Should we eliminate culture, language and religion?

[Itisamuh]

Because that is not what you are talking about.

I keep pointing out that you are referring certain specific beliefs, like literalism or snakehandling. You take actions with the issues those specific beliefs might lead to, in some people, and extend that to all religious thought.

That's where you continue to make a completely baseless and unwarranted leap. I'm not missing the point, here; your conclusion does not follow from your premises.



I have no idea where you got any of this.

If my friend says he's won the lottery, my first reaction is to congratulate him on his good fortune. My critical thinking skills tell me he has nothing to gain by lying to me about it, so I have no reason to assume he is doing so. Considering I have had family win things (a couple thousand dollars on the lottery, all-expenses paid trips, etc), I can honestly say my initial reaction was never skepticism. For that reason; they have no reason to lie to me. Skepticism isn't about assuming everyone is a liar.

And no; a great number of people do not engage in critical thinking throughout their lives, aside from religion. That's just outright hogwash. People are, on the average, emotionally-driven, not intellectually. This is why women stay with the man who beats them. This is why we do stupid things in the name of love (or hate, for that matter). This is why we make dumbass choices that nobody else understands. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that religion is the source of this, and that we're all naturally critical thinkers. Critical thinking is a skill, and you have to be taught it. We don't come to it naturally.



There's not really much I can say to that except "no, it isn't". As proof, any dictionary. The words don't mean that. A religion can contain dogma, but it does not have to. Nor is the existence of dogma exclusively a religious concept.



See, I actually know people who've lost their faith. They didn't stop being good people. In many cases, they still used the non-religious portions of the code they had grown up with, but because they saw the inherent value to it, rather than the purely religious value.

You're still making the same mistake. "Good people" want to be good, and find a way to be so. "Bad people" could give a fuck. It doesn't matter if they're religious or not, nor does religion push them one way or the other. Religion might take the edge off a "bad person", because he doesn't want to do anything that will make him burn for eternity, but it won't make him a good person. Nor will the loss of faith make a good person into a bad person. They'll still be a good person, and they will keep doing good things for other people. Because "doing good things for other people" is something they want to do. Religion doesn't cause that.

I say this rarely, but that was an excellent post. The way people on this forum blame religion for every human fault is just ridiculous.

[Eroginous]

Because that is not what you are talking about.

Of course it is. READ BETTER.

you are referring certain specific beliefs

As examples only. Can't have a discussion without examples of what I am talking about. You honestly want me to list every single religious belief and the actions people take associated with them? How many pages will I have to post before you get the message?

I have no idea where you got any of this.

You keep ignoring the things I say, telling me I am flat out wrong, while trying to take the discussion in a completely different direction. What do you expect me to get from that?

There's not really much I can say to that except "no, it isn't". As proof, any dictionary. The words don't mean that. A religion can contain dogma, but it does not have to. Nor is the existence of dogma exclusively a religious concept.

I guess you should look up the definition of the word then. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma

See, I actually know people who've lost their faith. They didn't stop being good people. In many cases, they still used the non-religious portions of the code they had grown up with, but because they saw the inherent value to it, rather than the purely religious value.

I didn't say they would stop being good people, did I?

You're still making the same mistake.

Says the guy who can't exercise reading comprehension. I really don't know why I bother posting anymore. It's obvious this discussion is dead because of you.

I say this rarely, but that was an excellent post. The way people on this forum blame religion for every human fault is just ridiculous.

Considering he's exclusively responding to me now, I would have to ask you to point out where I am blaming religion for every human fault.

I think your hyperbole is a bit ridiculous.

[Garehn Vi-Brittania]

Right now there is no rush. Excuse me for sounding like a space nerd but until/if we ever reach a point in which we can physically go to other galaxies and search for other intelligent life forms, I see no need for it.

[Endus]

Of course it is. READ BETTER.

Yelling louder doesn't make your case stronger. And again; you have provided absolutely no evidence that having faith leads to a lack of critical thought. That some few might use faith rather than critical thought, sure, but there's plenty of atheists who don't engage in critical thought, either.

No evidence at all to support your claim. Anecdotal references to fringe minorities prove nothing of the whole.

As examples only. Can't have a discussion without examples of what I am talking about. You honestly want me to list every single religious belief and the actions people take associated with them? How many pages will I have to post before you get the message?

No, I want you to attack what is universally true of all religious beliefs, bar none. If you cannot boil it down to a single, or a collection of related, factors that are universally true of all religions, then you are not discussing a characteristic of "religion". You are discussing a characteristic of a few specific faith groups.

