Unrealistic goals in religion

Unrealistic goals in religion

by SouthernFriedInfidel Published on December 28th, 2009, 7:47 am Rift: Religion

We hear that a member if an elite Nigerian family tried to blow up a plane while it was on its final approach to Detroit on Christmas day. We know that a scion of another elite family, this one from Saudi Arabia, is the most feared and sought-after terrorists in history. They are both extremely intelligent, by the accounts I've read, but they have something dreadfully wrong with their minds.

What would drive a well-educated fellow who should want for nothing his entire life to try to do such crazy things?

The answer is very likely religion. But naturally, there is a nuance to this answer that must be explored. Billions of people live on this planet and are very religious indeed, but virtually all of them do NOT attempt to commit violence as a result of their religion. I believe that the problem stems from one of the most destructive memes ever created within religion. Destructive to humanity, that is... as a meme, it is rather virulent and has lasted for millennia.

The meme is that the gods are best pleased when everyone believes the "correct" religion. This single thought has led to more suffering and wasted lives than any I can think of. It fueled the Crusades and it led to the persecution of just about every religious minority that ever existed. And it has led these Muslim extremists to believe that they are in a fight to extend Islam "by the sword."

It should be apparent to anyone who studies the matter that religion is not amenable to complete control. Even the partial control that the police of orthodoxy are able to "enforce" is a chimera, a phantom that gives little real progress toward their goal of "conforming to what God wants."

Yet so many people insist on working to convert all of humanity to "the right religion." When others complain that they're being jerks, they hide behind their holy books and say "God makes me do this. I wouldn't be a jerk if I wasn't under God's orders."

But this goal of universal conformity in religion is impossible. Seems to me that anyone who seriously wants to try it is delusional. That definitely includes the ones who supposedly ordered such a harmful thing as "convert everyone to the true religion, whether they want to or not." That includes both Muhammed and Jesus. And, if you want to get into truly mythical characters, Moses.

It's really a shame. The harm to humanity caused by this notion has been staggering. Can it ever be stopped? Only when people finally (if ever) decide that exclusive religion is not worth the pain.

[Liv]

I'm convinced religion is a part of the human experience, any way you call it, at least until we physically evolve from it. Even non-believers of religion seem infatuated on some level with religion. The difference (at least IMHO) between extreme, moderate, and non-believers, still- is education. While many of these individuals may have been well educated, they still lack the ability to "make the connection". There's definitely an "awakening", or an "ascension" that has to occur, whether from real-world experience, extreme mental self-discipline, or kairotic moment. Further more, no one it appears, including some very famous people who write on the subject have uncovered a clear-cut process to encourage people to begin their epiphany. We can't make people not believe in God, they have to discover it for themselves.

[BecauseHeLives]

Yeah I don't like religion either. Too many nuts.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

The difference (at least IMHO) between extreme, moderate, and non-believers, still- is education.

To my recollection, there is nothing in public schooling that would specifically combat the ludicrous notion that everything would be better if everyone had the same "correct" religion. For that, you need specific training in critical thinking, to get kids to realize that the goal of converting the world is a waste of time, as well as ultimately harmful -- both in the long term and short term -- to the whole community of human-kind. And it would have to be taught early, because all religions work to instill that notion into children at a very early age before they can realize that it's BS.

[ecofox]

The difference (at least IMHO) between extreme, moderate, and non-believers, still- is education.

To my recollection, there is nothing in public schooling that would specifically combat the ludicrous notion that everything would be better if everyone had the same "correct" religion. For that, you need specific training in critical thinking, to get kids to realize that the goal of converting the world is a waste of time, as well as ultimately harmful -- both in the long term and short term -- to the whole community of human-kind. And it would have to be taught early, because all religions work to instill that notion into children at a very early age before they can realize that it's BS.

So basically you wish everyone would abandon God.

Become Atheists. Believe they are God.

