You then have a conflict between the two groups ideologies, and one or both of them feel threatened by this. It doesn't take long for this to develope into physical conflict.
I realise that I have little quantitative data to hand, but extrapolation is possible.
1. Small Society, maybe 800 people. Little or no conflict with other groups. Estimate that maybe 50% will have a crisis that they will not survive without the established communal worship. E.g. traumatic deaths, illness, etc. Total Lives saved: Approx 400.
2. Larger society, maybe 200,000 people. Society comes into conflict with another, equal society. Armed forces make up 10-15% of population. Armed Forces=2000 people. To force a surrender of either side, 20% may be destroyed. 400 dead. Plus casualties from winning side, maybe 10%=200. Total Lives lost in conflict=600.
Saved: 400
Lost: 600
And the numbers grow exponentially the larger the society. Bear in mind that the nature of successful societies is to grow, so the numbers of small societies will shrink as time goes on. Now there are less than a dozen geographical locations where totemism or its equivalent is practised.
I am aware that I cannot prove this historically, It's just how I tend to think that the averages look like. Please don't attack the numbers, because they are just examples. Feel free to attack the point that Religion kills more than it saves though
. After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
i can see you rlogic in your answers, i wont attack the numbers, although i could just as easily make up my own example with other numbers.
its the assumptions behind the numbers that i would question.
but i wont just yet, ill see if anyone else would like to.
i will however point out that your comparing the wrong numbers. the 600 dead are from a large scale conflict which you are attributing to religous conflict, fine, thats all good. but the number saved in this conflict is NOT 400, that is from the early smaller population, religion is still present in the larger society, giving purpose and meaning to peoples lives. this is the very reason they went to war. so the number 'saved' is more like 199,400.
when we're talking about 'good' and 'bad' we cant simply say, lives that are lost and lives that are not lost. we need to take into account emotional and spiritual needs of people. this is why i think it is so hard to make comparisions about the relative good and bad of religion.
i agree that religion was been the banner call for many conflicts, but i would also argue that without religion these conflicts would still have occured, politics more than religion is the main instigator for wars these days, and has been for a while. religion can be used as a motivater because people fell so strongly about it, but it is not the hugley effective cll to war that it is made ou tto be, otherwise countries like the US which is 'quite' religous (atleast in thier own minds) would nit have use things like the draft.
also we should view that fact that people within a conflict religous are religous with caution. correlation does not mean causation. it may be that people within a conflict become mor ereligous because they need to try and make sense of the carnage around them, it would be very helpful to say 'God is on our side' to help jusitify the horror around you.
not sure i said it before or not, but i dont im trying to say religion has caused more good than harm, im just sayin we cant compare these things. you have provided numbers, thats good, but what number to give the feeling of 'salvation'. this is a comparision about the good and bad of religion, not the people killed and the people not killed.
i can see you rlogic in your answers, i wont attack the numbers, although i could just as easily make up my own example with other numbers.
its the assumptions behind the numbers that i would question.
but i wont just yet, ill see if anyone else would like to.
i will however point out that your comparing the wrong numbers. the 600 dead are from a large scale conflict which you are attributing to religous conflict, fine, thats all good. but the number saved in this conflict is NOT 400, that is from the early smaller population, religion is still present in the larger society, giving purpose and meaning to peoples lives. this is the very reason they went to war. so the number 'saved' is more like 199,400.
when we're talking about 'good' and 'bad' we cant simply say, lives that are lost and lives that are not lost. we need to take into account emotional and spiritual needs of people. this is why i think it is so hard to make comparisions about the relative good and bad of religion.
i agree that religion was been the banner call for many conflicts, but i would also argue that without religion these conflicts would still have occured, politics more than religion is the main instigator for wars these days, and has been for a while. religion can be used as a motivater because people fell so strongly about it, but it is not the hugley effective cll to war that it is made ou tto be, otherwise countries like the US which is 'quite' religous (atleast in thier own minds) would nit have use things like the draft.
also we should view that fact that people within a conflict religous are religous with caution. correlation does not mean causation. it may be that people within a conflict become mor ereligous because they need to try and make sense of the carnage around them, it would be very helpful to say 'God is on our side' to help jusitify the horror around you.
not sure i said it before or not, but i dont im trying to say religion has caused more good than harm, im just sayin we cant compare these things. you have provided numbers, thats good, but what number to give the feeling of 'salvation'. this is a comparision about the good and bad of religion, not the people killed and the people not killed.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
My take on this is that the notions of both: -
1. religion being the 'root' of wars
and
2. being a thing that 'saves' people
could do with a little looking into.
