Fanaticism

[Eagleheart]

It seems to me that religion has lost its ground...Why? A question of quantitative approach...again, /as we are confined to it in our modern society/-fanatics are more than true believers but I guess I should explain what is a true believer for me ...One whose notions are based on freedom...his and the others'....Fanaticism ocuppies to much of our reality to leave it without notice ...I would start the discussion with what I view as fanaticism-Fear and uncertainty in the beliefs you have declared you have...
Waiting to see another viewpoint...It is a subject I am really interested in...

[mir]

you equate fanatacism with loss of beleif? i think that the reason religion has declined is that it arose as a function of need, to alleviate fear of the unknown after death and to assure people that the next life could be better than this one. with the actual hard science resolving questions that could be previously answered only by science, and the drastic increase in comfort, many people don't see a need for religion anymore - we've become more rational, and less spiritual. plus, a lot of people don't want to take the time, or feel guilty about the things they aren't doing that their religion says they should, or let a non-mandatory activity decrease their comfort in any way.

what do you think?

[Eagleheart]

I think fanaticism is equal to lack of true beliefs, I consider it only as fears disguised in the distorted perceptions of these fanatacists as something held on the strong basis of illusions...Religion declines because there are more fanaticists than believers and... it is not compulsory to be this kind of fanaticism...we can see its manifestations in every non-religious matter that is distorted in the same way as the religious is...

[mir]

but fanaticism seems, to me, to be a by-product of the decrease in reigious feeling. fanatics are losing their hold on god, being surrounded by non-beleivers and secularism (is that a word? : ), and so they go to the extreme to convince themselves they're on the right side, they'll go to heaven, if they're fervent enough they won't need any giude in holiness but themselves.

what i think is interesting about that is that in the New Testament, it pretty much condemns being fervent . . . it says that you should pray in a closet, "let not your right hand know what the left does", and be more holy in thought even than in deed. you're not supposed to proclaim your holiness; it's a passive, internal resolution in which you gain righteousness not through others, but through yourself, which is MUCH harder.

i wonder how many christians have really read the bible . . . it's pretty cool. and it says a lot of wonderful stuff which would make the world darn near perfect if people actually practiced it. then again, i'm a nihilist . . . and that makes the world a lot more easy, if not a lot more perfect. and, strangely, forces you to fulfil the laws of the new testament, becasue you have no incentive but your own conscience to make you do it, and that's what your supposed to have in the Bible.

[Eagleheart]

The Bible has never been a convincing writing to me ...especially the Old Testament...In fact I deem it the most vicious of all writings I have read/except for Machiavelli/ and it is mainly because it is undermining its own statements...God is not all-loving ...Though generally the New Testament seems to display more truths than manipulations If you are interested I recommend you "The Tibetian Gospel"-it reveals some truths for Christ...

[mir]

yeah, i'm not nuts about the old testament - it's a bit too holier-than-thou (no offense meant); but the new testament is extremely relevant to today, so while i don't beleive its events, i think its lessons are wonderful. why do you think it's vicious? i don't think it's anything but a straight chronicle, like a history book. i'll look at the Tibetan Gospel though . . .

random, very stupid question from a person with no sense of direction:
where's Bulgaria?

[Eagleheart]

Eastern Europe-on the Bolkan penincula ...Really sensitive about these questions...Bulgaria is one of the most ancient states on the continent...It is good to be informed...But as for the Bible...Vicious- because it equivocally denounces all the truths that ostensibly supports...The God presented in it is more our Cruel Miller than Father...It contradicts itself on several points.../I agree about The New Testament though/...

[mir]

sorry about bulgaria . . . i've heard of it before, i just didn't know where it was.

i don't think it's actually vicious of the bible to contradict itself. viciousness is usually done with intent, and the bible is just a historical recounting of tales that were passed down for generations. it does contradict itself, but the only way to have true faith is usually to accept contradictions (ex. Muslim predestination but also being judged for heaven or hell)

who's Our Cruel Miller? i mean, why a miller?

[mono]

I think I see what you both intend on communicating in this thread, and I agree with both of you, yet if someone considered himself/herself a believer, but did not have the tendencies of 'fanaticism,' would that necessarily make them a better believer than 'fanatics?' Not really, I think.
In my home city of Portland, Oregon, just as in any city, I feel sure, many religious fanatics roam about, preaching loudly, and sometimes, I feel, pushing their views on others. Whether fanatic to the extreme or not, even when an individuals do not consider themselves 'believers,' their intention, I think, seems what matters most. The extreme compassion and aggressive beliefs of some religious fanatics may have relation to their surroundings of what they consider 'non-believers,' yet I feel they act according to their own nature, and intend well, despite their frequently invasive manner. What many of them may lack, however, perhaps rests more in tolerance and reverence for others' beliefs. This may not necessarily make a 'non-fanatic-believer' a better follower of fill-in-the-blank religion, for an intention within himself/herself may seem entirely different, and what one feels inside themselves does not always reflect what one speaks.

