Does religion promote socialism?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sixone
Of course we don't need religion any more. We have government to coerce us into sharing with our neighbors and keeping our society "civilized". Free will is now redundant.

For those of you with broken meters, that was sarcasm. I would argue that government does far more harm than religion.

And I would agree completely.

The difficulty with the socialists is that they are in complete denial to the horrors, suffering, and corruption that their coerced "charity" creates.

In Matthew 4:8-10, Satan offered Jesus the opportunity to force His plan upon the world and Jesus declined. Free Will.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: sixone
Of course we don't need religion any more. We have government to coerce us into sharing with our neighbors and keeping our society "civilized". Free will is now redundant.

For those of you with broken meters, that was sarcasm. I would argue that government does far more harm than religion.

Does that argument apply to all forms of government (including ones base on religions e.g., monarchies)?

Not necessarily. I was thinking more of China and the USSR, where religion is/was discouraged/denied.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: jyates
I said that plants and animals were made for man's use.

You are talking about abuse and I defintely believe that isn't proper or good.

The term of use is a very vague term.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Gurck
As far as the government, I don't think it's pertinent to this thread. Try P&N.

Why do you think religion isn't needed anymore?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Er... monarchies are focused on a ruler You're thinking of theocracies.

I guess that would include Kings who said God spoke directly through them?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Gurck
As far as the government, I don't think it's pertinent to this thread. Try P&N.

Why do you think religion isn't needed anymore?

Gone over it a bit already, mostly because we've accomplished its main purpose (to ensure our prosperity and low-level advancement as a species) and can now sustain that without it. Much like our instinct to eat fatty foods to prepare for coming times of famine, it's an instinct which has not only outlived its usefulness, but is beginning to hold us back.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Gurck
Er... monarchies are focused on a ruler You're thinking of theocracies.

I guess that would include Kings who said God spoke directly through them?

theonarchies?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Gone over it a bit already, mostly because we've accomplished its main purpose (to ensure our prosperity and low-level advancement as a species) and can now sustain that without it. Much like our instinct to eat fatty foods to prepare for coming times of famine, it's an instinct which has not only outlived its usefulness, but is beginning to hold us back.

Our culture does not seem to be advancing since we began to reduce religion's part in it. Quite the opposite. People seem to have no focus on just WHY they should be good neighbors anymore. Instead, we have spoiled brats with overdeveloped senses of entitlement who seem to believe that taking from their neighbor is okay as long as they think (in their own judgement) their neighbor has more than he needs. I will agree that the Fundie side of religion has not helped.
And quite honestly, I don't see how teaching people to be good people could ever be something that could outlive its usefulness, or hold the human race back. More likely it does not meet your personal agenda...

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Gurck
As far as the government, I don't think it's pertinent to this thread. Try P&N.

Why do you think religion isn't needed anymore?

Gone over it a bit already, mostly because we've accomplished its main purpose (to ensure our prosperity and low-level advancement as a species) and can now sustain that without it. Much like our instinct to eat fatty foods to prepare for coming times of famine, it's an instinct which has not only outlived its usefulness, but is beginning to hold us back.

Did you not see how much it was needed after 9/11? Famine comes in many forms. I wish I could share your optimism, though.

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: jyates
I don't know why you are resting your case on my comment. I know several people
who are not involved in religion at all that reject taking life from the unborn not on
religious grounds but on moral grounds only.

Again, we're talking numbers here... Repeating myself grows tiring I could tell you that several people believe pigs fly, and that you may visit them from 1-2pm on Saturdays. That also means nothing. But when all you've got is anecdotal information, I guess it's only natural you'd use it... The truth is that by and large conservative christians feel that embryos in the first few months are people while others don't. We've gone over this in another thread already, so I'll leave it at that.

Gurck,

Your statment was "In the name of religion people have stood, and continue to stand, in the way of scientific advancement, which will help us most as a species."

My point was that not all people "who stand in the way of scientific advancement" are affiliated
with organized religion. They are standing in the way of "progress" but not in the name of
religion. The numbers don't matter nor are they known but they are a reality that is contrary to the
flying pigs you contrasted them with.



