Jump to content
Science Forums

The Truth Concerning Our Ignorance


Hans Bjelke

Recommended Posts

That's exactly what we are being. One peculiar feature our species evolved is an impelling need to believe in something, even in lack of factual support. Religions are just the most common kind of thing folks believe in.

 

Hmmm!! <_< That would hold true if everyone was religious - but not everyone is - certain people seem more inclined to it!

 

Too, there's spirituality and then there's religion - the two are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have observed on this forum and others that those who distrust, dislike and even despise religion have a very particular vision of what religion is. I propose that in most instances this vision represents only a sub-set of religion and as such the distrust is incorrectly applied to religion as a whole.

 

In this specific instance while some aspects of religion may promote ignorance the original intent of religion, as a whole, was to dispel ignorance, while providing a cohesive social framework. So I would fundamentally disagree with your statement.

 

Do you mean dispel ignorance in a pre-reformation sense (the Bible was written in Latin so that only the clergy could read it)? Or do you mean dispel ignorance by burning people at the stake for non-compliance of religious rule? Or, and more recently, do you mean dispel ignorance by the non-sanction of condom use so that much of Africa is devastated by an Aids pandemic - or the rape of innocents by trusted priests!! And that's only one religion...don't get me started on Islam and Evangelicals!

 

Religion is a political structure: it's a top-on-down hierarchical order that creates elitism. The denial of it produces hypocrisy [what I earlier referred to as pathological lying (it's not wrong to be political - it is wrong to be so but pretend that your supposed benevolence is a pretense for climbing the corporate ladder!]. It does not fit the mandates: "do not do your good works before men to be commended by them" - or - "call no man Father, master, Rabbi (etc.)"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would hold true if everyone was religious
Er, no, it would hold if everybody believed in something.

 

(the Bible was written in Latin so that only the clergy could read it)
This is absolutely false, first because the Bible wasn't written in Latin and, second, when a Latin translation of it was completed everybody in the neighborhood spoke Latin. That indeed is why the translation was called the Vulgate.

 

Or do you mean dispel ignorance by burning people at the stake for non-compliance of religious rule?
Seeing as you're in such a hair-splitting mood, it was the Holy Roman Empire that did this and it continued as long as the Vatican was useful as an instrument of state power.

 

Religion is a political structure: it's a top-on-down hierarchical order that creates elitism.
Not all religions are so, at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean dispel ignorance in a pre-reformation sense (the Bible was written in Latin so that only the clergy could read it)? Or do you mean dispel ignorance by burning people at the stake for non-compliance of religious rule? Or, and more recently, do you mean dispel ignorance by the non-sanction of condom use so that much of Africa is devastated by an Aids pandemic - or the rape of innocents by trusted priests!! And that's only one religion...don't get me started on Islam and Evangelicals!

For someone who seems so opposed to politics you have a refined knack for embedding a political agenda at the heart of your response.

 

Religion is one of the ways humans 'go about their business'. As such it is prone to corruption, abuse, paternalism and misapplication because of the weaknesses of individual humans. To single out examples of these and claim that they represent a failing of the system (religion, politics, philosophy, education, etc) is illogical.

 

The ignorance that religion sought to dispel was, in part, anti-social behaviour. It attempted to provide a cohesive network of laws and expectations that would enable a society to function to the benefit of its members, constraining selfish acts on the part of individuals. The success of the process is reflected part by our ability to coexist in vast conurbations when we evolved to live in tribes of around one hundred persons. Religion arguably played a major role in that process, until recently.

 

Elitism is not a product of religion as you seem to be claiming, but an inherent characteristic of humanity that is reinforced by cultural mores. Religion uses the tools that are available to it, just as political structures and business organisations do. Do you condemn charities because they have a polticial structure and an organisational heirarchy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone who seems so opposed to politics you have a refined knack for embedding a political agenda at the heart of your response.

 

I'm not at all opposed to politics, which is a necessary evil in this world. I'm opposed to calling politics Biblical!

 

Religion is one of the ways humans 'go about their business'. As such it is prone to corruption, abuse, paternalism and misapplication because of the weaknesses of individual humans. To single out examples of these and claim that they represent a failing of the system (religion, politics, philosophy, education, etc) is illogical.

