Outlaw Religion

[Johan]

Originally posted by _Transparent_


well if it is religion then we live in a fucked up, stupid world, and we all deserve to die so that a new race can exist that is better than this one. (oh, hang on i just realised, these are the thoughts of people like Hitler , oops didnt realise at the time.)

That was about the most stupid thing I ever heard.

 

[S4R]

I still adhere to the idea if you take away the absolute passions of the people the world would be a less "ugly" place for humanity. Whether or not you would want that is for you to decide. I think that religion is used for control, this may be slightly off topic but I want to say this nonetheless; I often hear people say that the more people there are of something, (whether that be muslim, christian, republican, etc.) the better off humanity is. I'll use an amazing quote by Tocqueville to oppose this idea, "It is the theory of equality applied to brains." Just because you increase the size of a perticular group does not mean wisdom and equality are going to magically appear, that could just as well be the product of an individual. Basically what I am saying is simply because a vast majority of human practice a religion, does not mean religion is an answer to all problems, I think it quite the opposite.

 

[Xtokalon]

Originally posted by Soul4Raziel
I still adhere to the idea if you take away the absolute passions of the people the world would be a less "ugly" place for humanity. Whether or not you would want that is for you to decide. I think that religion is used for control, this may be slightly off topic but I want to say this nonetheless; I often hear people say that the more people there are of something, (whether that be muslim, christian, republican, etc.) the better off humanity is. I'll use an amazing quote by Tocqueville to oppose this idea, "It is the theory of equality applied to brains." Just because you increase the size of a perticular group does not mean wisdom and equality are going to magically appear, that could just as well be the product of an individual. Basically what I am saying is simply because a vast majority of human practice a religion, does not mean religion is an answer to all problems, I think it quite the opposite.

Taking away absolute passions? Why not just castrate people from birth?

Religion is used by a tool only by those who aren't religious. What's implied and neccesary is an unfaithful person consciously deceiving those who are faithful. I can assure you that most priests, pastors, ministers, etc. are not actually atheists who don't believe in Christ, allah or otherwise using religion to manipulate (and in our captialist world, rip off) people.

It happens, but people know about it. They call such "scams"

Benny Hinn is a con artist (the rich indian dude who claims he is possessed of the holy spirity and can heal people)

Rev Moon (don't knwo his first name)- well his followers thinks he the next christ. And of course this guy is mega rich.

David Koresh claimed he was next messiah and his followers believed it. and he had sex with all the girls (and I do mean girls) He was either deluded severely or actively deceiving his followers.

These people use religion as a "tool" The same charge cannot be wrought upon the thousands of priests and pastors who do what they do because they believe as the members of their congregation or otherwise believe. They do what they do and they have chosen to do what they do out of love and their own spiritual needs.

I'm an atheist myself, but shit how fucking stupid are atheists to go around with that twopenny statement, "religion is a political tool" In most cases it's not.

 

[Deathmoor]

Benny Hinn is a con artist (the rich indian dude who claims he is possessed of the holy spirity and can heal people)

please tell me how you come to this conclusion...coz you saw him on tv or what? have you been to a benny hinn show?

Well i have and man i saw with my own eyes ppl getting healed starting to walk from their wheelchairs and their pain gone away jumping etc...everyone can't be a con artist...And i felt the holy spirit's preseance why you don't feel it is coz you haven't chosen to believe in him you haven't been baptized and decided to follow him. I didn't feel holy spirit's preseance before i was baptized. Of course now you can go on and call me a liar if you want this is just what i have experienced in my life and i haven't been more happier than i am now. I don't follow a religion i follow god. I don't have rules(of course i live by the laws) coz of my beliefs i have what is right and what is wrong i choose as i see fit doing mistakes of course i'm a human. I think christians have good morals...I believe in a personal relationship with God i don't follow a priest or his teachings ok i'll stop talking now and see what happens...

 

[MetalManCPA]

Humanity can't outlaw/change much of anything. We have become too complex and fractionalized for a global sense of reasoning.

Religion (amoung other things) have infiltrated all walks of society, and its meaning has hundreds, if not thousands of definitions. I think it's too late for anything to wake up the world and bring us together.

Over time, I do believe we will destroy ourselves, or something else? will see our weaknesses, and overtake us. Could be 1,000,000 years from now, but the exponential changes I've seen in my short lifetime are nothing less than amazing (and scary).

