(Branched topic) Need for pseudo-religion/religion causes more crime than lack of?

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Yes, that is the point of study and research as well, to be able to enjoy all, believe none; and that is the point made by Mycernius. Let's enjoy all these fine works of the human imagination...no need to formulate a lifestyle or world view based on them, though.
(and please take note: by saying 'no need to v.' (where v.=infinitive form of a verb) one cannot interpret that to be saying 'must not' nor 'should not'--although I would argue for some degree of these too)

I had a conversation yesterday about the impact of religion on today's society. We came to a conclusion, whether there is a God, many gods, or no gods at all, it is still important to base a lifestyle on a religion. Religions set up a code of conduct amoung followers, and back it up with a fear of punishment. The law only gives us fear of possible punishment, while a fear of sure punishment more strongly enforces that the code of conduct be followed. Also, i believe that religions around the world should be looked at, and a world code of conduct be placed for secularists (people who don't believe in the super natural) who choose not to believe in any diety(-ies). The code of conduct would take into consideration respect of religions and lackof therein. The idea would be to make it possible for the world to follow the strictest religion, but doing so without interfearing with the ability to be alive and have some degree of freedom (though greatly stricter than the freedoms of my country). Some people try to reach this neutral ground by making things more free (and even to the degree of hiding things from parents). I find this to be a hostile environment for allowing religions and lack of therein to co-exist. Things like marriage, I believe, should not be recognized by the government in any way, for it (I believe) a religious practice in itself. With religion being a cornerstone of culture and a strict code of conduct, i find it only natural that there be made a secular religion as well, then placed upon the people of the world a code of conduct that would respect all religions and even promote co-existance (like Islam and Hinduism in India).

 

[Goldiegirl]

I don't see marriage as religious or sanctioned by God. It's two people who have entered into a contract.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

I don't see marriage as religious or sanctioned by God. It's two people who have entered into a contract

Contracts need a witness and/or someone to enforce the contract. Lacking either, especially as neither, results in marriage being nothing more than a title to be changed at one's whim. Especially note that the deffinition of marriage varies greatly depending on faith (or lackof therein). Infact, many religions also make rules of conduct based on marriage (for example, christianity has rules against adultery). It's a very intricate part of religion.

 

[Mars Man]

Well, 緑さん, you have posted a really, really big chunk of investigation and discussion there. (and it would have been niced if you would have block paragraphed more) Although you didn't really give any argument as to why you do or don't believe in any god-model, your information is in a way on-topic.

I don't think it would be proper, really, to deal with it here in this thread, however, so I'm a bit at a loss. I might open another thread on something that will fit that idea, or might. I reason that you and your friend's conclusion came down through some over simplified input.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Well, 緑さん, you have posted a really, really big chunk of investigation and discussion there. (and it would have been niced if you would have block paragraphed more) Although you didn't really give any argument as to why you do or don't believe in any god-model, your information is in a way on-topic

Simply put, i do out of personal experiences. I find no reason to post that which i cannot prove to be devine intervention. Then again, if i could prove it, there wouldn't be much discussion, would there be?

I don't think it would be proper, really, to deal with it here in this thread, however, so I'm a bit at a loss. I might open another thread on something that will fit that idea, or might

Might be a reasonable idea.

I reason that you and your friend's conclusion came down through some over simplified input.

Actually, my friend majors in politcal sciences, and much of my experience and education (highschool and some self taught history) lead me to my input. Just because the conclusion is only one sentance, it doesn't mean it came by simplified input.

It's no secret that people need a guidance or a basis to live and make decisions on. If no one has that basis, they will have a higher potential for radicalism. The criticism of religious people often comes from acts caused by people who acted on desires of the religion, but not neccesarily the rules of conduct to go about acheiving those desires. For instance, the desire of christianity is to try to get as many people as you can into heaven, not just yourself.

When the protestant churches came to be, the roman catholic church viewed them as a threat to that goal. The christian valued way was not taken, instead the radical way was taken; murder. Curious what that was? The continuously annoying trumpcard arguement against christians being peaceful; The Spanish Inquisition.

 

[MadamePapillon]

It's no secret that people need a guidance or a basis to live and make decisions on. If no one has that basis, they will have a higher potential for radicalism.