Good point Vic,

I agree with you in the fact that good behavior and law abiding citizens never become outdated nor
hold back progress.

I truly do not believe that we as citizens of the world have come anywhere near living in peace
and tranquility as some would have us believe.

I read the paper too often to believe that viewpoint is valid.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gurck
Gone over it a bit already, mostly because we've accomplished its main purpose (to ensure our prosperity and low-level advancement as a species) and can now sustain that without it. Much like our instinct to eat fatty foods to prepare for coming times of famine, it's an instinct which has not only outlived its usefulness, but is beginning to hold us back.

Our culture does not seem to be advancing since we began to reduce religion's part in it. Quite the opposite. People seem to have no focus on just WHY they should be good neighbors anymore. Instead, we have spoiled brats with overdeveloped senses of entitlement who seem to believe that taking from their neighbor is okay as long as they think (in their own judgement) their neighbor has more than he needs. I will agree that the Fundie side of religion has not helped.
And quite honestly, I don't see how teaching people to be good people could ever be something that could outlive its usefulness, or hold the human race back. More likely it does not meet your personal agenda...

First off, I never said or implied that teaching people to be good was a bad thing; quite the opposite actually, I said that religion was no longer needed for people to see that one hand washes the other and do it for that reason. I think it's silly to act a certain way out of fear, which is essentially what religion is; fear of offending one's god or gods and going to hell (c&c) / being reincarnated as a bum (hindu) / etc. At one point, without existing societies as examples, religion may have been the only way of getting humans to where we are now - but it no longer is needed to sustain it.

The rest of it sounds like an alarmist's argument... "since we began to reduce religion's part in [our society]"? When exactly was that? "People seem to have no focus on just WHY they should be good neighbors anymore"? I think we're more inclined now to be good to others than in the past. Keep in mind that at heart we are animals and the product of evolution. At 6.2 billion and growing rapidly we're putting a hell of a strain on the planet's & societies' resources, and will out of necessity compete for them. Because of our population we're also generally closer to our 'neighbors' these days, and it's easier to rob someone who's a 2-minute walk away than someone 10 miles down the road (or path).

It's easy to say things are going downhill when one doesn't give full weight to the past, and easier yet when one hasn't experienced it. We tend to view the past through rose-tinted glasses even when we have experienced it. Recent history has shown us unequalled scientific advancements, many of which help to make life much harder on criminals. Some have been used for bad purposes, for sure - nuclear weapons and airplanes on 9/11 for instance. But again (and again, and again, and again, since some people seem completely unable to comprehend shades of grey) we're looking at the overall picture, blemishes and good spots all taken in at once. Nothing is perfectly good or bad.

Originally posted by: jyates
My point was that not all people "who stand in the way of scientific advancement" are affiliated
with organized religion. They are standing in the way of "progress" but not in the name of
religion.

See the last few sentences in the above paragraph.

 

[DAGTA]

Gurck. yes/no, have you read the Bible cover to cover? I realize you are not arguing anything out of the Bible, but you have a very jaded view of religion. I understand where that comes from, I'm not a fan of most aspects of organized religion, but you're focusing on only the negatives of religion and only the positives of anything non-religion. As much harm has been done in the name of science as has been done in the name of religion. Perhaps you should take off the chip on your shoulder and look at things without a bias.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Gurck. yes/no, have you read the Bible cover to cover? I realize you are not arguing anything out of the Bible, but you have a very jaded view of religion. I understand where that comes from, I'm not a fan of most aspects of organized religion, but you're focusing on only the negatives of religion and only the positives of anything non-religion. As much harm has been done in the name of science as has been done in the name of religion. Perhaps you should take off the chip on your shoulder and look at things without a bias.

Absolutely not, why would I? I understand the gist of it quite well without needing to read it, and past that I feel it'd be a waste of time. I'd sooner read CounterStrike forums (omgz teh r 4 u b ne1)

Modern society is, as I see it, almost a direct result of religion. And I greatly enjoy modern society and feel it's improving as we speak. I'd die without a broadband connection like a fish without water. How's that being jaded toward religion? I'm just voicing my take on it; that it's a tool which is no longer needed.

