Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 23, 2019, 3:56 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
There are no "Religions of peace".....
#21
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
(March 17, 2019 at 11:58 am)Brian37 Wrote: Before anyone jumps on me, this isn't an attack on one single religion. Islam did not invent violence against others. Our species has always had competing groups worldwide who have gotten violent with each other.

There is no magical power to a belief. There also can be others whom hold the same core characters and holy writings to be true, but come to different conclusions to either justify empathy or compassion, or others use those same characters and writings to justify violence and call it self defense which is really fear of outsiders. That has been the case worldwide and not just monotheism, but worldwide.

There have been and always will be well intended peaceful non violent individuals worldwide in every religion. But that is not the religion itself doing it. That is our species inherent evolutionary ability to show compassion and empathy. If any one religion, or sub sect of, were a cure to stop violence, war and crime, one should expect to see a universal model the entire species could follow. But the truth is there is no nation in the world, friend or foe, that does not have hospitals or prisons.

I will always constantly remind everyone reading posts like this, I do think most humans are good, or at least want to do good and be non violent. I merely object to where my fellow humans think that ability is coming from. I say it is not in the writings of antiquity, but in the individual themselves, in our species evolution.

There are good people like Malala, but unfortunately there are evil people like Bin Laden. There are good people like Martin Luther King Jr and others unfortunately who murder people like him in the name of defending white Christianity. Some would argue the Dali Lama as being a non violent person, but you also have Buddhists in Myanmar murdering Muslims. 

And even with atheists. It is absolutely true that Stalin was an atheist. But he also convinced a nation of Russian Orthodox Christians to put him in power. I have absolutely nothing in common with that monster. 

Point is, and will always be, our actions as individuals, not old writings, not old mythology, not even the labels we assign ourselves have any real magic power to make the individual only do good, or always do bad. I know empathy when I see it. I know cruelty when I see it, and those things are not the result of anything divine being handed down to humanity.


There were religions of peace. But there aren’t any more. Such is the nature of any world where religion is allowed to flourish.
Reply
#22
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
Mine is a religion of peace, heretic!

Believe me or I'll kill you!
Sanity adjacent.


Angel





IMGUR 
Reply
#23
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
Yours is a religion of pieces, as in vivisection and dismemberment, not peace.  Smile
Reply
#24
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
(March 17, 2019 at 11:03 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Yours is a religion of pieces, as in vivisection and dismemberment, not peace.  Smile

Someone's a believer!
Sanity adjacent.


Angel





IMGUR 
Reply
#25
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
I don't have time to catch up on the three pages, but I'll give the OP a go

(March 17, 2019 at 11:58 am)Brian37 Wrote: ... But that is not the religion itself doing it. That is our species inherent evolutionary ability to show compassion and empathy. If any one religion, or sub sect of, were a cure to stop violence, war and crime, one should expect to see a universal model the entire species could follow. But the truth is there is no nation in the world, friend or foe, that does not have hospitals or prisons....
So A) religions are full of people that do stuff and should be responsible for the individual stuff they are doing and B) there are no religions of peace C) You conclude that while a vastly inferior minority of people in religion can show compassion and empathy, that people in general are empathetic and compassionate by evolution

That's about as far as I got before I decided to post. Why didn't you come to the realization that the common denominator in the "evil" you're setting up is people and that people (although we want them to be) do not show compassion and empathy naturally by evolution?

Quote:I will always constantly remind everyone reading posts like this, I do think most humans are good, or at least want to do good and be non violent. I merely object to where my fellow humans think that ability is coming from. I say it is not in the writings of antiquity, but in the individual themselves, in our species evolution.

There are good people like Malala, but unfortunately there are evil people like Bin Laden. There are good people like Martin Luther King Jr and others unfortunately who murder people like him in the name of defending white Christianity. Some would argue the Dali Lama as being a non violent person, but you also have Buddhists in Myanmar murdering Muslims. 

