"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"

First topic message reminder :

The above is a quote from HL Mencken, taken completely out of context purely as a starting point for this thread.

I've been watching the 'religion' themed threads for a while now, and my conclusion is that religion seems to bring out some very nasty traits in many people - the main activity on these threads has been squabbling, sniping, argument by assertion, and puerile point scoring.

This seems par for the course whenever religion is discussed, whether within small groups like this one, or on the wider world stage (I'm thinking Crusades, I'm thinking Jihad, I'm thinking abuse of women in some Muslim cultures, I'm thinking brutalisation of Muslim prisoners in Iraq and in Abu Graib)

Religion so often seems to be the excuse we use for hating, torturing and killing people who are 'different', and it seems that, even in a friendly discussion where little is at stake, religion continues its role as a fomenter of conflict.

Yet, when you look at religious texts, the rhetoric is about God's love, duties to one's neighbours, humane treatment of animals, children and all weaker individuals, sharing wealth and resources, giving to the poor and needy etc etc. I can't see anything wrong with any of that - in fact, I'm completely behind all of it.

Religion is at the core of all civilisation - it seems to have evolved within all cultures as a means of drawing the community together, collecting and preserving knowledge, teaching children, providing 'theatre' in the form of communal ritual observances, providing a sense of safety, through knowledge of the seasons, history of the community etc. In early times, heads of state would often have a priestly role, and might be sacrificed if the harvest was unsatisfactory to placate the gods.

It's clear, at least to me, that we would not be able to live within the social groups we do, and could not have made the material advances we have made, as a race, without the influence of religion in providing the ethical framework within which we can live close to each other without raw self interest undermining any attempt to create a community.
Without communities, we are only ourselves - within communities, we have access to the talents and gifts of others - the whole is definitely much greater than the sum of its parts. Mankind (and womankind) needs to live in communities - no man, as John Donne famously wrote, is an island.

So far then, religion is to be seen as a completely positive thing - religion=communities, communities=people getting access to knowledge and resources they would otherwise lack, and thereby achieving outcomes they could not even dream of alone. Looked at in this way, religion is a completely practical and very desirable thing.

Looking around the wibbly wobbly world for inspiration, I found this series of essays - i'm only posting the link to the first - you can easily find the others if you're interested.
http://theology.co.kr/whitehead/religion/1.html

This is interesting to me because it divides the concept of religion into 4 phases:
Ritual
Emotion
Belief
Rationalism
Seems to me, so far I have talked about the first two phases, and the conclusion here is that there is no problem at all with these two.
Ritual observance brings a community together, channels the emotional energy of community members, provides entertainment, access to knowledge, the foundation for a set of rules about behaviour - in short, a police presence.
I do it all the time with my dogs - 'look over here, here's a biscuit, behave in a certain way and you will have the biscuit'.
Dogs are happy, furniture remains unchewed, the household is a happy one.

When we move on to what the author of the piece would term the 'individual' aspects of religion, I think we start to get into problems, and this may be where the negative aspects of religion arise. Belief and rationalism (forming a personal code of practice based on belief, and attempting to convince others of the validity of this) are where the subjective, 'numinous' elements arise, and where the mischief can also begin.

Some religious figures have evolved what I might want to call benign beliefs - Elizabeth Fry for example, who believed that her God loved everyone, even convicted criminals, and who expressed that belief by working within the prisons of the time to provide the benefits of civilisation to those prisoners so far as she could.

Some religious figures have evolved much less benign beliefs - I might want to cite the priests of the Spanish Inqisition, whose revelation and belief was that God loved only Catholic Christians and that the use of torture and painful death would save the souls of those that fell below this high standard.(Sorry, this is VERY oversimplified, but I hope people get the gist)

In my own journey, I have found it preferable to avoid close connection to any religious movement, because I think once you get into those 'personal' aspects of religious belief and action, you do run the risk of getting involved in beliefs and attitudes that I would find morally repugnant (the belief, for example, that Baptists, Catholics, Muslims - fill in your own denomination - have the direct line to heaven the real gen, the absolute knowledge of right and wrong; and that everyone else is going straight to Hell)

I like having the concept of god - I don't care whether anyone can prove or disprove her/his/its existence. To me the truth is that we are all god's children - we all belong to the same family, we all have the right to live, to grow and to find our own truth.

Between the world's religions and belief systems, there are many more points of similarity than there are differences - we all have a moral compass, we all believe in something - what I would like to see is a proper discussion of our different beliefs, a friendly and sympathetic consideration of the points of view expressed, and a sincere attempt to reach a common understanding.
But, hey, that's just me - carry on squabbling if you like

polyglide wrote:I know, I know, I should actually hold your hand and lead you to the water to enable you to drink or you would die of thirst.