I beg to differ. I have yet to see an atheist or agnostic slaughter someone in the name of their religion or persecute people based solely on the words of a book. Religion sure hasn't stopped the mass killings of "heathens, pagans, witches" ect
If you ask me, those who strictly follow religious teachings, I find, are more likely to be radical/fanatical than those who don't

Religions set up a code of conduct amoung followers, and back it up with a fear of punishment. The law only gives us fear of possible punishment, while a fear of sure punishment more strongly enforces that the code of conduct be followed.
Also, i believe that religions around the world should be looked at, and a world code of conduct be placed for secularists (people who don't believe in the super natural) who choose not to believe in any diety(-ies).

I don't need a book to scare me with threats of torture and eternal damnation in order to do right and be a good, moral person and I certainly don't need a bunch of misguided do-gooders to give me a 'code of conduct' to make sure I behave myself.
Religious people have done far worse crimes than any non-religious person is ever likely to do, if you ask me, it's us who should be monitoring them.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

I beg to differ. I have yet to see an atheist or agnostic slaughter someone in the name of their religion or persecute people based solely on the words of a book

I beg to differ with that. Lemme point out that to atheist (actually secularist) or agnostic has no religion to do acts in the name of, and no book to persecute people soley on. Which is my point. There is no basis. I'm not trying to force anyone into a religion with my statement, i mearly am trying to suggest a written pseudo-religous set of rules to govern the people.

Religion sure hasn't stopped the mass killings of "heathens, pagans, witches" ect

Only crimes get recorded. It's hard to record the lack of crime. Of a million innocent people, it only takes 1 to go rotton for grounds to slander the rest.

I don't need a book to scare me with threats of torture and eternal damnation in order to do right and be a good, moral person

Let me ask you this, "How do you know that you are a moral person?" You have nothing to compare yourself to, except us condemning religious people. You need a basis.

and I certainly don't need a bunch of misguided do-gooders to give me a 'code of conduct' to make sure I behave myself.

It is better to be mis-guided and not guided at all. I'm mearly stating that a nice religiously tolerant code of conduct would be productive and promote goodwill towards other human beings. Though i would enjoy it if you would point out where i said that us religious people are to make the rules of conduct for you. I only stated to have them taken into consideration for the respect of them. Surely there's no harm in that, is there?

Religious people have done far worse crimes than any non-religious person is ever likely to do, if you ask me, it's us who should be monitoring them.

Here's a concept: Many scientists (whether you believe them or not, and i don't believe them on this) say that there was man before recorded history. If that is the case, and there is no creator for man, one can logically say that it's likely there was no religion during that time. How can we know that there weren't worse crimes? Primitive man with no guidance surely did some heinous things. Also, often recordings of non-religious crimes never take into note of one's religion or lack of therein.

Though, may i point out Joseph Stalin... Marxism opposed religion, therefor, removal of religion was neccessary to anyone using Karl Marx's pricipals (which would have been likely to have happened before he even took power). That's just common knowledge, now on to the wikipedia article for a soure of general unreliable (but still good enough for now) information. Infact, i'll leave it up to you to do some research so that you get a good feel for the man. I will say, the anti-religion persecution that wikipedia mentions looks pretty interesting to me. Although the numbers aren't as big as that of the holocaust, i still find 100,00 to be a big enough article.

 

[Half-n-Half]

I beg to differ with that. Lemme point out that to atheist (actually secularist) or agnostic has no religion to do acts in the name of, and no book to persecute people soley on. Which is my point. There is no basis. I'm not trying to force anyone into a religion with my statement, i mearly am trying to suggest a written pseudo-religous set of rules to govern the people.

Our laws are already based on pseudo-religious rules. Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. I actually find that not having a book to do acts in the name of is more moral. An atheist or agnostic does an act of good because it is right. A Christian does it not necessarily because it is out of the kindness of his heart, but because he is more motivated by the fact that he is pleasing God who will reward him for his good deeds.

Let me ask you this, "How do you know that you are a moral person?" You have nothing to compare yourself to, except us condemning religious people. You need a basis.

Our society determines what is ethical and moral. The Puritans thought it was ethical to hang so-called witches of the day. Today that would seem inhumane and ridiculous. I was raised to believe hurting others, stealing, being cruel, as well as many other things are wrong. I didn't need a religious basis to know these things.

It is better to be mis-guided and not guided at all.

