it runs deep

[King Phenomenon]

I've heard a lot of people on here say that religion is the source of a lot of the problems in the world. Even if there were no religions ideology would be left and problems would still persist, no?

ie. If Christianity never emerged homosexuals still would've been persecuted through ideologies.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I've heard a lot of people on here say that religion is the source of a lot of the problems in the world. Even if there were no religions ideology would be left and problems would still persist, no?

It would be much worse! Evolution didn't prepare us for where we are; we need to develop soil for virtue to grow as quickly and broadly as possible.

 

[`mud]

What's needed here is an inventory,
who's the best god of all of them,
a real shiny idol could be as good.
It's all about what book one reads,
and of course what Grandma believed !

 

[Bird123]

I've heard a lot of people on here say that religion is the source of a lot of the problems in the world. Even if there were no religions ideology would be left and problems would still persist, no?

Religion is a catalyst that brings so many of mankind's problems to the surface so they can be dealt with. After all, when one believes one has God's backing, one can justify anything.

Though this causes lots of Drama, doesn't this make religion a good thing? It wouldn't be good keeping all those problems bottled up, now would it?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[epronovost]

In my opinion when someone say "religion has caused problems" I would say they refer to a few limited problems that some religion have perpetrated and defended (though that they might not have created per say). Namely the following.

A sexual morality based on a purely and reductively utilitarian view of sex, a hierarchy and segregation between gender, a rejection of any non-heterosexual and non cisgender sexual identity or practice and misgogyny.

A rejection of democracy or republicanism where decisional power comes from the consent and assent of the population and where power is accountable toward the population.

A form of national and mystical tribalism associated with some religion (the we are the chosen people and the others are lesser being sort of idea you can find in some religions or sub-sect of religion).

Are those problems unique to religion, not really? Has religion played a major role to defend, exalt and enforce such values? definitely. Would the world be better without the pressure of organised conservative institution actively supporting those values? Absolutely.

 

[King Phenomenon]

In my opinion when someone say "religion has caused problems" I would say they refer to a few limited problems that some religion have perpetrated and defended (though that they might not have created per say). Namely the following.

A sexual morality based on a purely and reductively utilitarian view of sex, a hierarchy and segregation between gender, a rejection of any non-heterosexual and non cisgender sexual identity or practice and misgogyny.

A rejection of democracy or republicanism where decisional power comes from the consent and assent of the population and where power is accountable toward the population.

A form of national and mystical tribalism associated with some religion (the we are the chosen people and the others are lesser being sort of idea you can find in some religions or sub-sect of religion).

Are those problems unique to religion, not really? Has religion played a major role to defend, exalt and enforce such values? definitely. Would the world be better without the pressure of organised conservative institution actively supporting those values? Absolutely.

If they disappeared then would ideology just pick up where they left off? that's the more important question?

 

[epronovost]

If they disappeared then would ideology just pick up where they left off? that's the more important question?

Perhapse, but a new ideology doesn't have the advantage of appeal to tradition, extansive resources and the historical and cultural impact that religion has. It would be extremely ineffective at spreading and maintaining those beliefs compared to religion.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Perhapse, but a new ideology doesn't have the advantage of appeal to tradition, extansive resources and the historical and cultural impact that religion has. It would be extremely ineffective at spreading and maintaining those beliefs compared to religion.

Word-of-mouth is powerful. And who's to say it would be a new ideology. It Could fall back to old ideologies. Ideologies run deep and are based in historical, cultural evolution and tradition

 

[epronovost]

Word-of-mouth is powerful. And who's to say it would be a new ideology. It Could fall back to old ideologies. Ideologies run deep and are based in historical, cultural evolution and tradition