And even with atheists. It is absolutely true that Stalin was an atheist. But he also convinced a nation of Russian Orthodox Christians to put him in power. I have absolutely nothing in common with that monster.
If that place you think it's coming from is genetic evolution, you might be surprised how little genetic (read natural) difference there is between you and Stalin. I won't get into any other noted differences.

I do want most humans to be good, and they've shown vastly spectacular abilities to overcome their baser instincts and truly to do world wide good. The pragmatist in me will identify the same history of behaviors you're referring to above as reasons why that is unlikely.

Here's a novel idea I'll lay out for you, because you seem to advocate here for individual responsibilities and I believe we both feel morality is subjective with regard to responsibility.
1. World is full of people that create religions, structures, cultures, governments and definitions. They do this to feel in control their surroundings among other reasons.
2. Those governments, cultures and religions reflect the nature of the general set of "people" of that time when they've achieved what they wanted and let their guard down.
3. When people stop thinking or striving and just rest in those institutions it seems they turn violent, self-serving, corrupt and greedy.
4. Therefore we try and change/abolish the institutions which causes more violence and division because people are willing to kill to keep their piece of mind.

It applies to lots of things. People have a need for control and understanding. People also have a desire to be at peace with themselves and their world view. Once you achieve that equilibrium it's a fight to wrestles that away from them. Is there a better way?

Quote:Point is, and will always be, our actions as individuals, not old writings, not old mythology, not even the labels we assign ourselves have any real magic power to make the individual only do good, or always do bad. I know empathy when I see it. I know cruelty when I see it, and those things are not the result of anything divine being handed down to humanity.
This part I actually agree with every word of. I must be getting tired. night.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#26
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
(March 17, 2019 at 11:21 pm)tackattack Wrote: I don't have time to catch up on the three pages, but I'll give the OP a go

(March 17, 2019 at 11:58 am)Brian37 Wrote: ... But that is not the religion itself doing it. That is our species inherent evolutionary ability to show compassion and empathy. If any one religion, or sub sect of, were a cure to stop violence, war and crime, one should expect to see a universal model the entire species could follow. But the truth is there is no nation in the world, friend or foe, that does not have hospitals or prisons....
So A) religions are full of people that do stuff and should be responsible for the individual stuff they are doing and B) there are no religions of peace C) You conclude that while a vastly inferior minority of people in religion can show compassion and empathy, that people in general are empathetic and compassionate by evolution

That's about as far as I got before I decided to post. Why didn't you come to the realization that the common denominator in the "evil" you're setting up is people and that people (although we want them to be) do not show compassion and empathy naturally by evolution?

Quote:I will always constantly remind everyone reading posts like this, I do think most humans are good, or at least want to do good and be non violent. I merely object to where my fellow humans think that ability is coming from. I say it is not in the writings of antiquity, but in the individual themselves, in our species evolution.

There are good people like Malala, but unfortunately there are evil people like Bin Laden. There are good people like Martin Luther King Jr and others unfortunately who murder people like him in the name of defending white Christianity. Some would argue the Dali Lama as being a non violent person, but you also have Buddhists in Myanmar murdering Muslims. 

And even with atheists. It is absolutely true that Stalin was an atheist. But he also convinced a nation of Russian Orthodox Christians to put him in power. I have absolutely nothing in common with that monster.
If that place you think it's coming from is genetic evolution, you might be surprised how little genetic (read natural) difference there is between you and Stalin. I won't get into any other noted differences.

I do want most humans to be good, and they've shown vastly spectacular abilities to overcome their baser instincts and truly to do world wide good. The pragmatist in me will identify the same history of behaviors you're referring to above as reasons why that is unlikely.