I hope you realize. Atheists have no basis for morals.

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Mass murderer
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.

The full title of Darwin’s Magnum Opus is Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin’s other writings reveal how barbarous evolutionary philosophy can be:

With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature … We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.

(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134, 1887)

A designer is unscientific—even if all the evidence supports one!

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’

Reference

Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

Source:
http://creation.com/qa#quotable_quotes


So. Whats your position on eugenics?

[ecofox]

To my recollection, there is nothing in public schooling that would specifically combat the ludicrous notion that everything would be better if everyone had the same "correct" religion.

But you believe your religion is the "correct" one. A Naturalistic Humanist Relativist Atheist.

Don't try to push your beliefs on people if you don't believe in Absolute Truth.

It's illogical. You don't believe truth exists so why even try to pretend you have it?

[deepshade]

The meme is that the gods are best pleased when everyone believes the "correct" religion. This single thought has led to more suffering and wasted lives than any I can think of. It fueled the Crusades and it led to the persecution of just about every religious minority that ever existed. And it has led these Muslim extremists to believe that they are in a fight to extend Islam "by the sword."

No, the single most destructive "thought" stems from Marxism. It is called communism. Let's see, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, .... you really want to see one world government? So did they....

If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual..Frank Herbert

[antifascist]

ecofox seems to getting a bit snippy.

I suffered through all of your links, i've read all of the relevant posts and i am not convinced that you have made your case in the slightest. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; you have not even presented ordinary evidence. Could be because there is no evidence for god's existence, just faith. That unquantifiable, unprovable, belief in a being that created everything extant and left no real trace. Be satisfied with that. Proclaim it if you must, but stop trying to prove something that, by its very nature, cannot be proven.

BTW: atheism is not a religion, no matter how hard you stamp your feet or how long you hold your breath

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

No, the single most destructive "thought" stems from Marxism. It is called communism. Let's see, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, .... you really want to see one world government? So did they....

I agree that communism (not Marxism, BTW -- Marxism was a theory of social arrangement that was never really attempted in any country) has a history of following this meme. Had it not been for the Communists crusading spirit, they may have had a chance to perform some valuable services for humanity. But they turned their revolutions into personality cults, just as so many revolutionaries in the past did. Their goal to enforce conformity was at least as brutal and as misguided as the Inquisitions and the Reign of Terror. They all gave life to the thought that universal conformity leads to happy endings, and was as unrealistic as the godly version.

[ecofox]

ecofox seems to getting a bit snippy.

Your ideals are destructive, and illogical.

I suffered through all of your links, i've read all of the relevant posts and i am not convinced that you have made your case in the slightest.

Did you read the Absolute Truth proof? If Truth is Absolute then God must exist.
If we exist then the universe must have a first cause!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; you have not even presented ordinary evidence. Could be because there is no evidence for god's existence, just faith.

The world that surrounds you is evidence enough. You just look at and distort the facts to fit your personal agenda.

Namely running away from God.





Patterns equals evidence for intelligent design!

That unquantifiable, unprovable, belief in a being that created everything extant and left no real trace. Be satisfied with that.

Making claims you cannot back. Proves nothing.

Proclaim it if you must, but stop trying to prove something that, by its very nature, cannot be proven.

It has been proven you are just in denial or misinterpreting the facts.

BTW: atheism is not a religion, no matter how hard you stamp your feet or how long you hold your breath

Atheism is a belief system. A religion is a belief system.

[A Person]

Iknow this is flogging a dead horse but...

Patterns equals evidence for intelligent design!

Salt

You just look at and distort the facts to fit your personal agenda.

Making claims you cannot back. Proves nothing.

Projecting...

Atheism is a belief system. A religion is a belief system.

Cats are mammals. Dogs are mammals therefore cats are dogs.

But since atheism is a no belief system:

Cats are mammals. Fish are not mammals, therefore cats are fish?