The point I was making, which any child would understand, is that the human race is so far removed from any other living thing that the possibility of humans being the result of evolution is sevaral times, in terms of odds, over and above those of odds accepted as impossible.

In the place of water put knowledge.

I'll ignore the personal insults, and focus on the risible nonsense about evolution.

"the human race is so far removed from any other living thing "

This is wholly untrue, humans just as an example share 97% of their DNA with chimpanzees. Once again you really, really, ought to learn a little bit about evolution as your ignorance on the subject is staggering. Evolution as more evidence to support it that any sane objective person could refute, so when a person denies it all they're really doing is showing they have absolutely no conception of how the scientific process works to validate evidence.

yes but Sheldon, you have to think about the level of brain activity that polyglide has when not reading the bible.

stuart t wrote:yes but Sheldon, you have to think about the level of brain activity that polyglide has when not reading the bible.

PolyGlide is no worse than others we know.

With a topic like "People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police" I start thinking of 1984 and the Thought Police, do you remember the justification for the thought police and all the rest of it? It was the state of perpetual war that was being fought - just how many years has the US of A been in a state of war since the end of WWII?

Heretic

A war against what Heretic? violence or religion?

stuart torr wrote:A war against what Heretic? violence or religion?

A war against everyone and everything except money.

Heretic

Very true Heretic, the main thing in their life apart from religion. 

stuart torr wrote:Very true Heretic, the main thing in their life apart from religion. 

They, the Americans, are at the top of the table. They are the richest large nation per capita than any other and they to do everything they can to keep that place. Do I detect that the reason that they are always at war is they are the most scared nation on Earth. China is rapidly catching up and has a vast population. Could the idea of not being the richest nation on Earth scare them too much? They would win a war against any nation but against a big player like China would they need to press the button?

Heretic

Heretic wrote:Do I detect that the reason that they are always at war is they are the most scared nation on Earth.

Actually, the reason (in my opinion) is because of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960.

War is Big Business, now, something America unfortunately learned during WWII. What Eisenhower feared has now come to pass. We have an overly-influential military-industrial complex that is fed money through non-stop warfare. The more equipment we lose, the more money they make in replacements and the parts to maintain the existing equipment. Even during peacetime, it has become necessary to keep the population afraid of some foreign threat to keep the dollars flowing into the defense industry. Whether it's the Soviets, the Chinese, the Muslims ... doesn't matter. There must always be an enemy, and quite often, one of the qualities of that enemy is "Godless." Even here, the influence of religion is nearly as great as the influence of money. Combine the two and the power and influence they spread is unstoppable. Some even say that John F. Kennedy was assassinated because he wanted to end the Vietnam War, a conflict that was making the defense contractors rich beyond their wildest dreams.

It's a truly complex and enormous set of historical forces that has put America in this position, but it really comes down to one single root cause: The fact that America was the only major nation during WWII that never felt the touch of enemy boots on our soil or the concussion of an enemy bomb falling upon our cities. Whereas the rest of the world learned the harsh consequences of war, even when victorious, America never learned that lesson. The only lesson we learned was ... hey! We can make tons of money from this war business, so let's keep the blood and money flowing!

Very good post Shirina, politics oh dear soapbox.   The USA lost one of its best presidents when JFK was killed by your own people from behind the scenes, because let's admit it. your president and our prime minister are just fronts, and they do exactly what they are told to do. The most important people are the ones behind the scenes whom you will never see, such as the cia and the fbi the list could go on,otherwise known as the men in black. Like our royalty are nothing but tourist attractions, and even they have to do as they are told at times. this is the shitholes we live in.

Sharina, the range and depth of your knowledge continues to astound me.

Heretic

Brill is she not Heretic.  

stuart torr wrote:Brill is she not Heretic.  

Yes she is but I do not want a brown tongue so I will stop there.

I do suspect though that she is enjoying herself. And why not?

Heretic

sounds like she has cheered up from earlier too, which is good.

boatlady wrote:Those who think we have no freedom from religion, in my view are mistaken.
Religious ideas are simply that - ideas - we are free within our own minds to entertain whatever ideas seem right and good to us.

Doesn't the shameless indoctrination of children threaten to make such freedom a moot point? I mean we know that ideas that are forcefully taught as immutable to young children are almost impossible to entirely relinquish in adulthood. For the majority this seems to be the case anyway.

Obviously we also have to acknowledge that religions have more power to enforce their beliefs in some parts of the world where people have less rights as a result.  Of course religion and culture are so mixed together in many such countries it can be almost impossible to seperate the two.