[Eagleheart]

Mir -about The Miller-it is just my way to designate what I define as evil-for more explanation refer to some of my recent responses-/maybe more poetic-not troublesome to use it I hope/And about the fanaticists...this is what this is all about ...trying to impose the righteous beliefs fairly because one is so uncertain of his beliefs-And no, this is not a contradiction /for ..,to the best of my knowledge Fanaticism is faith without trust-this is the faith that does not have the confidence in its own strenght,in which the fear that it can reveal weakness in itself dominates and obsesses...Fanaticism is a terrified faith...And /as you may predict/I am not at all illustrating only the religious side of it/On the contrary ...it seems to be ubiquitous...in all aspects of reality...The threats for our deeply encrouched notions and certified actions...create what we know as the voracious whirlpool of thoughts -Why am I right-because I am right/-sounds familiar doesn't it / And another vicious circle...NO REVISION...here are the principles...and who can fight THE PRINCIPLES...

[Chava]

It's been sugested that religion is losing ground in the richer continents like europe, since it's hareder to relate to the biblical tales. Apparantly these have more relevancy in economically less developed countries since elements like poverty, disease, starvation, and hope of salvation is more predominant there than in the more economically developed countries. that is a theory of why many african regions as well as south american experience an increase in the amount of conversions now.

[Logos]

that is a theory of why many african regions as well as south american experience an increase in the amount of conversions now.

And the fact that missionaries are reaching further and further into "uncivilised" lands where there are vast sources of as-yet-to-saved heathens ;)

[Shield&Sword]

Helping african and south american and save them from poverty and desease by europians? seems like killing someone and walking in his funeral.

[mir]

Helping african and south american and save them from poverty and desease by europians? seems like killing someone and walking in his funeral.
:lol: and :rage: funny but angry because we should be helping them with other stuff than religion. personally, i'd rather have an unsaved soul and not die of starvation at ten than be a "heathen" and live a long and happy life.

eagleheart, that's a perfect definition of fanaticism. it's a way of dealing with the uncertainty that is always hand in hand with religion, and often many other things as well. the interesting thing is that more people don't adopt it - as far as i know, fanaticism usually doesn't tend to be a large sect; but it resolves many of the problems that must be accepted to truly beleive in religion or other things. you'd think more people would like that conviction. then again, it gets bad press : )

[Eagleheart]

And Mir...still another problem...Christianity lead its way from a sect,it was indeed a form of sect...judging on what we define as sect/quantitative measurements of the postmodern society-again the same burden/...with that in mind...it will not be far-fetched to say that the incarnations of Fanaticism/be it as a spiritual factor or a as social/will soon be on the agenda...Impending,petrifying and certain...I rest my sayings on the belief,that as long as their is one it exists the real possibility that there will be more...Soon we will not consider isolated facts,but global trends...because as I said fanaticism is not a category - it is a condition...and conditions are far more difficult to overcome...

An Abyss... A man throws himself in the Abyss
Is the Abyss evil in itself? So where is the trend...in the sick minds of people

[ShoutGrace]

It's been sugested that religion is losing ground in the richer continents like europe, since it's hareder to relate to the biblical tales. Apparantly these have more relevancy in economically less developed countries since elements like poverty, disease, starvation, and hope of salvation is more predominant there than in the more economically developed countries. that is a theory of why many african regions as well as south american experience an increase in the amount of conversions now.

I think that for the most part there is usually a uniform relationship between intense human suffering and the spread of the Gospel. Obviously, both the theist and the atheist will have different opinions concerning the nature of the correllation - and neither, I'm sure, can be proven to whit.