[BecauseHeLives]

But since atheism is a no belief system:

Is it logically possible to NOT believe in something?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

But since atheism is a no belief system

The beliefs in the supernatural are myriad, among humans. But it appears to be rather difficult for some people to accept the possibility that some folks have, in the category of supernatural beliefs, a null content. They consider it natural and necessary for humans to worship something, so they try to assert the ridiculous notion that we think of ourselves as god, just so they can call atheism "a religion."

What gets me about all of this is that this blather evades the central point of my initial contention: that great harm comes from the notion that it's possible and desirable to get everyone to believe the same, religiously or politically.

Myself, I admit that I discuss and try to convince... but I don't worry about failures to change minds, and I try to remain friends with those who disagree with me religiously or politically. Because I recognize that I could never change every mind to agree with me. And really, cutting off relationships on account of mere differences of opinion means one cuts off valuable social connections, which is a tragedy, I think. Without social connections, we are very lonely creatures indeed.

[antifascist]

the difference between a religion and atheism is the willingness of the adherents to imagine a possibility of being proved wrong. My belief that there is no god is based in the idea that an unseen omnipotent being requires extraordinary evidence. You have provided no such evidence. Your argument of a first cause is essentially a restatement of aquinas' first three cosmological arguments. All of these arguments are based on the supposed impossibility of an infinite regression of causes. Yet you replace that infinite regressions with an infinite god. Hardly an improvement.

[A Person]

But since atheism is a no belief system:

Is it logically possible to NOT believe in something?

Do you believe in the following Gods from Japan:

Ame-no-Uzume (天宇受売命 or 天鈿女命)
Amaterasu-Ō-Mi-Kami (天照大神 or 天照大御神)
Ame-no-Koyane (天児屋命 or 天児屋根命)
Fūjin (風神)
Hachiman (八幡神)
Inari (稲荷)
Izanagi (伊弊諾 or 伊邪那岐)
Izanami (伊弉冉 or 伊邪那美)
Ninigi-no-Mikoto (瓊瓊杵尊)
Omoikane　（思兼）
Raijin (雷神)
Ryūjin (龍神)
Sukuna-Biko-Na　（少名毘古那）
Susanoo-no-Mikoto (須佐之男命)
Tenjin (天神)
Toyotama-hime (豊玉姫)
Tsukuyomi-no-Mikoto (月読の命 or 月夜見の尊)
Amatsu-Mikaboshi (天津甕星)
Konohanasakuya-hime (木花之開耶姫)
Ōhoyamatsumi (大山積命)
Sarutahiko Ōkami (猿田毘古神)
Uke Mochi (保食神)
Amida Nyorai (無量光佛 or 無量壽佛)
Daruma (ダルマ)
Benzaiten (弁才天 or 弁財天)
Bishamonten (毘沙門天)
Daikokuten (大黒天)
Ebisu (恵比須, 恵比寿, 夷 or 戎)
Fukurokuju (福禄寿)
Hotei (布袋)
Jurōjin (寿老人)
Kichijōten (吉祥天)

Me neither.

I do believe that if I step off a high building I will fall to the ground and likely die from serious injuries. I have never actually done this but empirical observations lead me to believe this to be a sensible belief. I don't believe that sacrificing to Plumbus, the God of Gravity, will cause Him to intervene and waft me gently to a land populated by beautiful Houris waiting to cater to my every whim, even if that would be a really nice thing to believe.

[BecauseHeLives]

So... you agree that you BELIEVE there is no God?

[ecofox]

Cats are mammals. Dogs are mammals therefore cats are dogs.

Cat's are not dog's.

But since atheism is a no belief system:

False, You believe that G-d does not exist.

Cats are mammals. Fish are not mammals, therefore cats are fish?

Cat's are not fish. What are you talking about?

[ecofox]

DNA is a code. A code so complex scientist are still working out how it works.

Code means there must have been someone intelligent who wrote it!