We now see IS waging a bloody war to force their brand of Islam on anyone they can. How do you even start to convince someone who thinks they are doing the bidding of an omnipotent deity that they have to respect the rights of others?

Dr, Sheldon,
Of course some religions that are based on the suppression of others are not realy religions at all they are just organisations that deal in whatever the originators want the followers to accept.

You cannot force anyone to accept anything they do not want to accept, you can make them comply, which is a different matter all together.

How anyone can even beggin to think IS is religiously based is beyond me, it is a military force with the intent to make everyone comply to their way of life and that way of life is not based on any accepted religion.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Of course some religions that are based on the suppression of others are not realy religions at all they are just organisations that deal in whatever the originators want the followers to accept. You cannot force anyone to accept anything they do not want to accept, you can make them comply, which is a different matter all together.  How anyone can even beggin to think IS is religiously based is beyond me, it is a military force with the intent to make everyone comply to their way of life and that way of life is not based on any accepted religion.  

Oxford English Dictionary
Religion - noun
1. A state of life bound by religious vows; the condition of belonging to a religious order.

You can't simply claim that anything that doesn't conform to your own idea of religion is not in fact a religion, this is the No No True Scotsman fallacy again.

The main point I was making was that freedom from region is undermined totally if we allow religions to proselytise very young children, as this is tantamount to indoctrination as they haven't yet developed the capacity to think for themselves. It's axiomatic that Islam is a religion, and since the person(s) who carried this atrocity was a Muslim, as are IS, then they are quite clearly religious.

Interesting quote from Joshua Kelly's book "The Evil Idea That is Religion"

If you can't do good without a god, that doesn't mean you need one. It means you're a shitty human being."

Hard to argue with that really. When the credulous cite their good works as a tacit vindication of their belifs you have to wonder if they've really thought it through.

Dr, Sheldon,
I agree that here are many religions but just one true one.

I also agree that a child can be subjected to indoctrination of a kind and method totally inappropriate, however, once acheiving the age when one can think for ones self it is up to the individual to consider all the options open to him/her.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I agree that here are many religions but just one true one.

Islam? Apollo? Zeus? Don't keep us guessing.

Polyglide wrote:I also agree that a child can be subjected to indoctrination of a kind and method totally inappropriate, however, once acheiving the age when one can think for ones self it is up to the individual to consider all the options open to him/her.

The aggressive way monotheistic religions proselytise, without any moral conscience or forbearance to existing cultures and religions speaks for itself, and there is ample evidence that when human children are taught a belief aggressively enough and early enough they will rarely relinquish that belief in adulthood, and seldom if ever relinquish it totally.

Of course we have to acknowledge that religion has allowed people to control, dominate, steal and kill with impunity, to deny this would a pointless self deception. Though I find most believers tend to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy rather than accept that this has been historically as much an aspect of religion as altruism and love ever were, neither of which paradoxically require any religious beliefs or theistic beliefs to see that they are mutually beneficial.




       

Dr, Sheldon,
Where is the scientifically, peer reviewed evidence you quote and where published.

The only time anomolies have occured in Christianity is when it has been compromised in one way or another and used wrongly to acheive a goal that the religion was not intended to acheive.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 Where is the scientifically, peer reviewed evidence you quote and where published. 

I made no claim for scientific evidence in my post at all, I never even mentioned any, and certainly didn't quote any. Are you even capable of reading and understanding a simple sentence? Or do you just not bother reading other people's posts when you pretend to respond?

Polyglide wrote:The only time anomolies have occured in Christianity is when it has been compromised in one way or another and used wrongly to acheive a goal that the religion was not intended to acheive.

I have no idea what that means, or even what you're referring to, what anomalies are you talking about, compromised by what, how, what is religion designed to achieve and how are you claiming to know this? As I said in my post "The aggressive way monotheistic religions proselytise, without any moral conscience or forbearance to existing cultures and religions speaks for itself, and there is ample evidence that when human children are taught a belief aggressively enough and early enough they will rarely relinquish that belief in adulthood, and seldom if ever relinquish it totally."

Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the child brain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early.  The Jesuit boast, ‘Give me the child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man,’ is no less accurate (or sinister) for being hackneyed.

Professor Richard Dawkins

However this is straying from the original point, which is that religious beliefs have never proved to be a useful moral check against immoral behaviour. In a world that is predominantly theist one has only to read the news to know this to be true.

Dr, Sheldon,
As you request peer reviews for everything I say then the same should apply to everything you say, wether you make a scientific claim or not.

To actually stay on the point in question.