 

[S4R]

Originally posted by Xtokalon


Taking away absolute passions? Why not just castrate people from birth?

Religion is used by a tool only by those who aren't religious. What's implied and neccesary is an unfaithful person consciously deceiving those who are faithful. I can assure you that most priests, pastors, ministers, etc. are not actually atheists who don't believe in Christ, allah or otherwise using religion to manipulate (and in our captialist world, rip off) people.

It happens, but people know about it. They call such "scams"

Benny Hinn is a con artist (the rich indian dude who claims he is possessed of the holy spirity and can heal people)

Rev Moon (don't knwo his first name)- well his followers thinks he the next christ. And of course this guy is mega rich.

David Koresh claimed he was next messiah and his followers believed it. and he had sex with all the girls (and I do mean girls) He was either deluded severely or actively deceiving his followers.

These people use religion as a "tool" The same charge cannot be wrought upon the thousands of priests and pastors who do what they do because they believe as the members of their congregation or otherwise believe. They do what they do and they have chosen to do what they do out of love and their own spiritual needs.

I'm an atheist myself, but shit how fucking stupid are atheists to go around with that twopenny statement, "religion is a political tool" In most cases it's not.

I am just saying if people have nothing to be absolutely passionate about, the world would be a better place, I am not saying there should be no passion or love, just the things people are 100% devoted to, and willing to die and kill others for; without these passions the world would be better for humanity.

 

[Sadistik]

While I believe everyone has the right to be religous, religion itself makes me sick. I could never feel complete when giving credit or blame to an unseen concept. And that it all happened in just 2000 years is mind-boggling. Hell, maybe I'll go get killed and in 2000 years there will be Jeffianity......I'd make Opeth the ritual music of course.....

 

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by Lina
It would be a world where common sense ruled

I don't think the world should be ruled by common sense. As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." The world needs to be ruled by reason---not feelings, emotions, or passion. The most passionately held beliefs are usually the most irrational. The reasonable man's beliefs are always open to reassessment and adjustment.

It is impossible to eliminate faith from the human world. Without faith there is no starting point for progress, but instead an infinite regression of causes. Note that I am not speaking of religious faith, but rather the acceptance of certain axioms. Religious faith as it exists is one of the two biggest curses on the human race (the other one being patriotism---or, more broadly, provincialism).

I propose the following two axioms:
(1) Rational arguments are more likely to be correct than irrational ones.
(2) Arguments invoking the least number of arbitrary premises are more likely to be correct.

I don't think that the above list is complete, but it is a beginning...

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by Bacchus
I don't think the world should be ruled by common sense. As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." The world needs to be ruled by reason---not feelings, emotions, or passion. The most passionately held beliefs are usually the most irrational. The reasonable man's beliefs are always open to reassessment and adjustment.

i agree with this. by "common sense" i meant rational thought. am i missing something?

 

[HoserHellspawn]

Originally posted by Xtokalon
I'm an atheist myself, but shit how fucking stupid are atheists to go around with that twopenny statement, "religion is a political tool" In most cases it's not.

Hey, that's 3.08 cents Canadian, alright?

I agree that going around with any statement you can't support is stupid, but since you were obviously referring to my prior post, I should point out that I can do plenty to support this statement.

First off, your argument is based on the perspective of the individual's relationship to a religion, in which case I agree that in most cases it is not obviously a political tool - it never is from THEIR perspective, it's what a person chooses to believe, or has always been made to believe. It's when one takes into account the larger picture of the influence of a given religious organization both in terms of recent events and recorded history, that said statement is derived. Pope Urban II called for a holy crusade to Jerusalem, in which it was stripped of it's material wealth, to be brought back to europe. Those who participated were essentially guaranteed entry to heaven by the Pope if killed. Not a tool?

The seperation of church and state is an idea that's only existed for a few hundred years in some of the nations of the world. Prior to that, the "political" aspect of religion was irrefutable. I realize this is 2001, but governments like the Taliban still exist, do they not?

How many U.S. congressmen are known athiests? "God Bless America" is a quote that directly invokes religious support from the predominant religion of the land for the government.

And of course, as aforementioned, staunch anti-American Osama bin Laden has been able to convince many people that Allah thinks slamming commercial airliners into areas occupied by thousands of civilians is a good idea. How is he not using religion as a means to an end of his own selfdriven agenda? You supplied some examples yourself, and I could throw out many more, but you get my point.