I think that religion is often used to justify conflicts, but, if the religion wasn't there something else would be used instead (probably ethnicity) ie religion is not the cause/root, but is just the justification
As for religion 'saving' people; I have on several occasions on HOP mentioned this as one of the beneficial aspects of religious belief.
However, I also firmly believe (in fact, I know) that all those benefits of religion can also be had, just as effectively, without religious belief.
Whilst religion, for many, brings profound inner peace, the fact remains that the same inner peace can be had by an athiest.
My take on this is that the notions of both: -
1. religion being the 'root' of wars
and
2. being a thing that 'saves' people
could do with a little looking into.
I think that religion is often used to justify conflicts, but, if the religion wasn't there something else would be used instead (probably ethnicity) ie religion is not the cause/root, but is just the justification
As for religion 'saving' people; I have on several occasions on HOP mentioned this as one of the beneficial aspects of religious belief.
However, I also firmly believe (in fact, I know) that all those benefits of religion can also be had, just as effectively, without religious belief.
Whilst religion, for many, brings profound inner peace, the fact remains that the same inner peace can be had by an athiest.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
absolutely! that is kinda my point, im very cautious about making generalisations like the one we discussing. i would also question a few of the generalisations that dave makes, but there is no point, he has his thougths, and they just as valid as my own, as are sethis's thoughts.
religion is such a hard concept to form boundaries around aswel, as we have already discussed previously.
absolutely! that is kinda my point, im very cautious about making generalisations like the one we discussing. i would also question a few of the generalisations that dave makes, but there is no point, he has his thougths, and they just as valid as my own, as are sethis's thoughts.
religion is such a hard concept to form boundaries around aswel, as we have already discussed previously.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
But surely in a larger society then Religion tends to lose it's ability to help people on a personal level? Because of the developement of sub-cultures within the larger society, Religion is viewed as just another sub-culture, one of many, rather than being the element that binds *everyone* together. So correspondingly, the percentage of people who are "Saved" by Religion will go down. They are instead supported by other sub-cultures to which they belong, e.g. HoP, Work associates etc.
I think it's quite interesting that in life, it is very easy to quantify the bad things, but no-one seems to be able to quantify the good things (Unless you're a politician, in which case the opposite is true).
Icer's point about War causing *more* people to believe deeply is valid, but I think it is also reasonable to say that many people think "What kind of a God would let this happen?" or "If this War is in the name of my Religion, I'm not sure I want to be part of it." So the ratio of believers/non-believers would stay about the same.
I think that Religion is only the "Root" (i.e. Main Reason) for conflict if it is in the context of smaller societies. This is when your societies survival is dependant on the unquestioning superiority of your own culture. If you do not keep your people from moving out to other cultures then your way of life will die.
I am not saying that there is any less of an assumption in most people's minds about the superiority of their own culture today, just that it is likely that they will stay where they are even if they disagree with many aspects of their society (I know I do).
I agree with most of what Dave says, but especially his last two points. Well Said.
But surely in a larger society then Religion tends to lose it's ability to help people on a personal level? Because of the developement of sub-cultures within the larger society, Religion is viewed as just another sub-culture, one of many, rather than being the element that binds *everyone* together. So correspondingly, the percentage of people who are "Saved" by Religion will go down. They are instead supported by other sub-cultures to which they belong, e.g. HoP, Work associates etc.
I think it's quite interesting that in life, it is very easy to quantify the bad things, but no-one seems to be able to quantify the good things (Unless you're a politician, in which case the opposite is true).
Icer's point about War causing *more* people to believe deeply is valid, but I think it is also reasonable to say that many people think "What kind of a God would let this happen?" or "If this War is in the name of my Religion, I'm not sure I want to be part of it." So the ratio of believers/non-believers would stay about the same.
I think that Religion is only the "Root" (i.e. Main Reason) for conflict if it is in the context of smaller societies. This is when your societies survival is dependant on the unquestioning superiority of your own culture. If you do not keep your people from moving out to other cultures then your way of life will die.
I am not saying that there is any less of an assumption in most people's minds about the superiority of their own culture today, just that it is likely that they will stay where they are even if they disagree with many aspects of their society (I know I do).