Would the world be a better place if everyone adhered to the Ten Commandments irrespective of their origin?.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                As you request peer reviews for everything I say then the same should apply to everything you say, wether you make a scientific claim or not.  

That's simply untrue, as I only ask for scientific peer review when you claim it exists, as is always the case when you tell blatant lies I'll ask you to quote JUST ONE post of mine asking you to show peer reviewed evidence for something other than where you have claimed science has evidence for it.

Of course you'll now ignore this, as you have done every time before. Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I have posted is not a very good advert for your religious bellies, neither is the way you ignore questions, and obfuscate then demand answers to your own. When you address some of mine I may be minded to answer some of yours.

Dr, Sheldon,
I do not know the questions I am supposed to have ignored.

So far as I can see, all you do is make a statment and not ask a question.

You do not have to have scientific peer review or anything else to make a claim that can be substanciated by common sense, as I have pointed out previously, science has nothing to do with the majority of things people take for granted.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  I do not know the questions I am supposed to have ignored. So far as I can see, all you do is make a statment and not ask a question.

Then I'll give you a tip, if it has one these ? at the end, then it's a question.

Polyglide wrote:You do not have to have scientific peer review or anything else to make a claim that can be substanciated by common sense, as I have pointed out previously, science has nothing to do with the majority of things people take for granted.

I have only asked for peer reviewed evidence when you have claimed that scientific evidence exist for something, and now you're sulking and trying to change it hoping no one will notice that you lied about it existing to validate biblical claims, so far you've not managed to show one piece of scientific evidence that validates one single biblical claim. Then you asked me for peer reviewed evidence to validate a post in which I'd not made any claims for scientific evidence, or even referred to any, and now your thrashing about with this new inane asinine obfuscation. You also lied, AGAIN, with your original claim below:

Polyglide wrote:polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon, As you request peer reviews for everything I say

And despite my pointing out that this is a blatant lie you've simply ignored it, just as I said you would, and always do. Your dishonesty is not a very good advert for your beliefs. What kind of moral code makes it okay to lie persistently about what others post?

Here one of those questions you've ignored:

Polyglide wrote:
The only time anomolies have occured in Christianity is when it has been compromised in one way or another and used wrongly to acheive a goal that the religion was not intended to acheive.

My question...I have no idea what that means, or even what you're referring to, what anomalies are you talking about, compromised by what, what is religion designed to achieve and how are you claiming to know this?

I enlarged the question mark to make it easier for you.

Dr, Sheldon,
Christianity has been compromised on many occasions when it suited to change certain parts in an endeavour to keep the flock together, some fo the most basic principles are now ignored by some.

Trust this explains the, My question, I thought you would understand, however, I apologise for giving you more credit than you deserve.

The majority of children today are exposed to all manner of evil through their phones etc; I also thought you would undertstand this, I apologise for the same reason as above.

Your posts really are the most tedious pompous ignorant rubbish. You're as incapable of adult discussion as you are of any cogent intelligent thoughts or even basic manners or decency.  If your appalling behaviour is representative of how theists behave then the sooner your cretinous fantasies are consigned to the dustbin of human history the better.

Just how you claim to know what the majority of children today experience is astonishing, at least it would be if you were remotely capable of knowing how asinine that claim is. Any more than your mumbo jumbo about ipads and now phones. We do however have plenty of irrefutable evidence of the evil children are exposed to by religion and the religious. From the endemic child abuse in the RCC to the indoctrination and radicalisation of Muslims and the fgm that small girls are forced to endure to the appalling tradition of circumsising young Jewish boys, to name just a few.

It occurrs to me while reading the opening post that religions propably make police even more essential, the rampant bigotry, the asinine certainty,  the rank stupidity and the inability to throw off the most nefarious doctrine and dogma no matter how harmful is pitiable to behold. 

If we can't shed these puerile superstitions,  or find some antidote to its all pervasive and corrosive stupidity I genuinely fear we are doomed as a species.

Dr, Sheldon,
At last you have said something sensible, we are doomed as a species until, you did not say this, God sorts matters out.

Man is not, nor ever has been or ever will be, able to formulate a society in which all can live a normal life.

There is evidence every day that our children are being missled by all that they can find on the internet and elsewhere most of which has nothing to do with religion.

Of course the false religions have gone off their heads they are just having a last fling on the Devil's side.

You cannot blame religion for all the high profile figures in every aspect of life who have been corrupt in many different ways and have been the reason for the state mankind finds itstelf in, along with the scientists intent on manufacturing the most evil weapons etc;

Get a life and someone who can inform you of the facts and not fairy tales.

The usual combination of dishonest misrepresentation and unevidenced hokum with the appropriate amount of hubris. 

