Should we eliminate culture, language and religion?

[Dezerte]

It can be absolutely be a perquisite for good based on interpretation and emphasis on particular texts.. Most modern religions, at their core, preach almost the same thing. So im not sure why people give it as bad as a wrap as they do instead of letting extremists be, well, extremists.

Also, im sure Gandhi, Martin Luther, MLK Jr, The Dalai Lama, St Thomas Acquinas, among others did the things that they did simply because "Their religion told them to do it" and not because they saw massive wrongs in the world.

Not that I subscribe to the idea that without religion there wouldn't still be conflicts, but that also means without religion there'll still be good. You can't both have the cake & eat it. Either religion is responsible for both evil & good, or it probably doesn't matter that much.

And you see, that's exactly what scares me. That there are people out there, who's reason for doing good is because their religious beliefs tells them so. I find that very scary and immoral.

[Eroginous]

Because religion has never challenged the status quo of a society for the better.

People seem to consistently mention the bads of religion in history while subliminally rejecting religious individuals and groups that did wonders for the world. It's mind boggling.

Religion is responsible for the greatest evils men have ever committed. Trying to argue that religion is a prerequisite for good is like arguing that Hitler was right. He formed an alliance with the Catholic church and systematically exterminated an entire ethnic group because he thought it was God's work.

I'm sorry, but just because you have this belief in a very benign version of a religion, doesn't mean that religion itself isn't the worst invention man has ever devised.

[Deleted]

they are pretty much the 3 most important things that differentiate mankind from animals, so lol @ the proposal.

[Shiny212]

Terminate religion by all means. Culture cant really be eliminated, and neither can language, lest all humans become telepathic.

[Terridon]

I guess it would be impossible to eliminate culture.
I mean. Even this place has a kind of culture.

I even like cultures. It makes things a bit more interesting.
Could live without religion, but i guess humanity as a whole, always will want something to believe in.

Eliminate languages? As having everybody speaking the same language?
That's more or less happening already, though people still keep their native language.

[PACOX]

Religion is responsible for the greatest evils men have ever committed. Trying to argue that religion is a prerequisite for good is like arguing that Hitler was right. He formed an alliance with the Catholic church and systematically exterminated an entire ethnic group because he thought it was God's work.

I'm sorry, but just because you have this belief in a very benign version of a religion, doesn't mean that religion itself isn't the worst invention man has ever devised.

Again, if youre talking about Hilter he allied with a lot of people. If we're going to demonize every faction that Hitler associated with then we we must demonize all of Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. See how silly that argument gets? And again, Stalin killed a lot more people being anti-religious, so what does that say about secularism. Nothing, but you're the one using the argument that one bad seed spoils all even that Hitler was the "most evil" dictator. And finally again, Hitler wasn't even religious He used religion as a pawn, plainly evident in the way he conducted himself and through his own words, the entire Catholic Church didn't allie with Hitler or endorsed him. Many were appalled by him even before people learned of the concentration camps.

[Ravenblade]

Not that I subscribe to the idea that without religion there wouldn't still be conflicts, but that also means without religion there'll still be good. You can't both have the cake & eat it. Either religion is responsible for both evil & good, or it probably doesn't matter that much.

And you see, that's exactly what scares me. That there are people out there, who's reason for doing good is because their religious beliefs tells them so. I find that very scary and immoral.

Those people scare me as well because some people can easily see right through it and unsettle them but don't rule out that it can really cause a change of heart and character in some people. Religion isn't just an etiquette for them but an actual way of life and way of views. Thus it can be responsible for both good and evil. Just like ideologies, paradigms or philosophies. It's all about the individual who uses it for good or bad. Suppose you could ban it on the grounds of evil assuming that itself is an act which could be classified as good. But you may also punish those who are contributing to society and culture in a good way. I think we are educated and enlightened enough now to know what is evil and not and can act against it and debate it. Otherwise it's just live and let live especially considering that there is no feasible and cost-efficient way to remove and control it. You can only suppress it if you want a short-term solution but that's quite like not being better than those who sought to eliminate. That's why I am against taking active actions against, even though I have less contact problems with this subject and a less aggressive stance towards it.

[S7orm]

those are 3 completely different things

language is essential for a society

culture (assuming you mean arts and other fancy things) always been a sign of a rich and powerful society, but must be kept distincted from the ordinary life (if you want to paint in your free time it's ok, but you can't blame the society if you want to make money out of your hobby and you can't)

religion is the sign of a weak mind and i'd be happy to live in a religion-free society where people don't use a book as a shield for the evil they do and make good without a post-life threat (but religion is essential to control the mass, for now...hopefully in a few million years of evolution we might drop it), but we can't talk about it here, MMOCSecurityAgency might hear it

[Dezerte]

Those people scare me as well because some people can easily see right through it and unsettle them but don't rule out that it can really cause a change of heart and character in some people. Religion isn't just an etiquette for them but an actual way of life and way of views. Thus it can be responsible for both good and evil. Just like ideologies, paradigms or philosophies. It's all about the individual who uses it for good or bad. Suppose you could ban it on the grounds of evil assuming that itself is an act which could be classified as good. But you may also punish those who are contributing to society and culture in a good way. I think we are educated and enlightened enough now to know what is evil and not and can act against it and debate it. Otherwise it's just live and let live especially considering that there is no feasible and cost-efficient way to remove and control it. You can only suppress it if you want a short-term solution but that's quite like not being better than those who sought to eliminate. That's why I am against taking active actions against, even though I have less contact problems with this subject and a less aggressive stance towards it.

I find it a tad bit scarier when someone tells me "I believe in X, because Y says so" rather than someone who uses reason, ethic & logic to describe and motivate why they believe in Z.

