LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThis is one of the main reasons I despise religion... Its so sad...
Here is a documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3qL1...eature=related
May 31st, 2009, 11:48 PM
This is one of the main reasons I despise religion... Its so sad...
Here is a documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3qL1...eature=related
One of the worst events in Catholic history, for sure. I don't believe this is inherent behavior in all religion though, only the monotheistic religions. Verzen, you seem to have this misconception that only the abrahamic religions are 'religion'. Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other more local religions never really come to this crossroads of genocidal behavior (in the eyes of the said religion). Granted, though, all three major monotheisms have done some rather terrible and unforgivable things, that is in the past. Why blame the Son for the sins of the Father? Is that really a philosophy you follow?
Buddhism isnt a religion.. Its a philosophy.
And if the KKK turned over a new leaf and started helping out the homeless, would you still despise the KKK for what they did in the past?
My view is that all major institutions whether based on religion or not will eventually go to war
this means war with themselves or with an enemy or with an imaginary enemy
The desire for institutions to survive is extreme under all circumstances
Germany used the same methods to create the society they had
They will do anything to maintain the status quo
"U need to have a enemy image in order to have a society"
and most circumstances at the end of the life cycle of these institutions/states, they fight exhausting all the resources they can to enhance their staying power even if for a bit longer
and I agree completely this is in my opinion one of the ugliest things people can do to each other especially in the name of a so called divine being
I think Buddhism qualifies to be labled as a religion. Even as an atheist religion in some cases.Originally Posted by verzen
Would following the words of Neitzche be a religion? Would following the words of Aristotle be a religion?
Neither Neitzche or Aristotle say much about a super being watching everything u do and they also don't say if u don't listen to what they have to say u will burn in hell or anything like that
Edit: as far as I am aware
And thats exacly why buddhism is not a religion. They do not believe in a hell nor some super being watching your every move.
They may believe in reincarnation of sorts but that is like believing in gravity.. its a law of the universe in their eyes...
And a christian would say that going to hell if you reject jesus is also a law of the universe. Reincarnation definitely seems to qualify as a religious belief to me. Ditto for astrology, shamanic rain dances, ghosts, etc.
It's not just that. Buddhism has certain principles and rituals they attend to, and they also have a code of conduct. They have several philosophies which they follow and they do so in groups and temples, etc. There are many ingrediends to a religion, and Buddhism has many of them; including symbolism, organized structure of belief and several documents from supposed "prophets", or rather, teachers from an earlier age.
------------
To respond to the topic at hand, what I despise about religion is the thought that faith should be taught as a virtue. Mix faith with arrogance and ignorance and you have a potential leathal concoction where the idea that "the end justifies the means" suddenly applies.
Religion is a breeding ground for dangerous ideologues, in my opinion. And the inquisition certainly shows how easily a faith-based belief system can go out of hand; especially in times of arrogance, ignorance and fear.
Probably even more significantly, Buddhism also teaches belief in a soul, reincarnation, and a principle of "karma" that basically amounts to a magical belief that the universe will reward or punish people as they deserve. I don't think that the rituals, codes of conduct, etc. are all that significant. Heck, the military, boyscouts, and every frat have those.
I disagree here I think a religion cannot exist without the use of god/gods within their doctinesIt's not just that. Buddhism has certain principles and rituals they attend to, and they also have a code of conduct. They have several philosophies which they follow and they do so in groups and temples, etc. There are many ingrediends to a religion, and Buddhism has many of them; including symbolism, organized structure of belief and several documents from supposed "prophets", or rather, teachers from an earlier age.
------------
To respond to the topic at hand, what I despise about religion is the thought that faith should be taught as a virtue. Mix faith with arrogance and ignorance and you have a potential leathal concoction where the idea that "the end justifies the means" suddenly applies.
Religion is a breeding ground for dangerous ideologues, in my opinion. And the inquisition certainly shows how easily a faith-based belief system can go out of hand; especially in times of arrogance, ignorance and fear.
There is no belief that their texts were directly put forward by some super being
They admit that it was people who they consider wise and good
Its like saying jesus was a person(man, no son of god nonsense) with a lot of good thoughts and we should follow some of the things that he did or say, even if that means coming together in what many westerners would call a church or temple
I dont think christianity would be considered a religion if that was the view of the church on the main character in the bible(jesus) that he was just some knowledgeable human being
any thoughts...if we could get someone who has spend some time studying Buddhism to comment it would be appreciated
If you include jesus's teachings about the existence of the soul, heaven, and hell to be among the 'good ideas' that jesus had, then I would still definitely consider it a religion, even if you merely regarded jesus as a wise but non-divine human. If you want to insist on a "supreme being" as necessary for a religion, what about all the religions throughout history that worshiped things like "river spirits" or other powerful (but not supreme) deities? Or religions in which people worship the ghosts of their ancestors, pray to them, and make sacrifices to them so that their ancestral ghosts will help them out with real-world problems?
