|
|
| Author |
Message |
mynxcat
|
|
Religion - who needs it?
| 
May 30 17:06 UTC 2002 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 372 responses total. |
edina
|
|
response 1 of 372:
|
May 30 17:22 UTC 2002 |
It's both. It depends on the interpretation. I have seen people who treat
their religion as a burden and it saddens me. I have seen people treat their
religion as an excuse for great atrocity and it angers me. On the other hand,
I have seen people whose religion and faith served as a large touchstone in
their lives and seemed to truly grace them.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 2 of 372:
|
May 30 17:27 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
edina
|
|
response 3 of 372:
|
May 30 17:30 UTC 2002 |
Because some people want and need the structure.
|
gull
|
|
response 4 of 372:
|
May 30 17:40 UTC 2002 |
In the absence of religion, people find other stuff to fight over. It's
more a commentary on human nature than on religion itself -- religion is
just a convenient excuse. Countries with strongly anti-religious governments
haven't exactly been known for being docile, either.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 5 of 372:
|
May 30 17:42 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
edina
|
|
response 6 of 372:
|
May 30 17:44 UTC 2002 |
Do you really feel it is that few of people?
|
mary
|
|
response 7 of 372:
|
May 30 17:48 UTC 2002 |
I have no qualm at all over religious affiliation on the end-user scale.
But I do object when a religious organization becomes so powerful that
they become a force for immorality and unlawfulness on a national and
international scale.
Unfortunately, it's the end-users who end up, each with their
own small donation, feeding the powerful organization. But that's
true of citizenship, the Boy Scouts, the KKK, and other groups too.
|
gull
|
|
response 8 of 372:
|
May 30 18:12 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, I think it's the relationship between religion and politics that
causes a lot of the trouble. The ultimate example of that, of course, is
when you have an established church that's officially recognized by the
government. That almost always causes problems.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 9 of 372:
|
May 30 18:41 UTC 2002 |
I don't think it is religion . . . it is just human nature. You can
make a "religion" out of anything. Atheists and scientists have their
fights as well. Even the Unix crowd has their fights. Ever listened in
on one of the Linux newsgroups? Some of them almost spit fire if you
say something less than adulatory about their OS. Say we removed
religion . . . what would stop people from getting "religious" about
something else? Wait, hasn't that happened already in Soviet Russia?
People can get fanatical about any idea. Religious ideas are no
different, but since they are not subject to geneuinely rational
scrutiny people can hold on to them with unusual tenacity. But then
again, have you ever had a conversation with a Marxist, Freudian,
Reichian, Emacsian, etc.?
|
flem
|
|
response 10 of 372:
|
May 30 20:19 UTC 2002 |
I'd characterize the dangerous, trouble-causing thing as faith, rather than
religion. It's okay to believe things, but when people actively decide that
they are no longer going to use their intellects as a sanity check on their
beliefs, that's when things start to get ugly.
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 372:
|
May 30 20:19 UTC 2002 |
I have yet to hear of a Linux-related suicide bombing, though. ;>
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 12 of 372:
|
May 30 20:26 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 13 of 372:
|
May 30 20:47 UTC 2002 |
What is the religious aspect to the India/Pakistan conflict. I thought that
was more of a cultural and land dispute. (For a long time, Germany and France
fought over a strip of land between them, the Alsace-Lorraine region, and to
my knowledge, both countries were Catholic at the time of the dispute; Venice
has, in the past, allied with Islamic North Africa over Catholic Europe
despite its preponderance of Catholics; tribal cultures fight over land all
the time, and it's rarely about religion.)
Human populations fight. It's a sad fact of life, and religion is something
salient to fight over, but it's hardly the case that all major conflicts have
been about religion (neither of the World Wars was primarily about religion,
for that matter; the Nazis weren't singling the Jews out as a religious group,
they were singling them out as an ethnic group, as evidenced by the other
targets of the Concentration Camps: gypsies, Poles, gays, etc.).
|
drew
|
|
response 14 of 372:
|
May 30 20:47 UTC 2002 |
Re #11: What about fork bombs?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 15 of 372:
|
May 30 21:16 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 16 of 372:
|
May 31 02:04 UTC 2002 |
If there was no religion, there'd be no clocks, books, or logical
reasoning, at least not from Europe. Religion of many different types
has been an overwhelmingly positive influence on societies all over the
world throughout history. Not everything done in the name of religion
is good, but neither is everything done in the name of anything.
|
gull
|
|
response 17 of 372:
|
May 31 03:37 UTC 2002 |
Re #14: Has anyone been killed by a fork bomb?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 18 of 372:
|
May 31 03:38 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 19 of 372:
|
May 31 05:04 UTC 2002 |
The Muslim/Hindu conflict between Pakistan and India is really just
window-dressing. The Muslims are NOT, ethnically, Indian. The Hindus are
NOT, ethnically, Pakistani. Some tribes converted one way, other tribes
converted another. The conflicts between them continued.
Consider the Tamils. So far as I know, they are, largely, Hindu. But they
are NOT of the Indian majority. Most of Sri Lanka is, so far as I know,
Hindu. So why the fighting?
Indonesia is Muslim. Yet the Timors are fighting there, too.
It ain't religion, mynxcat. Really.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 372:
|
May 31 05:34 UTC 2002 |
Religion arose because a bipedal primate acquired consciousness, but was
unable to understand almost everything in nature, except in the most crude
terms. "History" had not yet happened to start to provide context or
accumulate observations and experience and their interpretation. Because
the species would benefit from mysticim at that stage, it is not too
surprising that humans are still gullible about mysticism today.
#16 does not follow. There would not bee *religious* books, clocks, or
(il)logical reasoning, but good proportions of populations have been
entirely secular in every age - with art, music...and clocks.
# 4 ("In the absence of religion, people find other stuff to fight over.")
also does not follow. The USA adopted a constitution that separated
religion and government, and no "other stuff" has arisen that is as
divisive as what religion would have done in the absence of that
provision.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 21 of 372:
|
May 31 05:39 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, right, Rane. 1860-5 wasn't anything to remember, was it?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 372:
|
May 31 05:42 UTC 2002 |
Economics? Well, money IS a powerful motivator. But that was just 6
years. It would be perpetual violent contention without separation of
state and religion.
|
mdw
|
|
response 23 of 372:
|
May 31 06:04 UTC 2002 |
I believe the lynx is one of the solitary cats, like the tiger, but not
like lions or house cats.
|
void
|
|
response 24 of 372:
|
May 31 06:47 UTC 2002 |
re #19: You are aware that the split between India and Pakistan was
religious and not ethnic, aren't you?
|