There's no chip on my shoulder. People disagree, it's why we're not a fleet of 6.2 billion robots. We've kept it civil and discussed it thus far, why start on me with that angle now?

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Gurck. yes/no, have you read the Bible cover to cover? I realize you are not arguing anything out of the Bible, but you have a very jaded view of religion. I understand where that comes from, I'm not a fan of most aspects of organized religion, but you're focusing on only the negatives of religion and only the positives of anything non-religion. As much harm has been done in the name of science as has been done in the name of religion. Perhaps you should take off the chip on your shoulder and look at things without a bias.

Absolutely not, why would I? I understand the gist of it quite well without needing to read it, and past that I feel it'd be a waste of time. I'd sooner read CounterStrike forums (omgz teh r 4 u b ne1)

Modern society is, as I see it, almost a direct result of religion. And I greatly enjoy modern society and feel it's improving as we speak. I'd die without a broadband connection like a fish without water. How's that being jaded toward religion? I'm just voicing my take on it; that it's a tool which is no longer needed.

There's no chip on my shoulder. People disagree, it's why we're not a fleet of 6.2 billion robots. We've kept it civil and discussed it thus far, why start on me with that angle now?

I wasn't aiming to be uncivil. My point is: you don't know the basis of modern christianity (the religion most often argued on these forums). The Bible is the basis. Most modern religion is not true to the Bible... hence why I don't attend church. I think you dont' realize that the majority of what you don't like about organized religion is the human side of it: corruption, greed, hypocrisy, etc. These things can be found in any and all human organizations. You will find them in high level science meetings (I know this, I'm defined as a scientist by my degrees). You will find them in the work place.

I think my point is... you have complaints against organized religion. But do you understand that organized religion isn't the same as the ideas behind it? I would be very curious to hear your thoughts on the Bible directly, particularly the New Testament, if you were willing to read it.

I'm sorry you felt I was being uncivil. That was not my intention.

-DAGTA

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
I wasn't aiming to be uncivil. My point is: you don't know the basis of modern christianity (the religion most often argued on these forums). The Bible is the basis. Most modern religion is not true to the Bible... hence why I don't attend church. I think you dont' realize that the majority of what you don't like about organized religion is the human side of it: corruption, greed, hypocrisy, etc. These things can be found in any and all human organizations. You will find them in high level science meetings (I know this, I'm defined as a scientist by my degrees). You will find them in the work place.

I think my point is... you have complaints against organized religion. But do you understand that organized religion isn't the same as the ideas behind it? I would be very curious to hear your thoughts on the Bible directly, particularly the New Testament, if you were willing to read it.

I'm sorry you felt I was being uncivil. That was not my intention.

-DAGTA

Well, I agree about what I don't like about organized religion. Actually, aside from the differing core of our beliefs, I think I feel pretty close to how you do about things in general. I disagree about what is the majority though; majority rules, that's a basic fact of life. If majority didn't rule (predominantly so) on, say, stem cell research - we'd have scientists doing it without a word of opposition. If it ruled predominantly (it does, but not predominantly) on abortion, we wouldn't have a word of opposition. You're making the (imo) mistake of assuming the majority agrees with you.

We have a society which views issues by the numbers, and I agree with this. Everyone will *never* agree on something, with numbers only approaching "everyone" on things like murder & rape (and even rape has its detractors, ie. "she was asking for it", etc.). The best approach is to please as many as is possible. Or so says the politician in me

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Well, I agree about what I don't like about organized religion. Actually, aside from the differing core of our beliefs, I think I feel pretty close to how you do about things in general. I disagree about what is the majority though; majority rules, that's a basic fact of life. If majority didn't rule (predominantly so) on, say, stem cell research - we'd have scientists doing it without a word of opposition. If it ruled predominantly (it does, but not predominantly) on abortion, we wouldn't have a word of opposition. You're making the (imo) mistake of assuming the majority agrees with you.