I agree with most of what Dave says, but especially his last two points. Well Said.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
using the arguement that religion is not as important in 'saving' people in larger societies works for the other side of the arguement too, religion in larger societies does not have a largre role in causing conflicts (look at iraq), when societies get larger, politics, not religion become more important.
smaller communities will more often be fighting for resources. smaller communties typically do not travel that far and those groups they do encounter will prob have the same religion. look at all the tribal wars in human history. those small societies were not fighting for there religion but resources.
im not saying religion hasnt caused large conflicts, it has. that cant be disputed. i also dont think you can quantify the negative aspects just as you cant quantify the good (thats kinda the root of my point on this issue).
another point to mention is that when can religion be used as a reason? The Crysades were conducted by christians, but they were nto doin anything close to what the bible tells them to do (if you disagree go read your bible). they were just using religion as a banner call. much the same way Bush uses 'the american way of life' as a banner call for iraq. but is it really the american wa of life? if it isnt can the american way of life and america be blamed, or can we blame the concept of 'nations' and 'countries'? this is same thing we're doing with religion, because some people twist some religions and do things contrary to what that religion actually says, we label that religion, or religion in general as bad.
using the arguement that religion is not as important in 'saving' people in larger societies works for the other side of the arguement too, religion in larger societies does not have a largre role in causing conflicts (look at iraq), when societies get larger, politics, not religion become more important.
smaller communities will more often be fighting for resources. smaller communties typically do not travel that far and those groups they do encounter will prob have the same religion. look at all the tribal wars in human history. those small societies were not fighting for there religion but resources.
im not saying religion hasnt caused large conflicts, it has. that cant be disputed. i also dont think you can quantify the negative aspects just as you cant quantify the good (thats kinda the root of my point on this issue).
another point to mention is that when can religion be used as a reason? The Crysades were conducted by christians, but they were nto doin anything close to what the bible tells them to do (if you disagree go read your bible). they were just using religion as a banner call. much the same way Bush uses 'the american way of life' as a banner call for iraq. but is it really the american wa of life? if it isnt can the american way of life and america be blamed, or can we blame the concept of 'nations' and 'countries'? this is same thing we're doing with religion, because some people twist some religions and do things contrary to what that religion actually says, we label that religion, or religion in general as bad.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes, I've heard lots of different interpretations on that. Pele called the Patriot Act "Un-American" but surely there must be some people who think that this act is the epitome of their culture? Otherwise why would they have voted it in?
I agree that Religion is rarely the main reason for any conflict, but the fact remains that it contributes, and anything that contributes to wars is IMO bad. So, seeing as how we're not really disagreeing too much on that, how about we all go to Falmouth and have a
Yes, I've heard lots of different interpretations on that. Pele called the Patriot Act "Un-American" but surely there must be some people who think that this act is the epitome of their culture? Otherwise why would they have voted it in?
I agree that Religion is rarely the main reason for any conflict, but the fact remains that it contributes, and anything that contributes to wars is IMO bad. So, seeing as how we're not really disagreeing too much on that, how about we all go to Falmouth and have a
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
So Icer, you can’t measure it, therefore it is irrelevant, lets ignore it?
Good point ed209. You say “Religions evolved to control the values of large groups of people and prevent fatal infighting within those groups.” I think this explains the moral pontificating side of religion, but did not religion also evolve to explain the unexplainable, like the sun rising, good years and preventing famine ? Though, I think it’s naive to suggest that without religion none of us would have expanded beyond small hunter-gatherer groups. This implies people don’t have a brain.
Dave, looking a little deeper. Cause/root or justification mean much the same to me. You suggest that 'saving' people is a benefit of religion, though I’m not sure what you mean by saved.
Are you implying that religion being the 'root' of wars, and the winners are saved? Certainly, people faced with termination have relented, and converted to save their own lives.
Then there are the missionary zealots who go around saving people against their will. But saved from what ? The devil, themselves? This could lead to the paradox of atheists being saved from the devil.
I do agree that people do not need religion to find inner peace. Quite the contrary.
So Icer, you can’t measure it, therefore it is irrelevant, lets ignore it?
Good point ed209. You say “Religions evolved to control the values of large groups of people and prevent fatal infighting within those groups.” I think this explains the moral pontificating side of religion, but did not religion also evolve to explain the unexplainable, like the sun rising, good years and preventing famine ? Though, I think it’s naive to suggest that without religion none of us would have expanded beyond small hunter-gatherer groups. This implies people don’t have a brain.
Dave, looking a little deeper. Cause/root or justification mean much the same to me. You suggest that 'saving' people is a benefit of religion, though I’m not sure what you mean by saved.
Are you implying that religion being the 'root' of wars, and the winners are saved? Certainly, people faced with termination have relented, and converted to save their own lives.
Then there are the missionary zealots who go around saving people against their will. But saved from what ? The devil, themselves? This could lead to the paradox of atheists being saved from the devil.
I do agree that people do not need religion to find inner peace. Quite the contrary.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
No, , no, no... absolutely not. I would have thought you knew me better than to think I'd mean that.
By 'saved' I'm talking about the phenomena of an individual who, often having reached absolute 'rock-bottom' in their life, are deeply touched by something, which they often interpret as being 'God'.
From that day on they are free from the things that previously constrained them and made their lives hell.