Are the majority of priests "athiests in disguise" who rip off the public? Of course not... I understand that they believe what they are saying and hold those faiths themselves and believe that they are doing good and on many levels, are. However, therein lies the issue - they don't need to be conscious of a tool that they are themselves subject to, to be a part of it. By bringing people into the organization and tending to their religious "needs", they sustain the population base that those who do control the tool have at their fingertips to manipulate. Is it as bad as it used to be? In the western world, no, consumerism has taken over for religion nicely when it comes time to direct people for the social/material gain of others.

You're a smarter guy and a better debater than I am, X, and you can probably tear my argument to shreds if you like, but please don't call me "fucking stupid" for making statements I can logically support.

 

[Xtokalon]

Originally posted by HoserHellspawn


Hey, that's 3.08 cents Canadian, alright?

I agree that going around with any statement you can't support is stupid, but since you were obviously referring to my prior post, I should point out that I can do plenty to support this statement.

First off, your argument is based on the perspective of the individual's relationship to a religion, in which case I agree that in most cases it is not obviously a political tool - it never is from THEIR perspective, it's what a person chooses to believe, or has always been made to believe. It's when one takes into account the larger picture of the influence of a given religious organization both in terms of recent events and recorded history, that said statement is derived. Pope Urban II called for a holy crusade to Jerusalem, in which it was stripped of it's material wealth, to be brought back to europe. Those who participated were essentially guaranteed entry to heaven by the Pope if killed. Not a tool?

The seperation of church and state is an idea that's only existed for a few hundred years in some of the nations of the world. Prior to that, the "political" aspect of religion was irrefutable. I realize this is 2001, but governments like the Taliban still exist, do they not?

How many U.S. congressmen are known athiests? "God Bless America" is a quote that directly invokes religious support from the predominant religion of the land for the government.

And of course, as aforementioned, staunch anti-American Osama bin Laden has been able to convince many people that Allah thinks slamming commercial airliners into areas occupied by thousands of civilians is a good idea. How is he not using religion as a means to an end of his own selfdriven agenda? You supplied some examples yourself, and I could throw out many more, but you get my point.

Are the majority of priests "athiests in disguise" who rip off the public? Of course not... I understand that they believe what they are saying and hold those faiths themselves and believe that they are doing good and on many levels, are. However, therein lies the issue - they don't need to be conscious of a tool that they are themselves subject to, to be a part of it. By bringing people into the organization and tending to their religious "needs", they sustain the population base that those who do control the tool have at their fingertips to manipulate. Is it as bad as it used to be? In the western world, no, consumerism has taken over for religion nicely when it comes time to direct people for the social/material gain of others.

You're a smarter guy and a better debater than I am, X, and you can probably tear my argument to shreds if you like, but please don't call me "fucking stupid" for making statements I can logically support.

Hoser,

Comedian, photographer, arteest! I didn't have your reply in mind at all when I wrote what I did. My attack on the phrase was only horizonal.

Besides, it seems you weren't exactly declaring "religion is a political tool" so much as you were saying "religion is an organization that is too much prone to be abused by those who would abuse it, and therein lies the problem..." The difference between the two sentences, obviously, is that the first is a critical pejorative on the nature of religion per se and the religious per se. The second aims at a caveat of sorts, not so much on the ills of religion directly, but on the consequences and dangers of its existence, evidenced through history etc..

I have no quarrel with the latter. But it makes me wonder anyway....if according to you "consumerism" takes the place religion once occupied and religion is no longer the "whore" that "evil men do" (to mix metaphors) why bother stating "religion is a political tool" in the first place? It seems to have lost its truth especially when taken in the present-day context of the fact that people take advantage of and abuse (mostly under a consumeristic umbrella) any number of things in the world, from organizations to human traits and emotions such as "goodness" and misery. It seems religion loses its justification as a target of such tirades, and its label as a "tool" becomes sheerly metaphorical, if not undeserved completely.



1) Religion is a political tool= religion victimizes people and that is its primary purpose and the very reason for its existence

2) Religion is a tool = "Religion is an organization that is too much prone to be abused by those who would abuse it, and therein lies the problem..."= religion and the religious are victiMIZED; they are the unsuspecting victims of evil men driven by their own agenda

There is a vast difference between the two portrayals. "1," I would argue, holds no weight, and "2" makes the declaration "religion is a tool" unnecessary and even inappropriately viscious.

later.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Deathmoor
please tell me how you come to this conclusion...coz you saw him on tv or what? have you been to a benny hinn show?