If your argument does not equally apply to the semi-agnostic member of the United Church of Canada, a Bhuddist living in India, or a Shinto priest, then you are not discussing "religion". If it does not apply to every single person of faith, you are not discussing "religion". I need only one example to disprove your claim; if you say "all apples are red", I need only say "check out this green Granny Smith" to prove you wrong. You DO need to prove that all apples must be red. If you cannot, you have not proven your argument.

Plus, burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. You're the one doing so. I'm not obligated to disprove you, not until you've actually provided full and conclusive evidence that you are correct. And even if you were to, again, I only need one example.

I guess you should look up the definition of the word then. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma

That dictionary definition agrees with me, not you. It defines dogma as a specific and multifaceted part of a religion, not as the sum of it.

I didn't say they would stop being good people, did I?

Someone donating their time and good will to charity because they want to be like Christ, is a little different than someone donating their time and good will simply because it's a good thing to do.

So what happens if they stop believing in Christ? They stop doing good things for other people?

Right there. You suggested that there is a qualitative difference between being good "because Christ", or being good "because it's the right thing to do". I've been arguing there's no difference. You don't get to try and switch sides after the fact.

[Dhrizzle]

Err, how was I not telling the truth? I couldn't possibly know how much pain she was in, but I will say that she was in pain. Sometimes the truth isn't that clear-cut, but then I opt for the most likely truth and that's what I thought I had communicated to you.

You know how much pain she was in because I used the phrases "terrible pain" and "agonising death". You chose to ignore that evidence to create a more palatable truth for the child, rather than going for the actual or more probable truth.

Yes, uh of course that is perceived as to true to that person (aka personal truths), which is just a demonstration on why personal truths can be dangerous when we let them control society.

What I meant was, if a group of people claim the idea of homosexual adoption makes them feel uncomfortable then that is part of the objective truth of the situation. In this case I believe the fact some people just don't like it can be ignored because other people are more intimately involved in the matter, and their considerations should have greater weight (not to mention the fairly objective good of having more couples available to adopt children who need families).

There is no data to support those other claims. Does that mean we should deny homosexuals adoptions? Or should we let them adopt, and thus get our data? (simplified for the arguments sake)

That's the problem; we have a collection of attitudes, possibilities and opinions but we don't have a "truth". Even gathering data won't help because there's no real way of repeating experiments or accounting for all factors when it comes to people.

I believe a homosexual couple has the same potential to be great or awful parents as a heterosexual couple, and more importantly they'll be much better than having no parents. I believe it, I can try to rationalise it but ultimately it is just what I feel is right, it doesn't make it "the truth".

Stardust was a euphemism for 'magic', or regular dust to be precise. I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose or not here.

Saying he called it magic dust would have been clearer, although I think my attitude towards putting a mysterious substance in a fresh wound would be the same whatever the stranger calls it.

[Dezerte]

You know how much pain she was in because I used the phrases "terrible pain" and "agonising death". You chose to ignore that evidence to create a more palatable truth for the child, rather than going for the actual or more probable truth.

That's anecdotal evidence at best, something which I don't value that high. How can you accurately measure someone's pain on the fly like that? I don't exactly have a MRI-scanner in my pocket or anything like that. Maybe you could come up with a better example, where it's possible to know the facts.

What I meant was, if a group of people claim the idea of homosexual adoption makes them feel uncomfortable then that is part of the objective truth of the situation. In this case I believe the fact some people just don't like it can be ignored because other people are more intimately involved in the matter, and their considerations should have greater weight (not to mention the fairly objective good of having more couples available to adopt children who need families).

I never contested that it was their own personal truth. It was a example of a situation where personal truths can become dangerous to others.

I believe a homosexual couple has the same potential to be great or awful parents as a heterosexual couple, and more importantly they'll be much better than having no parents. I believe it, I can try to rationalise it but ultimately it is just what I feel is right, it doesn't make it "the truth".

Yes, but not because it's the truth. But because we don't know the truth yet, and there are no opposing arguments that holds any water either. What we do know is that discriminating homosexuals will cause harm to human life (namely discrimination of homosexuals) and we have no grounds to deny them adoption rights anymore than we have for heterosexuals.

[NotValidAnymore]

Religion? Yes.

Culture and language needs to stay.

[anyaka21]

No, the point is that what people believe in matters. It makes a difference because those beliefs inform their actions. IE, you act a certain way based upon what you believe. It's not a hard concept. I really don't know why you are having such a difficult time with it.

Herein lies a lot of the point of contention. yes, what people believe does matter. Yes, those beliefs do inform their actions. But they do not do their actions. The person is the sole responsibility for doing those actions.