I'm sorry, but this statement is completely false. Maybe under certain circumstances your statement is true, but none come to mind. Many dictators mis-guide their people into believing very dangerous ideas, such as Kim Jong Il in Korea.

I'm mearly stating that a nice religiously tolerant code of conduct would be productive and promote goodwill towards other human beings.

Again, we already have this in our society, i.e the First Amendment.

Here's a concept: Many scientists (whether you believe them or not, and i don't believe them on this) say that there was man before recorded history. If that is the case, and there is no creator for man, one can logically say that it's likely there was no religion during that time. How can we know that there weren't worse crimes? Primitive man with no guidance surely did some heinous things.

If you don't believe them, then how can you make a point out of it? Besides, this "guidance" could come about as what's called the Social Contract Theory. That is, man created laws to protect himself in order to live peacefully and have a society that doesn't kill itself.

Though, may i point out Joseph Stalin... Marxism opposed religion, therefor, removal of religion was neccessary to anyone using Karl Marx's pricipals (which would have been likely to have happened before he even took power).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, perhaps that a lack of pseudo-religious principles (as you put it) lead to people like Stalin? It is true Karl Marx opposed religion. Are you trying to say that no religion = overthrow of government, therefore anarchy and crime? Perhaps you could clear this point up further.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Our laws are already based on pseudo-religious rules. Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc.

But too many things are left un-covered. Abortion, gay marriage, and many, many issues are still left uncovered. Many religions have indirectly covered those topics pretty well.

I actually find that not having a book to do acts in the name of is more moral. An atheist or agnostic does an act of good because it is right. A Christian does it not necessarily because it is out of the kindness of his heart, but because he is more motivated by the fact that he is pleasing God who will reward him for his good deeds.

Usually true, but some christians do it without the desire of reward, though this is un-provable.

Our society determines what is ethical and moral. The Puritans thought it was ethical to hang so-called witches of the day. Today that would seem inhumane and ridiculous. I was raised to believe hurting others, stealing, being cruel, as well as many other things are wrong. I didn't need a religious basis to know these things.

Like i said before, this kind of stuff happens when the religious people don't follow their religious basis. One of the christian bases is that one should not kill another human being without specific permission from God (who would appear and make himself quite publically known, which is very rare and will not happen again until the end of the world) or in self-defence. Though, i must ask you how you know those things are wrong if the origin of those values are religion?

I'm sorry, but this statement is completely false. Maybe under certain circumstances your statement is true, but none come to mind. Many dictators mis-guide their people into believing very dangerous ideas, such as Kim Jong Il in Korea.

And do you have any examples of a non-guided civilization where productivity has been made to finalize your point? Otherwise, your argument against my statement is lacking.

Again, we already have this in our society, i.e the First Amendment.

This is a code for religious tolerance (or so they say). This still isn't an entire system of right and wrong. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights. In fact, may i point out that there are many cases where religious items were taken from individuals. May i point out that the government cannot set up a church (this includes schools), but it (meaning schools in the situation i'm about to describe) are not allowed to restrict the ability to do so therein as long as the rights of others are violated. Therefor, balloons saying christian things cannot be forced upon anyone, but it cannot be taken from them either, even if it's a school sponsered activity, since it was the private individual that made that decision.

But, of course, this is violated freaquently. Even mis-understood. Infact, may i point out that the bill of rights is imposed only on the government, not on the people. That's right, that means that the first amendment means the government can't arrest me for preaching in public. Though, i do believe i heard hearsay going around that the government is currently looking into having evolution (which contradicts many current religious doctrins) as truth, even though it's not a law. Now, i have yet to find the article saying it's debated right now, but it's that a fancy example. I am aiming towards something international, anyway. The bill of rights only applies to America.

If you don't believe them, then how can you make a point out of it?

I can make a point out of it, because i'm assuming you believe them.

Besides, this "guidance" could come about as what's called the Social Contract Theory. That is, man created laws to protect himself in order to live peacefully and have a society that doesn't kill itself.

Now comes a list of questions such as, "when did man realize this was needed" and "what was it like before then?"

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, perhaps that a lack of pseudo-religious principles (as you put it) lead to people like Stalin?

