by nicolaou 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
NVR
The problem with religion is that it blends this truth so thoroughly with the venom of unreason........
Is it religion that blends the truth so thoroughly with the venom of unreason or us humans simply because we still have to survive and we instinctively put our survival first and everyone else's somewhere else? Don't we do it today with scientific discoveries?
"If you think about how you looked at things as a jw with doubts, where you knew things people did weren't quite right and did not think that way, let alone act on it yourself, then you understand why some people remain Muslim today."
You're point is well taken, although I myself have never been a dub.
"There are a lot of balanced individuals who still feel it is wrong to participate in what others consider a jihad, and those individuals use common sense-participating in their own religion while not doing the same as the nutjobs within it."
Yet, if they remain silent they will lose what is most dear to their heart. How many must die, how many innocents will be allowed to have their lives ended by "nutjobs" within their ranks before the weight of their concscience prompts action? I wonder how they sleep at night or look themselves in the mirror knowing that others are stealing from them what is most prescious. When is enough enough?
Agreed lonelysheep. But the silence of the "less radical" members of any religion gives safe harbor to the extremists.
All religion must be demonstrated to be anti-life, anti-humanity, anti-progress. For that is exactly what it is. That is not to say that we learn nothing from studying it. But it is deficient as far as providing satisfactory answers to our questions about existence.
Along the lines of what nicolaou pointed out, any system that teaches lies and purports to be something that it is not is harmful and destructive.
Yet, if they remain silent they will lose what is most dear to their heart. How many must die, how many innocents will be allowed to have their lives ended by "nutjobs" within their ranks before the weight of their concscience prompts action? I wonder how they sleep at night or look themselves in the mirror knowing that others are stealing from them what is most prescious. When is enough enough?
I agree with you, Poppers, as well as your previous post. Mine was meant as an "I agree, and..." but I'd deleted a bit too much!
Brainwashing is very powerful. They hold their faith very true to their hearts. They can and are functioning fine while zealous idiots go around killing innocent people. It's like jw's fuctioning perfectly fine while kids die from needing blood and emotions are effected for life from covering up sexual abuse. Different scenarios, same principles.
Along the lines of what nicolaou pointed out, any system that teaches lies and purports to be something that it is not is harmful and destructive.
And I hold those same views. I'm just playing devil's allah's some of my friends' advocate.
nvrgnbk,
All religion must be demonstarted to be anti-life, anti-humanity, anti-progress. For that is exactly what it is.
While stating my position as one of agnosticism in the true sense of the word, I have to say that this issue is not as simple as you stated above.
An examination of both Christian and Islamic history shows that much of what has been achieved in terms of science, art, language, music etc. is a direct result on the intervention of religion and religious ideals. In fact in many periods throughout history, progress and 'humanity' were actually dependent on religion.
The problem is that in physical evolution, as well as intellectual evolution there is always a price to be paid. All things must grow, or die.
HS
Thanks hs.
Oversimplification will get me into trouble everytime.
I understand, for example, that much of modern science sprung from alchemy and other "less-than-scientific" origins.
My suggestion is that religion has served it's purpose. It's now hampering human progress. It may in fact contribute to our demise, if reason does not replace credulity.
I'll try to express myself more clearly. Thanks again for your observations.
the choice between global secular standardisation and cultural diversity including religion
Hi Nark', thoughtful comments as always. I'd contend the idea though that secularism conforms to a standard. Within music and the arts, sports, architecture and all forms of free expression there will be a wide divergence amongst people who have little else in common other than their absence of belief in theism.
There will be intelligent, creative atheists and stupid, amoral athiests as well. You are quite right that that cultural diversity may or may not include religion, but that choice isn't necessarily counterweighted by a standard secularism.
Anyway, atheists are waaay cool!
nvrbngk,
My suggestion is that religion has served it's purpose. It's now hampering human progress. It may in fact contribute to our demise, if reason does not replace credulity.
As I noted, all things must grow or die, including religion. I do not believe that 'getting rid' of religion, which is what you seem to be suggesting in your comments is a sensible option. Religion has worked for mans welfare and for his downfall in the past, and imho social evolution will continue to erode the power of religion by forcing it to live in its contemporary time, rather than the past - a scenario which causes most religious issues.
I believe that a sensible solution would be for religions to be licensed by the Government to ensure that they do no harm to its citizens. After all who could oppose a religious group whose intent is to care for the poor and unfortunate members of society? It is those who harm its citizens either emotionally or physically that should be bought to book. Yearly licenses must be purchased and an office established that regularly checks into the welfare of the religious bodies adherents. Those not willing or able to fulfil the requirements to 'do no harm', should have their licences withdrawn, a fine levied on them until them until they are in a position to fulfil Government standards.
After all, these rules are in place now for every secular body in the Western World, the exception being arguably those most easily corrupted - religion. Why should religion be exempted from such regulations which are in place to protect a nations citizenry.
HS
After all who could oppose a religious group whose intent is to care for the poor and unfortunate members of society?
But, but, but, if we strip out all the bad stuff of religion (lies, wars, superstitions, etc.) and leave what you said above, isn't that just a nice charitible organization? Those exist now. So we still wouldn't need religion, per se.
(I'm pondering this one)