Well i have and man i saw with my own eyes ppl getting healed starting to walk from their wheelchairs and their pain gone away jumping etc...everyone can't be a con artist...And i felt the holy spirit's preseance why you don't feel it is coz you haven't chosen to believe in him you haven't been baptized and decided to follow him.

Oh, I'm sorry you fell for it. That's ok, A LOT of people do, so there's absolutely no reason for you to be embarassed about it. Hinn is a great showman (aside from the fact that he LOOKS like a lying sack of shit, but I guess he can't help that too much).

What's actually going on is hypnosis. Hinn is a hypnotist. He uses the most common hynotic techniques and he doesn't even try to mask them because he knows he doesn't have to, people are that easily mislead. Hinn also uses another phenomenon to his advantage, that is, people in huge crowds feed off one another's "energy" or enthusiasm. This is why when he does the healing there's so many people there, it helps create the state of hypnosis which he needs to "heal" people. Also, as you probably know, the people being "healed" are usually the most fanatical and have already done a good job of hynotizing *themselves* even before Benny comes out and opens his mouth. Some of them are fainting while standing in line to go in for fuck's sake, it's pathetic.

So, how does hypnonsis bring about this "healing"? Quite simple. The body is a pretty wild thing, and much more interconnected than we give it credit for. Therefore, there's more than one way the brain to send the legs a message if the nerves are severed. For example, you take a paralysed person, hypnotize them, and tell them to move their legs. Presto. It's that simple. Of course, the person has to be made to *believe* that they can move their legs, otherwise they cannot. Benny Hinn has an advantage over a clincal hypnotist in that he has "belief in god" and thousands of screaming faithful to cheer him on and deepen the effect of the hypnonsis. It also helps that the people have already tranced themselves out with prayer and this sensation of "the holy spirit" even before Benny comes into the picture. Faith is powerful, to use a cliche, "mind over matter".

So why don't we use hypnosis to "heal" everyone of everything, seeing as it works so well for Benny Hinn? Simple, it doesn't last very long. What Hinn's followers don't realize is that the effect of hypnosis is ALWAYS temporary. When Hinn enables someone to walk from their wheelchair, the effect typically lasts anywhere from a few minutes to well over an hour and then they are back in the wheelchair for the rest of their lives, or until they are hypnotized again. This is very important for you to realize: Benny Hinn has NEVER healed anyone of anything ever, what he does is temporarily relieve their symptoms while they are under hypnosis and that is all he does. Benny himself even admited to this fact on a show I watched on PBS a few years ago. He said, the people revert in their illness during or shortly after the show because "they lose faith". Actually, it's cuz the trance wears off.

Think about it, why would "god" temporarily "cure" people for a few minutes or hours? Could god be such a prick as to get off on toying with people's deepest hopes like that? I think not. The real prick here is Benny Hinn, who is getting rich from the feeble minded and blaming them when they can no longer walk, telling them that they have lost faith and that god has turned its back to them. That's just sick. I can't believe the would say that, but then, I guess he can't tell the truth so he has to say whatever it takes to cover his own ass, even if it means hurting others so badly by telling them that god has forsaken them. Typically, those people who are temporarily "cured" end up feeling unworthy of god after the hypnosis wears off. It's truly evil and it helps no one, well, except benny hinn and his clan as thousands race to the phone with their credit cards. It makes me sick.

Benny Hinn is the ultimate fraud. If you don't believe me, just do a little research, the facts are all there for you to find. Also, sorry to burst that bubble as it was probably a pillar of your faith, but I really think you deserve the truth about what's actually going on. If you look for proof of god in material/external places, you will not find it cuz none exists.

I hope I've been helpful.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Xtokalon
I have no quarrel with the latter. But it makes me wonder anyway....if according to you "consumerism" takes the place religion once occupied and religion is no longer the "whore" that "evil men do" (to mix metaphors) why bother stating "religion is a political tool" in the first place? It seems to have lost its truth especially when taken in the present-day context of the fact that people take advantage of and abuse (mostly under a consumeristic umbrella) any number of things in the world, from organizations to human traits and emotions such as "goodness" and misery. It seems religion loses its justification as a target of such tirades, and its label as a "tool" becomes sheerly metaphorical, if not undeserved completely.