Does not directly lead to it, but increases the potential. What i'm trying to say here, is that an athiest did indeed do large crimes against a group of people, which contradicted the quoted argument accompanied by that argument you quoted. A common argument for atheism is that only religious groups commit genocide, when in all reality we have a perfect example like Stalin. If more atheists had control, we may have a few more examples than the ones we have now, just as the many christian leaders gave us examples. There weren't many atheist leaders to compare to, but we do happen to have stalin to look at.

It is true Karl Marx opposed religion. Are you trying to say that no religion = overthrow of government, therefore anarchy and crime? Perhaps you could clear this point up further.

Surely not. I mearly say that it hightens the possibility rate. People need a guidance, if there is no guidance what do we do? Laws are simple forms of guidance. What would happen if we removed all laws? Removing religion is the same thing, only religion is a more complicated system of laws.

One moment, please folks....I don't think it would be proper, really, to deal with it here in this thread...does mean just that, actually. The theme of this thread is simply to present reasons for believing or not believing in any god or gods, in the sense of considering such god-models to be external reality (external means an actual existence outside of the brain.

Embedding to support any presentation given on that would of course be fine, but it is clearly out the scope of said theme to be defending a position on why a religous belief-system is good, here on this thread. Please give me a little time, and I'll start a new thread, and move some of this there. Please. Thank you ! MM

That's why i made this post.

 

[Mars Man]

Thank you for opening a new thread on the matter. (I await further notice for moving some posts from the old thread)

For starters, I would--as most who post here in Serious Discussions know--strongly suggest giving a specific referent for the word 'religion.' The reason being that otherwise, religion can be so many different things. I would propose using the term 'religion' for religious belief-system. Therefore we could thus use the two terms interchangably; when one person says 'religion' they are saying, 'religious belief-system,' and vice versa.

Judaism is a religious belief-system, Christianity is one too, and such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and many others of the past and present are too. There are other belief-systems in human society, but they would not fall under the modifier religious. And, we mustn't forget that nature itself, while not necessarily a belief-system, is a system itself.

Therefore I argue that if we adhere to the referent being one and the same for both terms, we can make progress in discussing these.

Like i said before, this kind of stuff happens when the religious people don't follow their religious basis. One of the christian bases is that one should not kill another human being without specific permission from God

We have to keep in mind, that any and every belief-system has a beginning. Therefore, in that any adherents of that first group add to, diverge from or alter in any way, the tenets of the very original group, we can well say that they no longer follow the original basis. To that degree and in that way, what you have highlighted about original Christianity, as best can be seen, is correct.

However, once a system has changed, or is different in any way from a root group and its practices and specific tenets, it has become a group in its own rights. If the tenets are even different now, we can not say that the group is illigitimate in and of itself alone, but can only assert that there are two slightly distinct systems.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

And, we mustn't forget that nature itself, while not necessarily a belief-system, is a system itself.

Many people in america disagree with your sub-ordinate clause (while...). That's why there is such a big debate about the theory of evolution. If that group is right, evolution should not be taught in schools (which is seen by those people [not all of which are christian] as shoving evolution down in their throats).

We have to keep in mind, that any and every belief-system has a beginning. Therefore, in that any adherents of that first group add to, diverge from or alter in any way, the tenets of the very original group, we can well say that they no longer follow the original basis. To that degree and in that way, what you have highlighted about original Christianity, as best can be seen, is correct.

Therefor, the many churches and sects of the many religions would be religions by themselves, with the original name being as a catagorization of them.

However, once a system has changed, or is different in any way from a root group and its practices and specific tenets, it has become a group in its own rights. If the tenets are even different now, we can not say that the group is illigitimate in and of itself alone, but can only assert that there are two slightly distinct systems.

I agree with this as well. Which is one of my bigger arguments when arguing with people about my religion. Many people slander christianity in general over the actions of a particular church. When it comes to mass killings, usually the puritains or roman catholics are looked at. When it comes to harassment to join a religion, the Jahova's witnesses are looked at. But, we seldom hear of The Salvation Army doing good. Other christian churches often donate to charity organizations as well, though mostly local charities which never get money otherwise because people always want to jump out of the sandbox before cleaning up their toys.

This is only an example of christianity. Imagin all the other religions out there and how many sects they may have. Notice that everyone defines these all by their base name, and if we're lucky, they'll define us by branches in our religion or distinct sects of a religion. The sects that are constantly striving to get back to the origins of the religion without all the fluff (culturally added things which aren't even in the basis of the religion but are believed to be[ex: 72 virgins in Islam isn't in the Quran]) never get any credit for being peaceful, kind, trustworthy, and even worthy of admiration.