 

The ignorance that religion sought to dispel was, in part, anti-social behaviour. It attempted to provide a cohesive network of laws and expectations that would enable a society to function to the benefit of its members, constraining selfish acts on the part of individuals. The success of the process is reflected part by our ability to coexist in vast conurbations when we evolved to live in tribes of around one hundred persons. Religion arguably played a major role in that process, until recently.

 

Elitism is not a product of religion as you seem to be claiming, but an inherent characteristic of humanity that is reinforced by cultural mores. Religion uses the tools that are available to it, just as political structures and business organisations do. Do you condemn charities because they have a polticial structure and an organisational heirarchy?

 

I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't intend it that way. I was merely trying to point out that certain conditions will produce certain behaviour in people whether you're religious or not.

 

As a consequence of personally witnessing church behaviour for a long time I came to the conclusion that church structure is inherently political. It encourages people to act for the purpose of advancement (though the motives are often subconscious), which often causes hypocritical behaviour like that of Han's father.

 

It's not that I think that people are inherently wrong; we are what we are. We are however, animal (survival of the fittest) and that means that political situations will encourage our political side. Again however, it's not the Biblical model as I already quoted, "call no man Father, master, Rabbi".

 

I think charities are great, but why is it that very often it's church people that are doing it? Why can't we do a good deed for the sake of the deed itself - why does it have to be church sanctioned to be considered truly good?

 

We simply don't have a natural bent that way (the selfish gene) therefore, I must conclude it's specifically a result of church teaching and not natural to our species. I don't mean that we're incapable of caring but our caring is usually more self-centered and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And again, it's not the Biblical model: "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" - or - "do not do your good works before men to be commended by them".

 

Don't get me wrong though, when it comes to helping starving kids, they would hardly care about the motive behind the help! But it's all hypocritical isn't it? On one hand the Catholic church (it could be any church it's just that this one has been around the longest and had the most time to make the most mistakes) provides for the needy and on the other creates more problems for them (by a hierarchal decision to ban the use of condoms, which caused Aids to became a Pandemic in Africa)!! To be truly benevolent RC church funds would have been better spent were they initially funneled into finding a cure for Aids.

 

It's not the people that are wrong but church structure is faulty - as you said, "it's prone to corruption". The reason it's prone to corruption is because it's not the Biblical model as a benevolent God would not put people into such situations knowing it would compromise their behaviour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dduckwessel, you are really not demonstrating that the problems are due to religion instead of the people, in fact your points even tend to go somewhat the opposite way.

 

Hmmm...I'm not sure how to go about this...

 

Does it help if I say that due to its hierarchical structure, religion is no different from a corporate entity [a benevolent (at times) dictatorship]. Whereas, the Biblical model of rule is a democratic one.

 

The Vatican is a prime example of a benevolent dictatorship in action; lots of politics. In religious circles however, it's not acceptable to be ruthlessly ambitious, so people have to hide their true motives, which produces hypocrisy. Any man that rises to the Papacy however, is a highly ambitious individual, he must be in order to reach the top!

 

I do not mean that it's wrong to be ambitious or that religion is all wrong. Religion serves an important role in society (who would officiate weddings and funerals?).

 

The point I was trying to make is that Bible-based religions are not the Biblical model because they are no different from the way the rest of the world conducts its business.

 

Regarding present Bible-based religions, a political system causes 'survival of the fittest' behaviour. We are animal and where there are positions to rise to, we will compete, it's the way we are built. If (as the Biblical model) there are no positions, there's no need to compete. How can a person fufill the Biblical mandate to 'love your neighbor' if they have to stomp on another (no matter how nicely that's done) to get that promotion?

 

Does this help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion serves an important role in society (who would officiate weddings and funerals?).
The mayor? The ship's captain?

 

Does this help?
Really dduck, all your points are saying that the largest Christian churches are organized much like politics or enterprise and this is no novelty, neither has anyone here been denying it. Essentially, you are saying it isn't religion per se that at fault. I don't get what your disagreement is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mayor? The ship's captain?