Other tools do NOT use people's biggest and darkest fears against them the way religion does. For example, Xmas is a tool of manufacturers to sell crap by the truck load. Nike uses the desire for kids to feel accepted/popular as a tool to sell running shows. Cosmetic companies capatilize on the fact that women generally feel crappy about the way they look. All these are tools, and I'm not saying they are good or anything, they are all kinda sick in that they exploit people, however, they do NOT scare the living crap out of people in order to do it. That's the difference. You see, if someone said "Use Tide landry detergent or we'll torture you and your family", then I'd have a problem. As long as they don't use dire fear as a prime motivator, then the person still has the ability to *choose*. A kid in the bible belt can wear Reeboks in definace of Nike's ads, but this same kid cannot choose logic over faith, his fear impedes this simple choice, and it's a choice I firmly believe he should have the right to make for himself.

As I have said before, I have no problems with people playing follow the leader with each other, as long as the followers have free will to follow who they want and to stop following when they want. But in the case of religion, with this illusion of one's "soul" on the line, there is no room for choice, it's a matter of "do what we say, or else you'll pay the ultimate price". That's just perverse.

why bother stating "religion is a political tool" in the first place? It seems to have lost its truth especially when taken in the present-day context....... It seems religion loses its justification as a target of such tirades, and its label as a "tool" becomes sheerly metaphorical, if not undeserved completely.

Oh really? Have you forgotten so quickly about the events of Sept 11th? Evidently, you have. How unfortunate.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Xtokalon
I'm an atheist myself, but shit how fucking stupid are atheists to go around with that twopenny statement, "religion is a political tool" In most cases it's not.

By this logic "it's not a tool", since so many priests and such actually believe this nonsense is good for humanity? Interesting.

If someone is brainwashed and they themselves become a tool for the propogation of whatever crap, then they are somehow no longer a tool? Actually, they are the ultimate tool. Was hitler's army not a tool for the nazis simply because they believed in that nonsense? Of course they were.

For example, let's say I wanted to rule the free world. So I recruit Xtokalon and use his own fear against him to brainwash him into doing my bidding, which he does, and he is a tool. Then, Xtokalon is so brainwashed that he recruits and brainwashes others to increase the magnitude of the cause. Is he still a tool? Yes, the only difference is that his toolness has increased by the number of people he has recruited, so in that sense, he has become a megatool.

The biggest tools in religion, society, and gov't are not aware that they are being exploited. When exploiting others, telling them about it is not necessarily a good idea, the less they know the better and the more believable they appear to other respective recruits.

So while a priest may not be aware that he is a tool for an ancient political movement, he is, and his being ignorant of his toolness is what makes him the biggest tool of all.

Also, a tool hidden under the guise of "peace, love, good of humanity" are typically the best tools. You see, "shutup, pay your taxes, and do what we say" probably wouldn't go over to well with most people. What does a politician do when he wants to sell you on something? He presents it in the best possible light and associates it with as many happy positives and awful negatives as he can. That's how the game is played.

Satori

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by Bacchus


I don't think the world should be ruled by common sense. As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." The world needs to be ruled by reason---not feelings, emotions, or passion. The most passionately held beliefs are usually the most irrational. The reasonable man's beliefs are always open to reassessment and adjustment.

It is impossible to eliminate faith from the human world. Without faith there is no starting point for progress, but instead an infinite regression of causes. Note that I am not speaking of religious faith, but rather the acceptance of certain axioms. Religious faith as it exists is one of the two biggest curses on the human race (the other one being patriotism---or, more broadly, provincialism).

I propose the following two axioms:
(1) Rational arguments are more likely to be correct than irrational ones.
(2) Arguments invoking the least number of arbitrary premises are more likely to be correct.

I don't think that the above list is complete, but it is a beginning...

Outlaw religion huh? Deus Ex Machina. It'll be a good start. But that would invariably make the world more rationalistic, and less passionate. Is that good or bad? On one hand humans could use their brain a little bit more (heart is in the right place, but their brain is a thouroughly inefficient organ), but on the other hand science has failed our world. Spirit moves through all things.

Is CALTECH a happy (good) place these days?