It's the lazyness of people that allows this sort of fluff to enter, and when too much fluff enters, you end up with radicalism and strong deviation from the religion. with a very small group of terrorists (since they fight the way they do because of their small numbers), islam gets the whole blame. It's even an area known for radical conservatism (facism) and right there you find that a whole religion gets condemned because of a number of small groups. I'm glad i'm not islamic. If i was i'd receive more ugly slander than i do now.

 

[Mars Man]

Many people in america disagree with your sub-ordinate clause (while...).

Could you please expound, if you happen to have the information, exactly how it is that many people argue that nature is a belief-system, in accordance with our present definition by usage on this thread?

I think it would prove quite useful to have that point cleared up. I think that other points you have raise, will be looked at in time...and more regarding them can be seen then. I would only point out here and now, however, that it will very likely be found that we should look at a lot of matters related to the various belief-systems and their tenets. That will take some time, indeed.

I am quite certain that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible altogether, to 'get back to the origins' of a system, to the same degree that it would be to divorce any system from the chrono-cultural elements that glued it together in the first place.

 

[Half-n-Half]

But too many things are left un-covered. Abortion, gay marriage, and many, many issues are still left uncovered. Many religions have indirectly covered those topics pretty well.

They are left out because they are issues people cannot easily resolve. The cases on both sides of these issues are equally strong. Different religions have different views on these issues as well. To make it international would inevitably be imposing your beliefs on others and would anger many people. Are you sure you are not trying to push pseudo-Christian laws instead of just pseudo-religious ones?

Like i said before, this kind of stuff happens when the religious people don't follow their religious basis.

So why would those same people be any more likely to follow pseudo-religious laws? Or more importantly, atheists and agnostics? Most people do follow these pseudo-religious laws as you call it, them already being in our society. You want to add more laws concerning abortion, gay marriage, etc. Am I correct?

Though, i must ask you how you know those things are wrong if the origin of those values are religion?

Very true. Many of the things I know to be right and wrong are described in the Bible and other religions. However, like I posted later, It is also a possible result of the Social Contract Theory.

And do you have any examples of a non-guided civilization where productivity has been made to finalize your point? Otherwise, your argument against my statement is lacking.

Obviously not, as civilizations have some form of government. Very well, I accept your statement that the argument is lacking since it cannot be proven or disproven.

I am aiming towards something international, anyway. The bill of rights only applies to America.

Many countries, however, have emulated our Constitution. Many of the first world countries have something very similar to our Bill of Rights.

I can make a point out of it, because i'm assuming you believe them.
Now comes a list of questions such as, "when did man realize this was needed" and "what was it like before then?"

Fair enough. Man probably realized this need sometime around when the earliest civilizations popped up, most likely being the Mesopotamians. Before then man traveled in groups. It was a necessity that man worked together to survive, much like today you see monkeys working together and living in communities. I'm assuming you don't believe in evolution, however, so you could also make an example out of lions and wolves hunting in packs.

Does not directly lead to it, but increases the potential. What i'm trying to say here, is that an athiest did indeed do large crimes against a group of people, which contradicted the quoted argument accompanied by that argument you quoted. A common argument for atheism is that only religious groups commit genocide, when in all reality we have a perfect example like Stalin. If more atheists had control, we may have a few more examples than the ones we have now, just as the many christian leaders gave us examples. There weren't many atheist leaders to compare to, but we do happen to have stalin to look at.

I fail to see your logic. Stalin was an atheist, and did commit mass murder to his own people. BUT, I fail to see how atheist = higher chance of genocidal rulers. It would be like me saying Christians have caused the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials, therefore Christian = higher chance of genocidal rulers. It just doesn't add up.

Surely not. I mearly say that it hightens the possibility rate. People need a guidance, if there is no guidance what do we do? Laws are simple forms of guidance. What would happen if we removed all laws? Removing religion is the same thing, only religion is a more complicated system of laws.

But you just said it in the first portion of the above paragraph. Laws are a form of guidance. The laws, as you put it, are based off of religion. Agnostics and Atheists follow (or most do) these laws as much as a Christian does. Therefore, how would an Atheist or Agnostic be more likely to cause violence, crime, and genocide if he is indirectly following these religious principles?