Code is useless without a code reader.

So explain to me how both the code and the code reader evolved simultaneously. By pure random chance, without the aid of an intelligent designer?

[Liv]

For that, you need specific training in critical thinking, to get kids to realize that the goal of converting the world is a waste of time, as well as ultimately harmful -- both in the long term and short term -- to the whole community of human-kind. And it would have to be taught early, because all religions work to instill that notion into children at a very early age before they can realize that it's BS.

Most all of us adapted at a later point in life, (The GSO clique) and furthermore, the commonalities between all of us are oddly similar in many ways.

It goes beyond a basic education. Most of us enjoy reading for the fun of it, relish in the classics, enjoy the arts (film, paint, music). Most of us have travelled at least out of state if not out of country. I know most of us have been to many countries, and I don't think we can ignore that most people just don't care about the things most non-believers do. I know people who've never left Greensboro. How can you possibly think you're not the most awesomest religion in the world if you've never met someone, from somewhere else who believed differently?
I'm not saying that this is an exclusive criteria... plenty of religious have traveled, are well read, but I think if schools emphasized more effort on "these things" rather than shoving a pig skin up the rear of a student at another school, then we'd find more people questioning, and coming to the conclusions we may have.

[A Person]

Cats are mammals. Dogs are mammals therefore cats are dogs.

Cat's are not dog's.

Cats are mammals. Fish are not mammals, therefore cats are fish?

Cat's are not fish. What are you talking about?

It is an example to demonstrate your logical error when you argue that because atheism is a belief system and religion is a belief system then atheism is a religion.

But since atheism is a no belief system:

False, You believe that G-d does not exist.

Do I? You are speaking from ignorance again.

[BecauseHeLives]

So... you agree that you BELIEVE there is no God?

Answer the question AP.

[A Person]

I do not believe in any gods.This is using 'believe' in the sense of 'having a high degree of confidence' not in the sense of having certainty or faith.
i.e. I think the probability of any gods existing is extremely small.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Cats are mammals. Dogs are mammals therefore cats are dogs.

Cat's are not dog's.

Cats are mammals. Fish are not mammals, therefore cats are fish?

Cat's are not fish. What are you talking about?

It is an example to demonstrate your logical error when you argue that because atheism is a belief system and religion is a belief system then atheism is a religion.

I rather expected that the fox would be slow on the uptake when you replicated his "logic."

But since atheism is a no belief system:

False, You believe that G-d does not exist.

Do I? You are speaking from ignorance again.

Yet another example of fundamentalists wishing to tell us what our beliefs are, rather than simply listening to us and accepting that we are telling truthfully what we think. I complained about this behavior in the past, and it hasn't abated at all. Which is why I believe it's a complete waste of time trying to conduct discussions with them on the subject of religion. And since no other topic appears to interest them AT ALL, communication is most likely not possible.

[BecauseHeLives]

I do not believe in any gods.This is using 'believe' in the sense of 'having a high degree of confidence' not in the sense of having certainty or faith.
i.e. I think the probability of any gods existing is extremely small.

You can't call yourself an atheist anymore. Atheists are certain there is no God.

Welcome to religion.

[ecofox]

It is an example to demonstrate your logical error when you argue that because atheism is a belief system and religion is a belief system then atheism is a religion.

But since atheism is a no belief system:

False, You believe that G-d does not exist.

Do I? You are speaking from ignorance again.[/quote]

I do not believe in any gods.This is using 'believe' in the sense of 'having a high degree of confidence' not in the sense of having certainty or faith.
i.e. I think the probability of any gods existing is extremely small.

That's the point. There is a difference between believing and knowing. Some people know God exists i.e divine revelations. But most believe he does based upon the evidence that is presented to them. i.e entire universe.

If you truly believe in something you will act upon it.

"I do not believe in any gods." = "I believe that G-d does not exist."

Atheism is a belief system.