Here's a novel idea I'll lay out for you, because you seem to advocate here for individual responsibilities and I believe we both feel morality is subjective with regard to responsibility.
1. World is full of people that create religions, structures, cultures, governments and definitions. They do this to feel in control their surroundings among other reasons.
2. Those governments, cultures and religions reflect the nature of the general set of "people" of that time when they've achieved what they wanted and let their guard down.
3. When people stop thinking or striving and just rest in those institutions it seems they turn violent, self-serving, corrupt and greedy.
4. Therefore we try and change/abolish the institutions which causes more violence and division because people are willing to kill to keep their piece of mind.

It applies to lots of things. People have a need for control and understanding. People also have a desire to be at peace with themselves and their world view. Once you achieve that equilibrium it's a fight to wrestles that away from them. Is there a better way?

Quote:Point is, and will always be, our actions as individuals, not old writings, not old mythology, not even the labels we assign ourselves have any real magic power to make the individual only do good, or always do bad. I know empathy when I see it. I know cruelty when I see it, and those things are not the result of anything divine being handed down to humanity.
This part I actually agree with every word of. I must be getting tired. night.

Hate to tell you this, but you are also related to Stalin. Both friend and foe alike are still the same species. You don't define good and bad on a label, you base good and bad on observable actions, and humans have always had good individuals and monsters withing our species.

There is no magic to life, there certainly is good in life, but no magic, no super natural cognition using the neurons in our brains as poker chips. We are not toys, we are not lab rats, we are not pawns or props in a cosmic stage play. We are one species.. We do judge individuals actions, and we know harm when we see it. Stalin was a monster, but there was no devil making him magically do it. 

I am sorry if that is not sexy enough for you.
Reply
#27
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
No worries, it's damn sexy. I know I'm probably related to Stalin in some ways. I didn't make the claim I was nothing like him. I do base my personal morality judgements of others on observable action. I also base them my understanding of said magic book. I also base them on circumstance, societal norms, laws and a few other things.

My overarching point being that your assertion that humanity as a whole has a tendency for compassion and good is askew. While I agree there's the ability for that, I don't believe the drive is from the same place you do, nor headed in the same trajectory.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#28
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
I find the claim that "humans would be just as terrible without religion" to be completely baseless speculation.

That being said, there are some peaceful religions. Just not usually the ones that people think of when they hear the word religion. Boru's list (still not sure why that guy thinks he needs to sign his posts LMFAO) was pretty good, though maybe not complete. However, when most people think of "religion," they probably first think of their own religion, and then Christianity, Islam and Judaism, maybe Buddhism... etc.

That being said, I don't think the statement, "There are no religions of peace" is accurate by any means. There are some peaceful religions, they're just usually not very popular ones.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion
Reply
#29
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
" Contrary to common belief, there is not a significant correlation between levels of religious belief and peace with an r=0.14." - in a 2013 study
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/...Report.pdf

However Religion did play at least some part in a majority of the conflicts cited. Although, that could also be because the majority of the populous at the time (@75%) held religious beliefs. People tend to bring their baggage along with them wherever they go. I'm just claiming it's far more likely that the evil is in humanity not in the institution. I'm not really for religiosity, per say, because frankly it breeds lazy people and can lead to social bulwarks that are anti-theocratic.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#30
RE: There are no "Religions of peace".....
My earlier harsh comments aside, I think there's some confusion between 'religions of peace' and 'peaceful religionists.'  Take Jainism as a hypothetical example.  Jainism is pretty explicit in its rejection of all forms of violence - you must not kill anyone, nor must you cause another person to kill someone, either directly or indirectly.  Your motivation for violence doesn't matter - if you commit an act of violence deliberately or through carelessness, you have damaged your soul.

Now, imagine that a self-described Jain (for whatever reason), goes out one day and beats twelve people to death with a steel dildo.  He has committed acts of violence, no possible question about it.  But his actions don't change the fundamental Jain tenet against all forms of violence.  What you've got is a bad Jain, but his actions don't alter the fact that  Jainism is STILL a 'religion of peace'. 

Boru
'A man is accepted into a church for what he believes.  He is turned out for what he knows.' - Mark Twain
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)