Thus again, the burden of proof is again on you to show that every person of faith essentially willfully disregards their critical thinking skills to make a faith based decision. There is a big difference between inform and do.

No, the difficulty is that you've decided I'm wrong and no matter what you're going to keep arguing to that effect.

This is also true because, well, you are. Your whole hypothesis, your who premise if flawed. This is your premise:

I haven't changed a single point of my argument. It's always been:

1. Religion is necessary as a learning tool for secular society.

2. Religion (the act of behaving with diligence and commitment) and religion (spirituality, theism) necessarily requires people to suspend critical thinking skills in regard to specific behavior within those beliefs.

3. People can cause harm to others as a direct result of religion.

Again, all your points are flawed and thus your whole hypothesis is invalid. Hell, just point 3 is invalid because it is basically a strawman argument. Yeah, people can cause harm to others, religion being 1 of thousands of different reasons.

and again, with point 2, which is essentially your main point is flawed because

a) it requires you to show consistently and in all ways that religion does require people do suspend critical thinking. And just showing 1 example, that probably won't ever get any press is the couple of faith takes their kid to the hospital. Sorry that's not going to make any headlines but it happens thousands of times every single day, as opposed to the 1 couple that made the headlines because of a lack of critical thinking skills.

b) you would also have to show when these people didn't have faith and that they acted consistently with critically thinking skills, and as thus when they 'found' religion, it caused them to suspend those skills.

[OzoAndIndi]

No... but I hope certain crappy cultures that support inferior treatment of many of their citizens eventually evolve or die off. Nothing wrong with languages. Religion...similarly, and probably because it's often closely tied to culture, to be honest there might be some, or certain portions of them, that could stand to evolve or die off.

[Eroginous]

Yelling louder doesn't make your case stronger.

Who's yelling? I put the important part in caps so you notice it and maybe actually do it.

No, I want you to attack what is universally true of all religious beliefs

I have been. You just refuse to acknowledge my argument.

That dictionary definition agrees with me, not you. It defines dogma as a specific and multifaceted part of a religion, not as the sum of it.

Yeah okay.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them.

Yeah, okay.

Right there. You suggested that there is a qualitative difference between being good "because Christ", or being good "because it's the right thing to do".

Except I never said you stop being good because you stop doing good things in the name of Christ. At no point is the act of doing good things for others the sole quantifier of being a good person.

I've been arguing there's no difference. You don't get to try and switch sides after the fact.

No, you've been arguing that I am wrong, regardless of what I actually say. I'm not switching sides. A good person is a good person because of their actions, not because of their beliefs. But a person who believes in Christ will do things based solely on that belief, up to and possibly including doing good things for others. It's likely that with those people, their actions in the name of Christ is contingent on their belief in Christ. If they stopped believing, they would stop doing those things.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't find a different reason to do good things for others, or that they are no longer a good person just because they no longer do things for other people.

But hey, I'm not the one dissecting others' posts and assuming things they've never said.

The person is the sole responsibility for doing those actions.

And also the sole responsibility for deciding what to believe. And doing things based on those beliefs.

Glad we agree.

[Endus]

I have been. You just refuse to acknowledge my argument.

Pointing out the flaws of your argument is hardly "refusing to acknowledge".

Except I never said you stop being good because you stop doing good things in the name of Christ. At no point is the act of doing good things for others the sole quantifier of being a good person.

Your argument was that there was a difference in the "goodness" depending on whether they are Christian, or just a secular humanist. That it wasn't the same thing either way. That's the first quote I linked. Nobody ever claimed you were saying religious people would stop being good. That's just you attacking a straw man. We were attacking your claim that the "goodness" of religious people was of a different quality than that of atheists.

You keep trying to shift the argument when you're confronted on it.

A good person is a good person because of their actions, not because of their beliefs. But a person who believes in Christ will do things based solely on that belief, up to and possibly including doing good things for others. It's likely that with those people, their actions in the name of Christ is contingent on their belief in Christ. If they stopped believing, they would stop doing those things.

You're basically arguing here that "intent" doesn't matter. There's a reason the entirely-secular legal system disagrees with you fundamentally on this point. The belief behind an action is absolutely relevant to the morality/ethics of that action. If I see a traffic accident with someone impaled, and I think the way to save them is to pull them off whatever they're impaled on, then my actions are ethical (arguably not smart, since it will quite possibly mean them bleeding out), because I thought it would help. I'm not guilty of murdering them, if they die as a result of that act, because I had no intent to kill them. Not even manslaughter, since there's no negligence contributing. It doesn't matter if I'm atheist and just don't understand first aid principles, or if I'm a theist and think God would want them pulled off. That's entirely irrelevant. It isn't "more good" if I'm atheist.