I was not saying anything about my personal views on jesus's teachings i just think that from a christian perspective they are seen as good.
As for things like river gods etc as people have expanded the world around them and their perspective of it, then the amount of "stuff"controlled by gods has increased
If I was an Egyptian in ancient times (pre-Ancient Egypt) and i lived along the river bed I didnt have any idea perhaps that there was an ocean less than 20km from where I live and me and my family and the townspeople had lived in that spot off the flow of that river for 500 years and no one new anything else I am sure that people naturally assume that any god that does come out of tradition or something like that will control everything (we) know or work with other deities to control things together, but I know there would be one controlling something as important(to the way me and my family has lived using the river) as the river.
there are still people in certain parts of the world that never learn certain things we take for granted even today, especially places that are hard to reach like inland China and Mongolia, as well as some places in the arctic circle(particularly the Russian side) not so much the US and Canada....but its there and some of these people still follow small deities and demi-gods cause their worlds aren't as big as ours.
Today our worlds are a bit bigger we know about other planets and stars and galaxys and clusters, so we say that well a god controls it all
If u didnt know about these things u couldn't claim that a god controlled them
hence gods only controlled the things that people knew about and didn't understand why they happened.
example I don't know why the earth doesn't fall down there must be a god holding it in place
hence a god was created to make sure it didnt fall
we cant say the earth will fall anymore because science has made that hard to believe thats its possible
but god created everything in a few days is more reasonable than the earth falling over or something
Ignorance is really everywhere
It also reminds me of a lady who was in africa, she or more likely people in her village in previous generations had come into contact with missionaries and they were converted to christianity
at some point in a conversation the topic on Jerusalem was brought up(I dont know how I wasnt there) but this lady had thought it was a place in the sky not on earth, so she had never seen a map of what the earth looked like and was completely shocked about the size of the earth and the location of Jerusalem...
I would also argue that praise and worship of ancestors is also not religion
I think that kind of behavior can be explained through tradition, which comes from respect for the dead and the elderly
u dont say people who bring flowers to their dead parents and relatives are religiously doing it, u say their doing it out of respect, I think over thousands of years this could be converted to religion
June 1st, 2009, 09:01 PM
Historiography is basically glorified journalism.
Bad news makes headlines.
For example, you can draw a similar narrative from a 70 year retrospective of industrialism or modern warfare, which are largely indebted to scientific advancement.
I most certainly would not. I would embrace the klan, and respect them for making the change.
Unfortunately I'm less forgiving.
more like fortunately
That would depend how forgiving you are.more like fortunately
lol, Im not very forgiving at all,(my rule is simple if a family member or friend killed a couple thousand people would I forgive them...probably NOT) im saying fortunately most logical people would NOT forgive behavior like that as long as they are rational.(its these people that keep science going)That would depend how forgiving you are.more like fortunately
Its scary that so many people still follow christianity after things like this unfolding, and that goes for all the other religions where death in the name of some god is ok
religion is for fanatics...... even if they happen to be little old ladies who are fanatical...lol
Would you blame the serial killer or mass murderer's son for what he did, though? That's what Verzen is doing. He's passing the sins of the father to the son, and that's where I definitely forgive. How can someone blame you for something you yourself did not do?lol, Im not very forgiving at all,(my rule is simple if a family member or friend killed a couple thousand people would I forgive them...probably NOT) im saying fortunately most logical people would NOT forgive behavior like that as long as they are rational.(its these people that keep science going)That would depend how forgiving you are.more like fortunately
Its scary that so many people still follow christianity after things like this unfolding, and that goes for all the other religions where death in the name of some god is ok
religion is for fanatics...... even if they happen to be little old ladies who are fanatical...lol
Blaming people for something they didnt do happens all the time in the real worldWould you blame the serial killer or mass murderer's son for what he did, though? That's what Verzen is doing. He's passing the sins of the father to the son, and that's where I definitely forgive. How can someone blame you for something you yourself did not do?lol, Im not very forgiving at all,(my rule is simple if a family member or friend killed a couple thousand people would I forgive them...probably NOT) im saying fortunately most logical people would NOT forgive behavior like that as long as they are rational.(its these people that keep science going)That would depend how forgiving you are.more like fortunately
Its scary that so many people still follow christianity after things like this unfolding, and that goes for all the other religions where death in the name of some god is ok
religion is for fanatics...... even if they happen to be little old ladies who are fanatical...lol
Im a white male in South Africa and had nothing to do with apartheid it doesnt mean im not being blamed for their actions(there are laws in this country that are in place that would give a job to a black man rather than me even if I am better qualified)
and the church is an institution not a human being......if it died and a new one popped up I would look at the new one and its behavior in isolation, but for all the murder and death and destruction caused by religions that is still continuing to this day(which makes me wonder, if the church had the ability to war other religions would it do it again) and where have they repented and apologized for their actions in the past.