And yeah, religion can't eradicated in the manner OP probably thinks. You can't force people to abandon their beliefs, they have to learn themselves, but that doesn't mean we can't try and help them along the way. So basically, I believe the right way of combating beliefs such as these is to;

1. Education
2. Encourage discussions
3. More science

[Deleted]

Orwell in his 'Notes on Nationalism' had views which chimed with mine.

"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

As it happens I'm not very patriotic (mainly for the reasons Orwell outlines - nationalism and patriotism have become heavily conflated politically and socially), but I agree with his idea of patriotism as defending a way of life or culture, and his opposition to nationalism which forces people to conform to a domineering ideology or set of ideals.

As for religion, it's frequently just another tool for oppression. As EM Forster once wrote "We remained religious only as long as we could believe in a Devil". Religion is often a weapon of fear, hatred and intolerance. In the New Testament gospels there are depictions of Christ showing the most compassion and solidarity with outcasts and non-believers, and yet we rarely see such tolerance preached in much of the history of Western society, nor in the headline grabbing Church movements in the USA today - the Westboro Baptist Church and Jerry Falwell come to mind.

[Cybran]

Orwell in his 'Notes on Nationalism' had views which chimed with mine.

"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

Sounds more like he is mixing up fascism with nationalism.

[Deleted]

Is this the most colossally stupid thread ever created? Could it be? How do we go about doing this ay? Culture is not your friend, religion in its extreme has caused most of the war this world has seen. But language? Scorched earth policy or maybe total anhihalation of the entire population of earth is the only way you're getting rid of that. Same goes for religion and culture.

[Bigbazz]

Sounds very dull and dreary, maybe the people who agree with this can do us all a favour and go bugger off and live in a cave together.

[darkwarrior42]

As asked, absolutely not.

In regards to whether we should eliminate "other" cultures and languages and such, no, though I hope that in time they'll go away on their own as people begin to understand more about each other. It will take a very long time though.... centuries after any kind of technological singularity. Even then I doubt they'll ever go away completely; every place has its own little quirks, and people tend to like that sort of thing.

---------- Post added 2013-06-14 at 12:41 PM ----------

And yeah, religion can't eradicated in the manner OP probably thinks. You can't force people to abandon their beliefs, they have to learn themselves, but that doesn't mean we can't try and help them along the way. So basically, I believe the right way of combating beliefs such as these is to;

1. Education
2. Encourage discussions
3. More science

The most interesting part of statements like this is the ingrained assumption that no religion can possibly acknowledge science in any way, or be reasonably practiced by someone who is educated and willing to debate the subject.

I think all of your ideas are good; those three things are things that should absolutely happen. I just don't necessarily believe that they will inevitably lead to the elimination of religion.

[Dezerte]

The most interesting part of statements like this is the ingrained assumption that no religion can possibly acknowledge science in any way, or be reasonably practiced by someone who is educated and willing to debate the subject.

I think all of your ideas are good; those three things are things that should absolutely happen. I just don't necessarily believe that they will inevitably lead to the elimination of religion.

I'm well aware of that there exists scientists who are religious. But more interestingly, the non-religious/religious ratio is much higher among scientists, so that's another indication. And I can't say for sure that religion will ever disappear, but that is the current trend we've been seeing ever since the age of enlightenment.

I can totally foresee a future where our current religions are regarded in the same manner as our current old religions (norse, greek etc). And we may even retain some of the traditions, just like we've done previously with older religions.

[Cybran]

I can totally foresee a future where our current religions are regarded in the same manner as our current old religions (norse, greek etc). And we may even retain some of the traditions, just like we've done previously with older religions.

According to Carl Jung that would open a vacuum for something else which might be even worse.

[Spectral]

I don't understand the concept of eliminating culture.

It'd be nice if we had a unified language, but I don't see us moving towards that with any alacrity. I'd vote English! But English is kind of a shitty language, so there's no objective reason for that.

I'd like religions to naturally disappear around the world the way they are in most educated countries. If they at least fade to being no more than a form of background culture, I think that'll be best for everyone involved.

[Dezerte]

According to Carl Jung that would open a vacuum for something else which might be even worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[Ravenblade]

I find it a tad bit scarier when someone tells me "I believe in X, because Y says so" rather than someone who uses reason, ethic & logic to describe and motivate why they believe in Z.

Has that happened a lot to you? I find from personal experience it's similar to learning a language. Once you understand it then you can also translate and find equivalents in yours. That's why a purely material and analytic approach won't work well.

And yeah, religion can't eradicated in the manner OP probably thinks. You can't force people to abandon their beliefs, they have to learn themselves, but that doesn't mean we can't try and help them along the way. So basically, I believe the right way of combating beliefs such as these is to;

1. Education
2. Encourage discussions
3. More science

Science and education alone only works for a limited group of religious people but will filter out others. Those using religion as foundation for a materialist view and way of life that is. You'll need to speak the language of psychology and philosophy to get anywhere with the rest. But as long as we have not explained the universe, the time before it and the reason for existence we will have to live with the fact that religions will exist. In the near future you will only manage to diminish its importance on all aspects of life over time in your country but it may happen on global scale as well...in a few millennia.

[Spectral]

AThe most interesting part of statements like this is the ingrained assumption that no religion can possibly acknowledge science in any way, or be reasonably practiced by someone who is educated and willing to debate the subject.

Education, and particularly science education, is inversely correlated with religiosity. Understanding biology really is a deathblow to literalist reading of religious texts; some people manage to it anyway, but that's through massive cognitive dissonance, not genuine reconciliation of ideas. I don't think anyone thinks that increasing general science education will poof away religions, but I think it'll dull their impact.