That's your argument. And you've given absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up. There is no difference in the two situations. You're creating a false dichotomy.

Nobody's argued "people are good because they're Christian". Hitler was Christian. Obviously, bad people can be Christian. You're making the opposite argument, though, that atheists/secular humanists are somehow "more good" than anyone religious, because they aren't basing any moral choices on religion. That's just as ridiculous, for the same reason. There is no difference in the "goodness", based on their beliefs. That's the root of your argument, and you have done nothing to prove it, and there's no reason whatsoever to think that it is true.

[jbombard]

I think if mankind is going to somehow avoid destroying itself, culture, language, religion, race are all going to need to become meaningless, at least as far as a basis for discrimination. I do not think they necessarily need to be eliminated. That said it is easier to imagine mankind in peace if they were united under one language, culture and religion. Really though mankind simply needs to become more considerate and understanding, and to embrace differences instead of fear them. That is very easy to state, but I have a hard time imagining what kind of world changing event could possibly bring about that kind of change.

[Seasz]

Religion, Yes please.

Culture and Language: NO.

[lakhesis]

As a question, that strikes me as similar to asking "should we eliminate the colour purple?"

Even if you homogenised everyone, culture would still exist. It would simply be a monoculture, which imo would probably not be as resilient a system from a species survival standpoint.

Mono-lingual I could see being more plausible and more beneficial. Even if we maintained separate languages, there are distinct advantages to all being able to communicate & while I don't doubt there are disadvantages I question if they're significant enough to make it a bad idea.

And religion is incredibly resilient. There's a deepseated inner drive in humans to ask "why?", and religion is a natural outflow of the spiritual search that question can engender. Even if you succeeded in eliminating all memory of 'religion', I strongly suspect it would eventually reinvent itself.

[Winterstrife]

Well mankind can certainly exist without religion. Culture & language... no.

[Syrco]

Religion can be both good and bad, I feel like many is using it for bad in the world these days which is really sad, but some of them believe they're doing the right thing, some are just using it as an excuse. But religion can be really good to have. I'm not religious but I know it has helped many people I know to have something to believe it, to be able to pray and talk to someone they believe can hear and help makes them relax and it gives them hope which makes them go on and it makes them stronger.

The culture and language describes who we are, we will never lose it, it has always been there. There are so many different cultures and languages, some have a lot in common while others don't. I can understand how you think it would all have been easier without all this, but it's impossible.
Our languages and cultures are beautiful, unique and it's important that we take good care of it.

[Kraenen]

Religion can be both good and bad, I feel like many is using it for bad in the world these days which is really sad, but some of them believe they're doing the right thing, some are just using it as an excuse. But religion can be really good to have. I'm not religious but I know it has helped many people I know to have something to believe it, to be able to pray and talk to someone they believe can hear and help makes them relax and it gives them hope which makes them go on and it makes them stronger.

The culture and language describes who we are, we will never lose it, it has always been there. There are so many different cultures and languages, some have a lot in common while others don't. I can understand how you think it would all have been easier without all this, but it's impossible.
Our languages and cultures are beautiful, unique and it's important that we take good care of it.

Can you explain what this "just using it for bad things as an excuse" means? Are you saying they aren't believers?

[Syrco]

I think that some people use religion as an excuse to do things which aren't good. That might be what I alone think cause I don't know any of them and don't believe, but they might believe that they're doing what's right, but for me it's impossible to think that "someone" is telling them what to do.

[Kraenen]

I think that some people use religion as an excuse to do things which aren't good. That might be what I alone think cause I don't know any of them and don't believe, but they might believe that they're doing what's right, but for me it's impossible to think that "someone" is telling them what to do.

but they do believe this, regardless of its verity. So I wouldn't say they're using it as an excuse. In their mind they are being commanded to do something. Some just don't understand this, but they probably have never understood any of it.

[Deleted]

I think that some people use religion as an excuse to do things which aren't good. That might be what I alone think cause I don't know any of them and don't believe, but they might believe that they're doing what's right, but for me it's impossible to think that "someone" is telling them what to do.

Take the jihad for example. The idea is that anyone who doesn't believe in their god must die. And then there is that whole holy war thing. Excuse me if I mixed any terms there but I don't know much about them. Anyway the idea is that they believe that killing is the right thing to do. They don't use it as an excuse to kill for fun. They actually think that if they kill unbelievers, they will go to wherever "good" jihadists go.