Some Asian religions may be the exception(s).

For example, some people came to North America to escape religious persecution in England. That's actually a pretty good reason to leave a place to go to a new place. However, when they got here, they found people already living here. Dilemma.

So, they systematically displaced those indigenous people, killing them, when necessary, to make room for themselves. Why? Because, those indigenous people were "heathens," and therefore less entitled than the newcomers, who believed their religion gave them primacy over the backward "heathens."

That concept often seems to play into empire building, genocide and generally displacing people who believe other things than the conquering group believes. It's OK, because the people they are displacing or killing are lesser people, or even "not real" people. That justifies their destruction due to the primacy of the invaders.

And there it is.

Bingo..
Take a look at WW1 and ww2 posters.. It's ok to kill, even though the church tells you "thou shall not kill" accept....
Classic way to get people to kill the "other" Portray them as less than and it's OK.

m

Same thing. Primacy. And almost always based on religion, in one way or another. The dominant religion is entitled to what belongs to those who are worship lesser deities. They must leave, become slaves, or die. That is all.

It's human history in a nutshell. It's ugly as can be. It has happened virtually everywhere. Just ask a Native American.

Gott mit uns...in whatever language you prefer.

Nope, I use heavy gloves mit fingers...

sorry, I could not help my self...
m

it all made sense... "God wills it"... If your God says it's ok... go for it... uggh
m

This has been the case throughout history. Very little has changed.

Recall friends that were exempt from the draft in the 60s because they were Quakeres or UUs.

Last edited Fri Jan 5, 2018, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Including the civil religion that we call patriotism.

Tribalism by another name.

Not in any way.

With most of the forms of religion, simply renamed.

A Constitution instead of a holy book,

a heavily fictionalized history instead of stories of the saints,

politicians and assorted heroes instead of saints,

the pledge of allegiance and various songs to take the place of hymns and prayers.

Oh yes, patriotism is civil religion.

words in common use, Guy.

Last reply.

Or, continue on your way.

And if you believe some people like Lakoff and other 'cognitive' (sensu latu) linguists, everything's metaphorical extension so it's all okay.

Otherwise, it's just a useful tool and a reasonable sort of semantic extension. There are all kinds of things that are religions in pretty much every sense of the word except they lack a deity. Some of these serve the same function as a religion in traditional society. Some are more recent innovations.

We can go overboard with the metaphorical extension. I've heard medical science termed a "religion," but it's missing a lot of the features that make religions a religion, not just deity. You can use the sea as a metaphor for a rose, but there's not just a lot of overlap. Or you can use a closer metaphor. I like keeping my metaphors close unless there's significant pun-value in them.

But I do find the idea that a society can have but one dominant religion, which will be at odds and try to convert members of other religions, to be fairly often true. Thing as, if you let religion go just a bit metaphorical, you get a pretty accurate description of what's happening in a lot societies where a "secular" or civil religion is very much at odds in a way that pits over ideology against another secular ideology or, more often these days, its categorical equal, religion. Its the fact that they behave the same (i.e., their bearers treat them the same and advance them the same way), serve the same function in personal life and in society, and interact at the same level in similar ways that strikes me as the most compelling evidence that they're very much the same kind of critter. We can extend "religion" to include the secular things, or we can say, "we have one word for the things without deity, one for things with the deity, but we also need a cover term for which religion and ideology are both equally valid exemplars." Very often when we choose cover terms, though, we merely elevate one of the two terms already in use.

His favorite goto fallacy.

with that poster. I simply don't have time for useless conversation right now.

Pacifism is a belief system that cannot be used as an excuse for violence.

Why do you keep repeating falsehoods?

Buddhism, too, is pretty non-violent, as are some other belief systems. But, hey, a guy can't think of every belief system, you know, at one time...

Are somehow better, or on a different plane from Western ones, but when you get to the actual system they are pretty much the same. They are, after all, still created by humans.

Seems more ethnic to me, and not in the name of religion.

Atheism can't be used either.

If you dispute that, please identify exactly which teaching of atheism excuses violence.

I'll wait right here.

For me the big difference is how much a particular religion facilitates dehumanizing an enemy and turning him into "the other."