We have a society which views issues by the numbers, and I agree with this. Everyone will *never* agree on something, with numbers only approaching "everyone" on things like murder & rape (and even rape has its detractors, ie. "she was asking for it", etc.). The best approach is to please as many as is possible. Or so says the politician in me

Yeah. Except for things about faith/religion, I have found that I tend to agree with you on most of the posts you make in this forum. I realize the herd mentality and the 'winning with greater numbers' and I know you are right about that. I honestly think you'd benefit from reading the New Testament, if you can suffer through . I don't expect you to believe it or even like it, but I think you'd be better informed about the background of some of the arguments in religion on these forums. Anyway, I'll stop harping on it.

Stem cell: I don't agree with abortion (as I feel a fetus is a life from conception - and I felt that way back when I was an unbeliever, too). However, I agree with pragmatism. I know that people are going to have abortions... so I think those stem cells should be allowed for research. The life has already been forfet by the mother, but perhaps some good can come out of it. I know a lot of religious people would hate me for saying that...

-DAGTA

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gurck
Gone over it a bit already, mostly because we've accomplished its main purpose (to ensure our prosperity and low-level advancement as a species) and can now sustain that without it. Much like our instinct to eat fatty foods to prepare for coming times of famine, it's an instinct which has not only outlived its usefulness, but is beginning to hold us back.

Our culture does not seem to be advancing since we began to reduce religion's part in it. Quite the opposite. People seem to have no focus on just WHY they should be good neighbors anymore. Instead, we have spoiled brats with overdeveloped senses of entitlement who seem to believe that taking from their neighbor is okay as long as they think (in their own judgement) their neighbor has more than he needs. I will agree that the Fundie side of religion has not helped.
And quite honestly, I don't see how teaching people to be good people could ever be something that could outlive its usefulness, or hold the human race back. More likely it does not meet your personal agenda...

First off, I never said or implied that teaching people to be good was a bad thing; quite the opposite actually, I said that religion was no longer needed for people to see that one hand washes the other and do it for that reason. I think it's silly to act a certain way out of fear, which is essentially what religion is; fear of offending one's god or gods and going to hell (c&c) / being reincarnated as a bum (hindu) / etc. At one point, without existing societies as examples, religion may have been the only way of getting humans to where we are now - but it no longer is needed to sustain it.

The rest of it sounds like an alarmist's argument... "since we began to reduce religion's part in [our society]"? When exactly was that? "People seem to have no focus on just WHY they should be good neighbors anymore"? I think we're more inclined now to be good to others than in the past. Keep in mind that at heart we are animals and the product of evolution. At 6.2 billion and growing rapidly we're putting a hell of a strain on the planet's & societies' resources, and will out of necessity compete for them. Because of our population we're also generally closer to our 'neighbors' these days, and it's easier to rob someone who's a 2-minute walk away than someone 10 miles down the road (or path).

It's easy to say things are going downhill when one doesn't give full weight to the past, and easier yet when one hasn't experienced it. We tend to view the past through rose-tinted glasses even when we have experienced it. Recent history has shown us unequalled scientific advancements, many of which help to make life much harder on criminals. Some have been used for bad purposes, for sure - nuclear weapons and airplanes on 9/11 for instance. But again (and again, and again, and again, since some people seem completely unable to comprehend shades of grey) we're looking at the overall picture, blemishes and good spots all taken in at once. Nothing is perfectly good or bad.

Originally posted by: jyates
My point was that not all people "who stand in the way of scientific advancement" are affiliated
with organized religion. They are standing in the way of "progress" but not in the name of
religion.

See the last few sentences in the above paragraph.

If you are going to make blanket statements about how religion is holding back scientific advancements
then make sure that religion is the only one holding it back. And I tire of repeating myself as you
are fond of saying. When one human being (I know you don't believe a fetus is a human being) is killed in order to help another person live or have a better quality of life I don't call that an advancement.
I call that a giant step backwards. But again, that's my stance.

As discussed in earlier threads, You can post whatever you want as fact (such as religion has outgrown it's usefullness) but in reality it's your opinion and thoughts just as I have my opinions and thoughts (I think we need moral and spiritual teaching more than ever).