 

[Goldiegirl]

Keep religion out of the government and keep the government out of religion, maybe then there could be peace, and for the rest, mind your own business....

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Could you please expound, if you happen to have the information, exactly how it is that many people argue that nature is a belief-system, in accordance with our present definition by usage on this thread?

To be quite honest, i don't think a study has ever been done. I couldn't even give you an esimate. It could be anywhere from 1% to 99%. But i do know alot of people who agree. Though i'm curious on your deffinition of belief-system, but many religious people argue that anything being the opposit of all relgion would be one in itself... but that's still a paradox debated constantly.

I think it would prove quite useful to have that point cleared up. I think that other points you have raise, will be looked at in time...and more regarding them can be seen then. I would only point out here and now, however, that it will very likely be found that we should look at a lot of matters related to the various belief-systems and their tenets. That will take some time, indeed.

Indeed.

I am quite certain that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible altogether, to 'get back to the origins' of a system, to the same degree that it would be to divorce any system from the chrono-cultural elements that glued it together in the first place.

Especially in christianity due to words being passed on by mouth before scribes got to it down on paper, and many forgeries occured, but i have discussed on another forum for a long time on the likelyhood that any forgeries are in the bible today or true doctrines being left out. Conclusion was interesting, to say the least. We never did find out the likelyhood, but along the way we made many other interesting discoveries, including why Jesus was assigned the second most important pagen holiday of the year.

Anyway, Christianity, for example, planned on preserving through Jesus. Jesus was to live a simple life that all christians are to follow as closely as possible, to act like him whenever possible.

They are left out because they are issues people cannot easily resolve. The cases on both sides of these issues are equally strong. Different religions have different views on these issues as well. To make it international would inevitably be imposing your beliefs on others and would anger many people. Are you sure you are not trying to push pseudo-Christian laws instead of just pseudo-religious ones?

I am saying that the laws should be made taking all religions in mind, but heavily based on the strictest religion, which i doubt is christianity (i think it would be Islam, actually). The idea would hopefully promote respect for everyone without fear of offending some one's religion. There are 2 ways of doing this, getting rid of religion all together, or you can do what i'm suggesting, make rules that respect all religions, that way no one can offend a religion with a change if those rules don't change, right?

So why would those same people be any more likely to follow pseudo-religious laws? Or more importantly, atheists and agnostics? Most people do follow these pseudo-religious laws as you call it, them already being in our society. You want to add more laws concerning abortion, gay marriage, etc. Am I correct?

We don't, actually. We have the pseudo-religious laws of politcal correctness and such, but they vary by opinion. We need something in black and white, and we need it to cover more things such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. Gay marriage would probably be the hardest to come up with a solution for, but someting like Abortion is offencive to many religions, but i don't see the lack of abortion being offencive to any religion. To protect all religious values, abortion would have to be abolished with specific exceptions (mother dies if child born issue would vary per religion).

Very true. Many of the things I know to be right and wrong are described in the Bible and other religions. However, like I posted later, It is also a possible result of the Social Contract Theory.

My point is, that one must learn it from some where, and that we all need something in black and white instead of a bunch of fancy opinions about what is too strict. Doing that'll only end up in anarchy (because humans naturally try to have less rules against them).

Many countries, however, have emulated our Constitution. Many of the first world countries have something very similar to our Bill of Rights.

Keyword: modeled.

We need something in black and white that we can all respect and go on. Not always is opinions a good thing, especially cause it could cause gradual decay. It can cause gradual increase in quality, but it could cause decay as well, and which way it'll go is a matter of opinion.

Fair enough. Man probably realized this need sometime around when the earliest civilizations popped up, most likely being the Mesopotamians. Before then man traveled in groups. It was a necessity that man worked together to survive, much like today you see monkeys working together and living in communities. I'm assuming you don't believe in evolution, however, so you could also make an example out of lions and wolves hunting in packs.

Hardly orderly... Then agian, that's the way animals are.

I fail to see your logic. Stalin was an atheist, and did commit mass murder to his own people. BUT, I fail to see how atheist = higher chance of genocidal rulers. It would be like me saying Christians have caused the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials, therefore Christian = higher chance of genocidal rulers. It just doesn't add up.