So in that regard, yes, religion can prime people towards warfare and violence. I don't think this is disputable, as the pages of history are littered with examples. The Norse religion of my ancestors incentivized violence by promising a kick-ass afterlife for anyone who died in battle, and a fairly shitty afterlife for anyone unfortunate enough to die of sickness or old age. Japan, with a living god-emperor, was even more organized towards this end, with significant social mechanisms pressuring people into unquestioning obeisance to their direct superiors.

Religion has been the cause of many wars or at least used as an excuse.

What religion is NK?

But what is your point?

Nobody calls China "Red" China any longer.

North Korea has no official religion, as far as I know.

But, what is your point?

...to say it has been used to justify more wars. But I understand your point.

be war.

but your point would appear to be addressing an argument nobody in this thread has made. Generally that is considered a strawman fallacy.

If something is a source of death and misery, like religion or lung cancer, we should do what we can to minimize its impact on human beings. Other sources of pain and suffering are their own topic.

Remember what happened at Beziers during the Albigensian Crusade? People don't go to tennis matches so they can say, "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius," and then murder twenty thousand people over whether or not Roger Federer has a physical body and a coach. That was a staggering massacre done purely because of religion, and it's not remotely isolated. We have an entire vocabulary for religiously motivated mass violence. "Jihad." "Crusade." "Pogrom." "Holocaust."

Are there other causes of death? Of course. Other bad ideas contaminating the human condition and increasing misery? Sure. But I'm not going to even pretend religion doesn't have a known, demonstrated, direct line straight to killing people in large numbers. It's one of the major criticisms of the thing, certainly top ten anyway. Nobody is saying the world would be perfect without religion. But we have enough dead bodies by now to say with confidence that the world would be a better place without it.

have behaved badly. If so that is ridiculous! I have never harmed another living soul so why should I give up my faith!

Truth. Religion is nothing more than convincing ourselves to believe something we consider pleasant, but ultimately it's a lie. Nothing built on lies fares well in the long run. There is a wonder in looking out at the universe and knowing how much we don't know, marveling at what we do know about how it works, and realizing how staggeringly grand it all is that you'll never fully appreciate as long as you think this rock is special because it was chosen by some special anthropomorphic fantasy figure to be the special home for his special arrogant over-developed primates. Worse, you'll never regard your own life and your loved ones' lives with as much value as those of us who understand that this is our one and only chance to experience anything and everything--we're not having an audition for the afterlife the way you are. Quite frankly, your god is not big enough for my universe.

Also, looking at things like Swedish crime stats as demographics change and American FBI data, atheists are more moral than the religious. Whatever personal virtues or failings you may have as an individual, becoming an atheist lets you contribute toward a safer and more responsible society, and who doesn't want to associate with the good guys instead of having to explain to your fellow church goers why gays aren't bad people, while explaining to everybody else why you don't want to be associated with your church's history?

You're better as an atheist. Society is better with you as an atheist. What's the downside to having the courage to stand on your own hind legs and take the universe as it is rather than as you want it to be? The old saw about a drunk man being happier than a sober one applies, and I'll take the responsibility of sobriety over the damage of alcoholism every time, myself.

And I'll also point out that the average individual Trump voter didn't personally destroy the economy, engage in wholesale discrimination against minorities, and alienate American allies around the world. But at some point you are who you support, donate money to, defend, and choose to be associated with.

Beziers?

You did ask.

Your condescension and superior attitude is noted for future reference.

I'm the one who thinks we're on an insignificant rock in the middle of nowhere. I get called arrogant by somebody who thinks the entire universe was created expressly so that there would be somewhere to put a planet just to give people like him a chance to live forever.

Yup. My superior attitude is a funny thing.

And I can very easily handle the idea that there is no God and when we die there is nothing.

Feel free to articulate it and we can discuss exactly what's wrong with it. Or feel free to explain why you said you had faith when you actually don't.

Or not.

I've read your posts and thus have no idea what you think you are trying to say. I think I'll stop reading them now.

welcome!

Last edited Sun Jan 7, 2018, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

The issue here is not religion vs. atheism, it's the very concept of a dualist good vs. evil view. According to the article, this view has affected all modern religions and created conflict as people not only line up in tribes (as they always did) but now it's our tribe is good, the other is evil. This turns war from mere human aggression, which comes and goes, into universal, eternal conflicts.

no matter what, we always end up there.

But yes, the article was as you note, not about that at all.