It depends. If you're praising and respecting them because you liked them and want to honor and preserve the memory of their like, that's not necessarily a religion. But if you believe that your ancestor's ghosts are floating around your village and actively participating in real-world event (by making it rain, making people get sick, etc), then I would definitely call it a religion.
read this post:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-S...ion-18717t.php
where do u think worshiping ancestors comes into the Five Stages of Religious Evolution
even stage 1 according to this view is based around deities or gods
You realize that's merely one guy's theory of religion, right?
It doesn't say that. Attributing things like crop failure/success, sickness, etc. to ancestral ghosts seems to fit in perfectly with the "stage one" listed here.even stage 1 according to this view is based around deities or gods
Yes its obviously 1 persons theory but I would also argue this person has a better understanding of the history of religions than both u and me combined, since he most likely wrote quite a bit on the topicYou realize that's merely one guy's theory of religion, right?
It doesn't say that. Attributing things like crop failure/success, sickness, etc. to ancestral ghosts seems to fit in perfectly with the "stage one" listed here.even stage 1 according to this view is based around deities or gods
and
actually it does say it very clearly
"Thunder, for instance, would be the expression of a deity's anger. "
sorry if u missed that line, and it doesn't fit in u cant say that the second ur ancestors die they become deities and where does it say that in the Buddhist philosophy.
also these cultures usually have a single god managing a particular thing refer to thunder example, and it spans over many generations irrespective of who ur great great grandfather was, no where in Buddhism do they say worship this particular ancestor and that particular ancestor they just say we think these are a few wise people and we think we should listen to what they have to say and then goes on to explain what these wise people said, which means its way more philosophical than religious.
I think I am going to stop debating this subject as it is pulling off the topic and the reality is Buddhists believe in reincarnation which really has nothing to do with ancestors...
lets try get this back on topic
It says "mythical characteristics are related to characteristics found in the experienced world," which is exactly what's happening when people assume that the ghosts of their ancestors are responsible for making it rain or people getting sick.
And try italicizing a different part: "Thunder, for instance, would be the expression of a deity's anger. " The thunder deity thing is just an example.
Spot on. By verzens thinking I should hate the germans since the bombed my country over 50 years ago.
Verzen, if a man attacks me and injures me, should I despise his 4 year old son?
again emphasis here institutions, are not people, they don't have feelings, they dont have kids and they don't care about peopleVerzen, if a man attacks me and injures me, should I despise his 4 year old son?
they have specific goals and their number 1 bottom line is existence at all cost, even if that means WW2 and bombing the hell out of ur country or going on a crusade
try to find a counter example to this
"An institution that has not done anything violent, it no longer exists, and when it did exist it had a lot of power, but chose to die in peace so to speak"
Interesting generalization, but it doesn't work under most if not all circumstances
U cant hate the Europeans for the behavior of the 'institution of the church' either in the middle ages
U should perhaps hate the Nazis, the people and the institution that pushed for war against ur country,and if they were still controlling Germany, u would probably be one of the first in line in order to defend your country....wouldn't u?
I'll be honest I didn't understand anything of what you just posted though I'm sure it was interesting
u say u wouldn't hate the 4 year old child of ur enemy I am saying institutions such as the church don't have kids
U say u should under Verzen's logic hate the Germans, I am saying u should probably hate the Nazi's, not the Germans.
There is a difference between Germans and Nazi's if u dont know that difference perhaps u shouldnt be having this debate
For your first point I disagree. In the same way that a parent passes on traits to a child, so traits are passed down through institutions.