 

I just can't picture the mayor being that helpful at consoling grieving family members after the loss of a loved one!!

 

 

Really dduck, all your points are saying that the largest Christian churches are organized much like politics or enterprise and this is no novelty, neither has anyone here been denying it. Essentially, you are saying it isn't religion per se that at fault. I don't get what your disagreement is.

 

I said right from the beginning that the problem I had is that Bible-based religion claims to be God's spokeperson but their very structure is a political one, but that is not the Biblical model: "the gentiles lord it over their people but it must not be so among you".

 

At the same time I said that because churches are really political in nature, I have witnessed that it brings out the worst in people, not the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't intend it that way. I was merely trying to point out that certain conditions will produce certain behaviour in people whether you're religious or not

I am at a loss as to why you think you have offended me. You haven't. I just think you are mistaken in your belief that religion promotes ignorance and in your condemnation of political systems.

 

I'm not at all opposed to politics, which is a necessary evil in this world. I'm opposed to calling politics Biblical!

No one here has called politics Biblical. It is not a claim I have ever heard before. I understand what you are saying, but you certainly have not made a convincing case for your assertion that the Bible favours democracy (a political concept by the way) over heirarchical structures. Here is a smattering of evidence for the favouring of heirarchical structures in the Bible. A detailed and knowledegable search would reveal many more.

 

1 Chronicles Chapter 13 verse 27: And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, [and] with every leader

 

Psalm 68 verse 27 There [is] little Benjamin [with] their ruler, the princes of Judah [and] their council, the princes of Zebulun, [and] the princes of Naphtali.

 

John Chapter 11 verse 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

 

1 corinthians Chapter 12 verses 4 - 12

 

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:"

 

1 Corinthians Chapter 12 verse 28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

 

I suppose at the root of things I disagree fundamentally with your apparent belief that politics is about personal advancement. Politics is the means whereby disparate views are handled. Good politics generally allows such views to be accomodated, bad politics simply deals with them. The distinction between bad and good politics is down to the people involved, not to their religion. Releigion is taking the blame, too often, for the fraility of human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here has called politics Biblical.

 

That's the entire point! If Bible-based religions are supposed to represent God but are political (which no one here is disputing) then what you're really saying is that the God of those writings initiated a corrupt process of leadership!!

 

It is not a claim I have ever heard before. I understand what you are saying, but you certainly have not made a convincing case for your assertion that the Bible favours democracy (a political concept by the way) over heirarchical structures. Here is a smattering of evidence for the favouring of heirarchical structures in the Bible. A detailed and knowledegable search would reveal many more.

 

I'm not sure the mods will allow scripture rebuttals as they're somewhat off topic but what about the verses I already mentioned:

 

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you..." (Matt. 20:25-26)

 

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi', for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and He is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher', for you have one Teacher, the Christ." (Matthew 23:8)

 

I suppose at the root of things I disagree fundamentally with your apparent belief that politics is about personal advancement. Politics is the means whereby disparate views are handled. Good politics generally allows such views to be accomodated, bad politics simply deals with them. The distinction between bad and good politics is down to the people involved, not to their religion. Releigion is taking the blame, too often, for the fraility of human nature.

 

If we're quoting scripture then I just have the following to add:

 

“Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which

devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.” (Mark 12:38-40 see also Luke 20:46-47 and Matthew 6:5)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I totally agree i despise religion my family was a none practicing Roman Catholic in my younger years... Today were juat plain atheists. The religious people will never change, i am just wondering how embarrassing it will be when we finally have first contact with a advanced species... Oh and if anyones thinking that this will be the changing point in religion... Guess again lol they will be demons sent from hell to trick us lmfao. Its one thing to not be advanced as the visiting alien species, its insulting to be seen as primitave ignorant worshipping tard monkeys making up a holy spirit because we are too damn stupid to find out the truth. Even though we are all not like this guess whos voice will be louder and more abnoxious possibly even trying to hire assasins to kill the demons oops i gave it away lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as you're in such a hair-splitting mood, it was the Holy Roman Empire that did this and it continued as long as the Vatican was useful as an instrument of state power.