I was responding to the argument that only religous people perform mass murders and heinous events. My example of stalin was to show otherwise. I have "the lack of a specific basis to go on" to back up my argument that atheists have higher potential, though it's only theory until we have more atheists in charge.

But you just said it in the first portion of the above paragraph. Laws are a form of guidance. The laws, as you put it, are based off of religion. Agnostics and Atheists follow (or most do) these laws as much as a Christian does. Therefore, how would an Atheist or Agnostic be more likely to cause violence, crime, and genocide if he is indirectly following these religious principles?

The laws today aren't nearly as specific and self-contouring to any situation as religous doctrines. For example, we have legislators for a reason, while religious texts are seldom to never amended.

Keep religion out of the government and keep the government out of religion, maybe then there could be peace, and for the rest, mind your own business....

That is impossible.

 

[Goldiegirl]

Nothing is impossible, I would say more likely improbable.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Government revolves around values, values often are affected and reflect religious values. Government needs to define lots of things, each of which are decided based on values (that's why we have them).

 

[Goldiegirl]

Even if there was never a religious belief system, humans would have come up with law and order. Animals don't have religion and yet those that live in groups do have behave in a "correct" manner. They have rules and regulations. So I don't buy the whole because of religion there is government. Sorry it's just not so.

A little tale of law and order. I had a lovely Irish sport horse colt who had decided to be a bully. He was always kept in a private pen. I had him put in with the whole herd and with a few swift kicks from the head mare, he changed his naughty ways and soon learned how to behave in a herd. The best teachers were other horses, not me. No religion involved.....

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

Even if there was never a religious belief system, humans would have come up with law and order. Animals don't have religion and yet those that live in groups do have behave in a "correct" manner. They have rules and regulations. So I don't buy the whole because of religion there is government. Sorry it's just not so.

That's only in theory. Humans are notorious for incapability of originality. Aside from fearing a leader and a handful of sounds by birds to tell other birds to run away, i don't really recall an intricate government system at work in the animal world.

A little tale of law and order. I had a lovely Irish sport horse colt who had decided to be a bully. He was always kept in a private pen. I had hin put in with the whole herd and with a few swift kicks from the head mare, he changed his naughty ways and soon learned how to behave in a herd. The best teachers were other horses, not me. No religion involved.....

And when the head mare died, or is it still alive?

 

[Goldiegirl]

The head mare is still alive and kicking....when she goes a new mare will be the head. The same is true for elephants too, they have a top matriarch and when she dies usually one of her daughters replaces her.

So your only argument that humans would be less orderly than animals is that we are "un-original". That has to be the lamest excuse for an answer. Remember this, humans are animals, no better, no worse.

 

[Mars Man]

I will get back here and touch on some points. In the meantime, please do excuse this one, somewhat off-topic announcement. I have merged posts which are all related to this general theme, from the thread upon which the theme had first kind of arisen--namely the 'Why Do You Believe or Not Believe In god' thread.

I strongly suggest that everyone go back and carefully re-read the whole flow in order to get a full mental picture of the terms and parameters of what is under discussion here. It can be, based on the title of the thread, a fairly wide breadth of an area to discuss, actually.

I will get back. I like the way you are showing nature for what it is, there, Goldiegirl, just as I have been doing on so many other subjects...we are as animal as any animal, and as much under natural workings and any animal...only, in the continuum, we have noticeably larger brains...that's all...only that !!

 

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

At school we learnt that we belong to the group of mammals. A group that has improved its mind, but not always in the right direction.
Like all mammals we also have al sixth sense, but most of us have forgotten how to use it.

I fully agree with you Mars Man, we have lager brains, but that's all.

 

[iwuvvleskaylee]

The head mare is still alive and kicking....when she goes a new mare will be the head. The same is true for elephants too, they have a top matriarch and when she dies usually one of her daughters replaces her.

When the fear is gone, the animal should revert back to it's old ways like a human would, right, or would it cling to the idea that if it fights it gets beat? Humans change only for fear. Somtimes it's more than one fear, and that one fear is usually not getting what one wants. we see this alot in relationships; The drink who quit and is back at the bar when married or arguing, the cheater who has gotten bored lost fear of not getting the kind of treatment (usually sex) that he or she desired, the converted from one religion to another (or lackof there in for either) lasts as long as their pleasure with the person is larger than the homesicknes, and other things are clear examples. Then questions the motivation (and many other factors) of the horse...