This is very common with alcoholics, many of whom have been saved from their addiction by what they see as the 'grace of God'- if you read the literature given out by AA ('alcoholics anonymous'- if you ring your local group I believe they send stuff out for free) you will see the role played by belief.
Now I'm not saying that God is essential in this process of 'becoming free'- it isn't; some escape alcohlism without belief in God; also, many aspects of this 'saving' are evident in accounts of other spiritual systems that lack a deity (eg zen buddhist enlightenment experiences).
However, the fact remains that, in our culture at least, this effect seems to be most prevalent amongst those who believe in God, and attribute their experience to God.
So that's what I mean by 'saved', absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with war- simply the process of having a meaningless/corrupt/unpleasant life and then becoming free of it, generally via the 'grace of God'.
Written by: Stone
You suggest that 'saving' people is a benefit of religion, though I’m not sure what you mean by saved.
Are you implying that religion being the 'root' of wars, and the winners are saved? Certainly, people faced with termination have relented, and converted to save their own lives.
No, , no, no... absolutely not. I would have thought you knew me better than to think I'd mean that.
By 'saved' I'm talking about the phenomena of an individual who, often having reached absolute 'rock-bottom' in their life, are deeply touched by something, which they often interpret as being 'God'.
From that day on they are free from the things that previously constrained them and made their lives hell.
This is very common with alcoholics, many of whom have been saved from their addiction by what they see as the 'grace of God'- if you read the literature given out by AA ('alcoholics anonymous'- if you ring your local group I believe they send stuff out for free) you will see the role played by belief.
Now I'm not saying that God is essential in this process of 'becoming free'- it isn't; some escape alcohlism without belief in God; also, many aspects of this 'saving' are evident in accounts of other spiritual systems that lack a deity (eg zen buddhist enlightenment experiences).
However, the fact remains that, in our culture at least, this effect seems to be most prevalent amongst those who believe in God, and attribute their experience to God.
So that's what I mean by 'saved', absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with war- simply the process of having a meaningless/corrupt/unpleasant life and then becoming free of it, generally via the 'grace of God'.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
"So Icer, you can’t measure it, therefore it is irrelevant, lets ignore it?"
--nope, i never said anything about ignoring it. i said we cant make generalised statements about the comparative good and bad of aspects of something (in this case religion) that cant be measured and thus accurately compared in a quantitative context.
i think qualitative contextual statements are fine, and the key words there are 'qualitative' and 'contextual'.
i certainly dont think we should ignore the influence, whether good or bad, that religion has on our lives and the lives of others. i strongly believe we should always question everything, and try to see things from all possible angles. that isnt to say we dont then make decisions and have views on issues and what not.
"So Icer, you can’t measure it, therefore it is irrelevant, lets ignore it?"
--nope, i never said anything about ignoring it. i said we cant make generalised statements about the comparative good and bad of aspects of something (in this case religion) that cant be measured and thus accurately compared in a quantitative context.
i think qualitative contextual statements are fine, and the key words there are 'qualitative' and 'contextual'.
i certainly dont think we should ignore the influence, whether good or bad, that religion has on our lives and the lives of others. i strongly believe we should always question everything, and try to see things from all possible angles. that isnt to say we dont then make decisions and have views on issues and what not.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, I think it a perspective thing. I suspect you are looking more one-on-one, contemporary, while I’m looking wider, historic. Perhaps a Myers Brigs Type sort of thing.
The AA one is tricky. I come for a conventional catholic background, but my late uncle was an alcoholic. Apparently, he could not get over the major step of having to believe in a God. Perhaps it’s changed, but belief or surrender to a supreme being seems essential in the12 – Step program.
From my perspective, I look at the “stolen generation” in Australia I see a good indication that the Christian mandate to “save” people has contributed to alcoholism.
Icer, not a red herring? So, which is better, a qualitative contextual or quantitative context?
I think you can accurately quantify qualitive information by putting a number on it, not that hard, if someone really wanted to look at something objectively.
Dave, I think it a perspective thing. I suspect you are looking more one-on-one, contemporary, while I’m looking wider, historic. Perhaps a Myers Brigs Type sort of thing.
The AA one is tricky. I come for a conventional catholic background, but my late uncle was an alcoholic. Apparently, he could not get over the major step of having to believe in a God. Perhaps it’s changed, but belief or surrender to a supreme being seems essential in the12 – Step program.
From my perspective, I look at the “stolen generation” in Australia I see a good indication that the Christian mandate to “save” people has contributed to alcoholism.
Icer, not a red herring? So, which is better, a qualitative contextual or quantitative context?
I think you can accurately quantify qualitive information by putting a number on it, not that hard, if someone really wanted to look at something objectively.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com