 

You must know that the Roman Catholics were not the only people to use punishment and religion as a tool to control the population. In the US both before and after we became an independent nation various religions both Catholic and Protestant were fighting each other using methods both open and secretive and yes burning at the stake was one example.

 

Several people here seem to be defending religion and several seem to be demonizing it and it is easy to do both. One thing I have to say is that you cannot use the actions of one man no matter how religious to condemn religion... but if this is true then the actions of one man cannot be used to show that religion is good either.

 

I deeply sympathize with Hans Bjelke, I was also subjected to that behavior, I actually asked for help from the church we attended and was told things like "it was up to god to show my dad the light" to stuff like "men and women have a role to play and men decide how to treat women, to "men own their wives and a woman has to simply be strong and trust in the lord" not once was any real help offered.

 

And yet my disconnect with religion is not those instances, to a great extent religion can and does step up to the plate to stop such things but I was simply unlucky enough to ask the wrong people for help. Are the major Abrahamic religions misogynist? yes, they are, and not in a trivial way. The very heart of these religions is misogynist and elitist.

 

My disconnect with religion has to do with lies and the ease with which religion is used and twisted by lies so much so that I think religion is far worse than just being a lie, it is indeed designed to operate via lies. Religion is driven by it's fundamentalist fringes, most religious people are good people who want good things to happen very few mainstream religious people would allow a law to be passed restricting the rights of other citizens for no reason other than religious bigotry but in the US laws have recently been passed that remove rights from individuals who do not profess to believe the right religion in the right way.

 

These laws were passed to defend marriage. Now who wouldn't want to defend marriage? Who would be willing to stand up and say they wanted to stop marriage or hurt it in some way? But using this absolute violation of the 9th commandment now in NC you have to be married religiously to get the benefits of marriage. How was this done? By violating their own religion to get people to vote a particular way to persecute people who did not ascribe to that religions tenants.

 

Yes religion claims to be the source of all morality but in fact has no morals what so ever, what ever it takes to get the religious agenda forced on the population even if it is breaking the commandments of that religion is ok. this is why the founding fathers of the US wanted a secular government so no religion could enforce it's values on everyone else but now that has been violated as well. Religion consistently takes the stance that it's values are what protect our freedoms but in reality religion is a clear and present danger to our freedoms. Religion cannot be trusted because it's very existence depends on political power and lies to insure that power.

 

Does this mean that every religious person sits around thinking of ways to force it's values on everyone else? of course not but the result of religion is that very thing, whether it's justified as being for our own good to protect us from hell fire or purely for the political power that religion represents religion is a danger to the rights of all individuals to be individuals, is religion the only danger, of course not but it is indeed one of the most powerful and dangerous threats to our individual freedoms that exist...

 

In the US religion is a danger to us all, religions constant attacks on our way of life is easy to document, religions constant claim that is is under attack by godless secular forces is nothing but projection. A good example is religious proselytizing, I have never had anyone come to my door to convince me to reject god but I am under a constant attack both overt and covert to win my heart and "soul" billboards consistently sell god as the answer to everything. The television is full of ads for religion, televisions shows that consistently not only promote religion but actually assert lies and deceit about the things i hold dear, simple trivial things like reality. In my area every school year there is a push to restore religious values to the schools, things like creationism, restriction of knowledge about sexuality that doesn't conform to church standards. The list is long but it cannot be asserted that religion tolerates any view point but theirs.

 

But let one billboard go up that suggests that there might be people who don't believe in god and that they are ok and all hell breaks loose. Oh Dear God, think of what might happen if the children see it!

 

Religion is nothing but lies, God is not real, religion is real, there are more than two dozen churches within 20 miles of me all claiming to have the absolute truth and none of them knowing **** from shinola, that is the reality of religion. They all want the actual Bible to be taught in public schools as the revealed truth of god despite the fact that the bible and it's revealed truths have been shown to be false.

 

Ignorance is what the churches are selling and the price is your self respect...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo moontanman! Much more clear and concise as well as to the heart of the point in which we all were trying to say just not as well written! Seriously i enjoyed that read, i just got carried away with joking instead of being serious on this matter. I will ensure less joking in the future in order to get my point across more clearly, i just so adore comedy lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...