For your second point I am aware that not all Germans were involved in the atrocities of WW1 and WW2 , what I said was as you noticed meant to be a generalisation.
However it's interesting to note that while the Nazi's were the ruling party in Germany, many of the soldiers who carried out said atrocities were not. So you're suggesting that it was only the Nazi's who did wrong is itself a generalisation.
I think u have my second statement backwards...
I am saying Nazi's and Germany have no connection they just happened to receive a positive position politically there due to the struggling economy left there from WW1...
They could of received a positive position anywhere on earth
for example the American version
http://www.americannaziparty.com/about/index.php
Also before the Americans entered WW2, the communist party in the US, if my memory serves me correctly was openly pushing for America to go to war on the side of the Germans and had many things in common belief with the Nazi party that was in power in Germany at the time
they still exist and have minimal to nothing to do with Germany
the institution survived, still looking for counter example
A counter example to what? Your posting isn't very clear.
lol, didnt even bother to read entire post no wonder u misunderstood it so completely
try to find a counter example to this
"An institution that has not done anything violent, it no longer exists, and when it did exist it had a lot of power, but chose to die in peace so to speak"
Ummm... it was MEN who led the inquisition, not an inanimate concept. The institution that is Catholicism has absolutely no ability to think, nor decide, and as such can't be held responsible for anything. Now, I hold the men who put forth the inquisition personally responsible, but the doctrines they believed in? No, I don't think I can hold them responsible for anything
No I saw that but it didnt seem to have any relevance. Care to explain it so I can understand what the hell your asking?
First year university psychology
some basic experiments which showed that under the guise of institutions, people in those organizations if they felt they could not be blamed for the actions in other words being told to do something through orders then they will do it even if it goes against their own beliefs, people are stupid they do what their told, I think the conclusion of the experiments were under the right circumstances most people are psychopaths
the experiments were done to see if individuals could be held responsible for their actions during WW2, Nazi Germany, the conclusion was they couldn't be responsible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Interpretations of the experiments:
* The first is the theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch's work, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.
* The second is the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.[14]
Conclusion: It was in fact an inanimate concept, as u put it so bluntly, if that is what institutions are in ur view
I am saying all institutions have it build into them to be violent under certain circumstances and I am yet to find a counter example to this behavior, obviously they only seek violent behavior under the threat of non-existence.
I wasn't questioning that.
U were comparing a person to an institution and I was trying to enlighten u on the reality that such a comparison is possible, but not very realistic.
No. That would be the man who is in power over the adherents of those institutions. Again, an inanimate concept CAN" decide on crap! Your argument is placing blame on something that is non-living, it's passing the blame off to an idea, and personally, I feel The Pope who was in power, the man making the descisions, is to blame. Challenge me all you want, It won't change the fact that you are simply saying men aren't capable of atrocities on their own, which is the single most ridiculous statement I've heard in awhile...
You don't blame the follower, you blame the leader, the man who created the nazi regime and the men who oversaw it... Misapplication of data here.
And you yourself realsied I was making a generalisation... one asks why you have bothered with all this discussion if you understood the semantics.U were comparing a person to an institution and I was trying to enlighten u on the reality that such a comparison is possible, but not very realistic.
I said nothing about people's capabilities
and I dont know what world ur on but here on earth in the capitalist system people in an organization cannot be blamed for the actions of the organization
hence u cannot sue the owners of a company but wait now focus and read
U can sue the company for its actions,please notice the sarcasm here: that would mean our law puts blame firmly in the hands of an inanimate object...lol ridiculous, thats not right our entire capitalist society is build on something u call "crap"
again which world are u from?
Thank you. Your morals are clearly shown to be a mimic of the capitalist legal system, which I wouldn't give weight to as a good example. But, I guess you give the moral schema the same identity as the legal one, so, I can't argue there. Oh, a question though, The Nuremberg Trials, did we try Naziism, or Nazi Generals?
1.) Always asking, could you please start typing more clearly. Your posts are a muddled and a bit hard to understand.
2.) "and I dont know what world ur on but here on earth in the capitalist system people in an organization cannot be blamed for the actions of the organization
"
AlwaysAsking, organizations are just that, organized affairs between various people. The organization itself is guided and controlled by the actions of the people compose it. In the case of suing the organization if the organization does something criminal, it is because that the people that are part of the organization make decisions through the organization's standing in society, but an organization is still nothing more than a set of rules and regulations between its members.
| « Could it be said that the bible has 2 gods | Who could have realized we may be god? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