Old ideology which have no or very few current adherant are few and far between don't have the pull of well established religion. Secular ideologies that were simultaneously providing basis for sexism, homophobia and anti-democratic governance aren't nearly as old and as influencial in culture than religion and pretty much only exist within neo-fascism. There aren't a lot of adherant to neo-facists neither is there any tradition for neo-fascist. Religion can also call to divine revelation to justify their point of views in addition to fact-based arguments or pseudo-scientigic arguments. Secular ideologies, must defend themselves using more fact-based arguments or at least a pretence of fact-based arguments without the support of divine revelation and on its own pseudo-science and poor fact-based arguments are weak.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Old ideology which have no or very few current adherant are few and far between don't have the pull of well established religion. Secular ideologies that were simultaneously providing basis for sexism, homophobia and anti-democratic governance aren't nearly as old and as influencial in culture than religion and pretty much only exist within neo-fascism. There aren't a lot of adherant to neo-facists neither is there any tradition for neo-fascist. Religion can also call to divine revelation to justify their point of views in addition to fact-based arguments or pseudo-scientigic arguments. Secular ideologies, must defend themselves using more fact-based arguments or at least a pretence of fact-based arguments without the support of divine revelation and on its own pseudo-science and poor fact-based arguments are weak.

I'm sure there are ideologies that supported sexism and homophobia and anti democratic before religions came around. Regarding science If somebody wants to reject some science then that's there choice and I don't see it as bad per say if it isn't harming anybody. But yes there are cases like if they reject global warming then that's bad

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, is there anyone out there that thinks that the Golden Rule would be a bad thing for humanity to practice? It can be done without religion. Simple empathy.

 

[epronovost]

I'm sure there are ideologies that supported sexism and homophobia and anti democratic before religions came around.

As far as we know, religions are older than history itself and the first sign of religious beliefs, practices and cults pre-date the creation of writting. The eldest political systems and ideologies that are still current and have a direct effect on us are all religious.

Regarding science If somebody wants to reject some science then that's there choice and I don't see it as bad per say if it isn't harming anybody. But yes there are cases like if they reject global warming then that's bad

In that case they would be rejecting the science that debunked racialism, male superiority, homosexuality as a dangerous deviancy. The rejection of science on these point is harming the majority of human population.

 

[King Phenomenon]

As far as we know, religions are older than history itself and the first sign of religious beliefs, practices and cults pre-date the creation of writting. The eldest political systems and ideologies that are still current and have a direct effect on us are all religious.



In that case they would be rejecting the science that debunked racialism, male superiority, homosexuality as a dangerous deviancy. The rejection of science on these point is harming the majority of human population.

So you don't really know if people say..... accepted homosexuals before religions were born?

 

[King Phenomenon]

As far as we know, religions are older than history itself and the first sign of religious beliefs, practices and cults pre-date the creation of writting. The eldest political systems and ideologies that are still current and have a direct effect on us are all religious.



In that case they would be rejecting the science that debunked racialism, male superiority, homosexuality as a dangerous deviancy. The rejection of science on these point is harming the majority of human population.

Surely you don't believe male superiority started with religion. Are you suggesting that male superiority didn't exist say..... 10,000 yrs ago?

 

[King Phenomenon]

As far as we know, religions are older than history itself and the first sign of religious beliefs, practices and cults pre-date the creation of writting. The eldest political systems and ideologies that are still current and have a direct effect on us are all religious.



In that case they would be rejecting the science that debunked racialism, male superiority, homosexuality as a dangerous deviancy. The rejection of science on these point is harming the majority of human population.

Oh yeah I agree to reject that science is bad.

 

[epronovost]

Surely you don't believe male superiority started with religion. Are you suggesting that male superiority didn't exist in caveman days?

Most evidence shows that prehistorical societies were fairly gender equalitarian much more so than the societies that followed with the rise of the first great civilisations.

 

[epronovost]

So you don't really know if people say..... accepted homosexuals before religions were born?

We do know that homosexual behavior was much more accepted before the rise of abrahamic religions though. Not all religions are strongly homophobic.

 

[King Phenomenon]

We do know that homosexual behavior was much more accepted before the rise of abrahamic religions though. Not all religions are strongly homophobic.

What about say....... 10,000 yrs ago? Does the evidence suggests that was acceptable?

 

[King Phenomenon]

Most evidence shows that prehistorical societies were fairly gender equalitarian much more so than the societies that followed with the rise of the first great civilisations.

you said the civilizations that followed. So do you think we've came full circle and we treat our ladies with the same respect we did 10,000 years ago?

 

[epronovost]

What about say....... 10,000 yrs ago? Does the evidence suggests that was acceptable?

We have no trace of it for that time. It's 5000 years before the invention of writting and the artwork of the era is extremely scarce, represent most often the fauna and flora and not human sexual practices all that much and when it does it's impossible to assess the gender of the participant.