Jim Cornette on religion

[brewer]

I don't believe it was due to eliminating the magical fantasy belief (which did not happen) but the result of intentional acts to consolidate power and control. 

And what of the "god" controlled regimes now?

[Huggy Bear]

Ahh, but you could make the same argument of religion. What other reason would there be for making the translation of the bible into the language of the masses illegal?

[brewer]

Ahh, but you could make the same argument of religion. What other reason would there be for making the translation of the bible into the language of the masses illegal?

What's your point in relation to the communist killings? I'll agree that the attempt to eliminate religion was an attempt at control. 

They were not killing for to create "non religion", or at least that was not the primary reason. Using eliminating religion under "Russian communism" or "communist regimes" as the primary reason for the mass killings is uninformed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killi...troversies

[Mister Agenda]

Obviously getting rid of religion isn't the answer.

It's certainly not a magic wand that will end all strife. Just one source of strife.

[Whateverist]

Except the regimes that did exactly that were worse off...

Makes me think of the video Jorgy recently posted about the five varieties of moral values.  

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

Haidt's five moral dimensions as they relate to liberals and conservatives.

From his TED video, Haidt’s five foundations of morality follow.

1. Care/harm. We’ve evolved to feel (and dislike) pain. This isn’t just true for ourselves; we also sense and dislike pain in others. From this comes kindness, nurturing, empathy, and so on.

2. Fairness/reciprocity. This is related to reciprocal altruism. From this foundation comes justice, rights, autonomy, and the Golden Rule.

3. Ingroup/loyalty. We have a long history as tribal creatures able to adapt to shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies patriotism, selflessness, and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s one for all, and all for one.

4. Authority/respect. As primates, we understand hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies the virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5. Purity/sanctity. This is shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. Being repulsed by things that look or smell bad can keep us from eating unsafe food. It also underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, and more noble way.

Haidt theorizes that the rise of civilization may have needed all five of the morality categories.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...al-issues/

---

Everyone embraces care/harm and fairness/reciprocity but the part of the population characterized as "conservative" also embrace in-group/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity. This really rings true for me. While the latter three seem extraneous to the notion of morality to me (a liberal) they aren't at all to conservatives. In this light, Huggy's point might be seen as how do you know that everyone can make do morally without religion? Isn't it naive to think that everyone is just the same in light of all the evidence to the contrary? The fellow in Jorg's video thinks that religion is important for conservatives. Just because those values aren't mine doesn't mean they aren't just as important to conservatives as care/harm and fairness/reciprocity are to liberals like myself. Who are we to think they should be more like us. Do they really have that choice?

[brewer]

Would it work, I wonder? If we all just told them their God was the greatest and that they have won?

I suppose they'd still kill each other over the best way to worship it.

A pro wrestler not suggesting a cage death match? God vs God on pay per view. He might be a tad off his nut.

[Whateverist]

Would it work, I wonder? If we all just told them their God was the greatest and that they have won?

I suppose they'd still kill each other over the best way to worship it.

A pro wrestler not suggesting a cage death match? God vs God on pay per view. He might be a tad off his nut.

I'd pay good money to see Jesus vs Thor.  "Smack-down" takes on a whole other meaning when delivered with a hammer.

[brewer]

Except the regimes that did exactly that were worse off...

Makes me think of the video Jorgy recently posted about the five varieties of moral values.  

---

Haidt's five moral dimensions as they relate to liberals and conservatives.

---

Everyone embraces care/harm and fairness/reciprocity but the part of the population characterized as "conservative" also embrace in-group/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity.  This really rings true for me.  While the latter three seem extraneous to the notion of morality to me (a liberal) they aren't at all to conservatives.  In this light, Huggy's point might be seen as how do you know that everyone can make do morally without religion?  Isn't it naive to think that everyone is just the same in light of all the evidence to the contrary?  The fellow in Jorg's video thinks that religion is important for conservatives.  Just because those values aren't mine doesn't mean they aren't just as important to conservatives as care/harm and fairness/reciprocity are to liberals like myself.  Who are we to think they should be more like us.  Do they really have that choice?

Define conservative. We (me/I) are not all one thing or the other.

[purplepurpose]

I think, main reason for war is economy. And the reason why people are willing to kill to lead a luxury lifestyle is savagery, which not so long ago was mundane for people. Compassion is bitter like poison and savagery is a very easy method to get what you want.

[Whateverist]

Makes me think of the video Jorgy recently posted about the five varieties of moral values.  

---

---

Everyone embraces care/harm and fairness/reciprocity but the part of the population characterized as "conservative" also embrace in-group/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity.  This really rings true for me.  While the latter three seem extraneous to the notion of morality to me (a liberal) they aren't at all to conservatives.  In this light, Huggy's point might be seen as how do you know that everyone can make do morally without religion?  Isn't it naive to think that everyone is just the same in light of all the evidence to the contrary?  The fellow in Jorg's video thinks that religion is important for conservatives.  Just because those values aren't mine doesn't mean they aren't just as important to conservatives as care/harm and fairness/reciprocity are to liberals like myself.  Who are we to think they should be more like us.  Do they really have that choice?

Define conservative. We (me/I) are not all one thing or the other.

According to the video you'd tend to rate higher on In-group/loyalty, Authority/respect and -if you weren't such a godless rebel- Purity/sanctity.  Of course, results can vary.  The phrase "guns and bibles" come to mind but I'm not at all sure you'd embrace either of those.  How about a general tendency to see the world as an unsafe place requiring vigilance and preparedness?  And of course a high regard for tradition writ large.  But that's just off the top of my head.  What would you say about it?