So your only argument that humans would be less orderly than animals is that we are "un-original". That has to be the lamest excuse for an answer. Remember this, humans are animals, no better, no worse.

Surely, but it's only a peice. A brick in the wall. May i show you the bigger brick that people, especially in america, are asking for more rights from the government. That shows that people are striving to be less orderly, since rights are provisions against sufferings and punishments (for not following a law or ideal). Also, i point out that humans are mostly lazy, and only look outfor their own personal gain. That's not orderly at all. I have yet to hear of a selfish animal in a group of animals that normally function as a whole, aside from your horse.

At school we learnt that we belong to the group of mammals. A group that has improv ed its mind, but not always in the right direction.

That's something to think about. Especially the second sentance. If that isn't a reason to come up with black and white rules internationally, i don't know what is. I'm surprised not many have jumped on the band wagon. I usually find people quite willing towards a world government, which this idea would be a step toward (though i myself feel that a world government would only lead us a step closer to another holocaust).

Like all mammals we also have al sixth sense, but most of us have forgotten how to use it.

I've noticed that we do use it, but we choose to ignore it most of the time. Due to this, it could have become weakened in many individuals. Surely, though, i'm not referring to psychics (though i do have my own theory on psychics involving the 6th sense, but that's for another topic), but i do believe that people can feel something different in a situation without using their other senses. I believe it sometimes goes out of wack too, just like our other senses sometimes fail uswhen we're nervous, and in turn we'll feel some one watching us.

Like all mammals we also have al sixth sense, but most of us have forgotten how to use it.

I believe that science has not discovered a few things about humans, and i don't mean just souls. Some things that would make us unique to animals, but not in intellegence in any way. Sometimes i find that some animals are more intellegent than us, though which animals may actually surprise you.

 

[MadamePapillon]

When the fear is gone, the animal should revert back to it's old ways like a human would, right, or would it cling to the idea that if it fights it gets beat? Humans change only for fear. Somtimes it's more than one fear, and that one fear is usually not getting what one wants.

The world you are suggesting sounds very grim. Without fear humans would automatically revert to their most primal instincts and cause havoc so to keep us all in our place we need to be kept in line with an iron fist? Is that what you are suggesting?
This is just not true. In fact, it is well shown that peoples who live in fear create a less orderly and happy society than those who live in safety and comfort. Fear only serves to cause tension and resentment and builds a system in which those who deliver punishment and those who receive punishment are no longer equal. Do you think such a thing as democracy or freedom of speech can exist in a world like that?

We need something in black and white, and we need it to cover more things such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. Gay marriage would probably be the hardest to come up with a solution for, but someting like Abortion is offencive to many religions, but i don't see the lack of abortion being offencive to any religion. To protect all religious values, abortion would have to be abolished with specific exceptions (mother dies if child born issue would vary per religion).

How about lack of abortion being offensive to those women who would benefit from it? That is already covered on another thread but my point is, you can't simply have one rule book that the whole world is going to accept and follow. If only the world were that simple.
And you say to protect all religious values, what of those who aren't religious?

May i show you the bigger brick that people, especially in america, are asking for more rights from the government. That shows that people are striving to be less orderly, since rights are provisions against sufferings and punishments (for not following a law or ideal). Also, i point out that humans are mostly lazy, and only look outfor their own personal gain.

How is asking for rights asking for the right to be disorderly? Where is this logic coming from?
Are those people who don't have the right to freedom of speech or freedom of press any less orderly that those who do have these rights?
Once again, those who live in a hard ruled society without the right to protest or ask for more rights are far more likely to be disruptive and disorderly than those who live in liberal, democratic places.

Take Middle Eastern countries, they are some of the strictest places in the world, the people are ruled under strict guidelines and those who break the rules are severely punished...are Middle Eatern countries more orderly and peaceful than countries like Canada, the UK or the US? No, quite the opposite.

So your argument is basically null. Living in a strict, black and white, religion ruled country is more likely to cause harm than good. Living in a liberal, democratic country that takes fundamental moral values and turns them into laws...that seems to work far better.

 

[Goldiegirl]

Don't worry about my soul and I won't worry about yours. I promise you this I don't think of your religion/belief, so please don't worry yourself about mine or my lack thereof. What a peaceful world it could be....