I precisely didn't suggest god as the solution as I was specifically citing such puerile belifs as the problem.  


Try again and get a life yourself. Preferably without the 100% certainty in puerile bigoted bronze age superstition.

Polyglide wrote:You cannot blame religion for all the high profile figures in every aspect of life who have been corrupt   

I didn't.  I specifically blamed religion and puerile superstitions.

Dr, Sheldon,
Please explain, puerile superstitions.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Please explain, puerile superstitions.

 
Puerile means childish, and superstition is an overly credulous belief in something that isn't evidenced,  specifically the supernatural.

Dr, Sheldon,
Thanks, then you obviously do not believe in fairies.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Thanks, then you obviously do not believe in fairies.

 How is that salient? For someone who arrogantly and childishly lies constantly that others don't respond to what is written your posts really are the most tiresome irrelevant nonsense.

Try again.....

[size=44] by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:25 pm[/size]

[size=44]It occurrs to me while reading the opening post that religions propably make police even more essential, the rampant bigotry, the asinine certainty,  the rank stupidity and the inability to throw off the most nefarious doctrine and dogma no matter how harmful is pitiable to behold. 

If we can't shed these puerile superstitions,  or find some antidote to its all pervasive and corrosive stupidity I genuinely fear we are doomed as a species.[/size]

Dr, Sheldon,
I have asked this question previously.

Would the world be a far better place if mankind followed the Ten Commandments?.

Of course mankind is doomed, there has never been a weapon created that has not been used eventually, scientists have devised both nuclear and chemical weapons that have the potential to wipe out mankind and one day, if God does not stop it.











We are doomed as long as mankind has the say, weapons of mass destruction both nuclear and chemical will be used at somew point if God does not

So a second post that also ignores most of what I said and dishonestly distorts the rest. 

I suggest you read what I said again and see if you're capable of an honest salient reply. 

This thread is not a soap box for you to talk errant rubbish about something you haven't even the most basic understanding, science.

Dr, Sheldon,
Science is not my God as it appears it is yours.

How many times do I have to explain that science has numerous different engagements, it is not a mystery, it just involves a lot of people, many off their rocker attempting to prove a point. [ in your jargon, prove a theory, or explain a theory to the best of their ability using numerous different methods in the process] When they reach a conclusion, this is put to a test and if verified it is at that time, subject to any further information generally accepted as being the explanation but not the conclusive answer.

My question, completely ignored was, would following the Ten Commandments make the world a better place?.

Wow. I always thought that apologists who used the  "it's just a theory" line were a tiny minority of ignorant dishonest morons. To see it championed like this, given how often it's been explained, is truly truly astonishing.

Polyglide wrote:[size=45]My question, completely ignored was, would following the Ten Commandments make the world a better place?[/size]

Already asked in another post, my answer is still no. As most of them involve a grovelling snivelling subservience to an imaginary deity created by humans intent on controlling every action and even the thoughts of everyone else. The rules that matter are self evidently nothing to do with religion, human's evolved to be both empathetic and altruistic as these traits were mutually beneficial and offered societal cohesion. 


The concept of the golden rule pre-dates Christianity by millenia, and is evident in societies that aren't theistic. I pity any person that can only refrain from theft and murder if it offers either the personal gain of an imaginary after life, or an equally absurd eternity of torture, such a person would be a very poor example of humanity. 


The ten commandments you'll note consider rules about servile knee bending more important than prohibiting things like child abuse or rape neither of which get a mention, with other notable omissions being racism and bigotry. Apparently a vain self obsessed narcisistical capricious maniac bent only on self adoration felt it had to make sure its "creation" was giving it enough attention.  What an utter joke. 


The only thing left to wonder now is how after repeatedly stating he has no interest in the old testament every time the text was used to pose a question for him, polyglide now suddenly feels it's apropos to cite this bit. 


Cherry picking which bits of the Bible to accept is as absurd as most of the text.


I've covered your asinine distortion of the scientific methods enough times now. Your post just shows yet again how utterly ignorant of it IN ITS ENTIRETY you are. I've better things to do with my time than pick apart the erroneous risible garbage you've claimed about science yet again. Your tantrums every time I've cited your absurd claims for scientific evidence as not satisfying the real methods are on enough threads for anyone who wishes to read them. 

Dr, Shedlon,
Of course you have no time to do anything other than spout sacrilegeous nonsence bordering on the insane.

Science is responsible for many ills of the world and to suggest that finding a cure for malaria offsets this fact is like saying if a murderer kills thousands then this is offset by saving hundreds.

+You have a very high opinion of science to the detriment of your ability to know fact from fiction, sad, very, very sad.