[mir]

[QUOTE=Eagleheart]And Mir...still another problem...Christianity lead its way from a sect,it was indeed a form of sect...judging on what we define as sect/quantitative measurements of the postmodern society

yes, well, but if you think about it that way, practically every religion is a sect except the very first one or two. they're all founded on pretty much the same ideas. my history teacher has convinced me that they're an essential part of society . . . but it's interesting to think up other ways that need could have been fulfilled. religion is pretty obtuse if you think about it, in this world where everything has to have a value and a definition. it depends so much on beleif and, yes, fanaticism; every true beleiver is a bit of a fanatic. (not that that makes them a bad person . . . everyone's fanatic sometimes. i can't be the only person who clings to an idea just because it's mine :p )


...with that in mind...it will not be far-fetched to say that the incarnations of Fanaticism/be it as a spiritual factor or a as social/will soon be on the agenda...Impending,petrifying and certain...I rest my sayings on the belief,that as long as their is one it exists the real possibility that there will be more...Soon we will not consider isolated facts,but global trends...because as I said fanaticism is not a category - it is a condition...and conditions are far more difficult to overcome...

yes, true. if even a single person is certain enough of themself about something, it can come true. look at Hitler - look at Jesus! all it takes is a catalyst - a fanatic in him/herself, who is so sure of themself they convince the other sheep to follow without even looking far enough ahead to see the cliff at the end of the road. but that's a scary thought . . if fanaticism is a condition, what if there's a second Hitler or Stalin? what if we can't learn from the past because the following of a person very fanatic and sure of themself is programmed into us? *shudder* . . . i'm going to go curl up in a chair and not think for an hour. :as-sleep:


An Abyss... A man throws himself in the Abyss
Is the Abyss evil in itself? So where is the trend...in the sick minds of people

yeah . . but that's guns don't shoot people, people shoot people. is it a justification for doing a deed because we can't change who we are? what makes us human is that we can try.

sorry for the obscenely long post . . . :D

[Eagleheart]

Between "There is a God"and "THere is no God" there is a huge distance,on the two sides stand fanaticists,only the true believers walk through this distance.

A.P.Chehov

[mir]

however, it could be argued that fanaticists are the only true beleivers . . . the only people with the absolute conviction that there is a god or isn't, and the people who walk in between are agnostic and often just don't feel like making a decision or don't think they have enough information.

it's scary how many times i've talked about religion/god/stuff lately.

[mir]

eagleheart, if you're checking: your PMs are blocked.

[Themis]

:lol: and :rage: funny but angry because we should be helping them with other stuff than religion. personally, i'd rather have an unsaved soul and not die of starvation at ten than be a "heathen" and live a long and happy life.

We can't save everybody, can't keep everybody who's starving from dying of starvation. We can't give them enough food or money, so that nobody will ever die again of starvation.

Religion can't save these people either, it doesn't replace their hunger or thirst, but it gives them hope. Hope that they'll eventually be saved, whether in this life or in the afterlife.
This reaches more people than any thing they could get from us because they can spread it among their own, the hope they received they can pass on.

[mir]

true. but, the problem is that even this hope becomes corrupted. missionaries try to convince people to become their faith . . and maybe they adopt the faith falsely, and don't really beleive in it, and it's just one more thing to worry about. i would rather they were given hope by hearing that everybody is doing all they can to help them . . . even if we can't really help, we have to try! every voice makes a difference!

and there's enough food and money in the world to go around. it's just a problem of distribution . . . and in the case of something like Stalin's Forced Famine, the end of tyranny.

[Themis]

true. but, the problem is that even this hope becomes corrupted. missionaries try to convince people to become their faith . . and maybe they adopt the faith falsely, and don't really beleive in it, and it's just one more thing to worry about. i would rather they were given hope by hearing that everybody is doing all they can to help them . . .

"Everybody is doing all they can" means giving people hope that something will happen soon, maybe even something specific. What to do if it doesn't?
Religious hope is more general, it doesn't say how one is going to be saved or when. I would think it's easier to believe in such a thing.

That this hope can become corrupted is true, just like everything else. But because it happens sometimes, doesn't mean it always happens. Or even in the majority of cases..



and there's enough food and money in the world to go around. it's just a problem of distribution . . . and in the case of something like Stalin's Forced Famine, the end of tyranny.

Enough money? And whom will you take it away from?

Giving food is, I think, not the right solution to help people. It feeds them for a day, maybe a week. What they need is the means to help themselves.

[mir]

but they will only gain the means to help themselves when free. what really needs to happen is that the UN starts using its power - discussing less and deciding more - and going in and telling the people commiting the genocide that if they shoot the other people, the UN soldiers will shoot them. an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but one group putting out both the world's eyes unstopped is even worse.

take the money away from the people who have more than they need - communism, yes; though it doesn't have to be a republic.

and i guess religion might work . . . but i won't stop the people from dying. i'm just not very religious, so it's coloring my views.

[Eagleheart]

I think that distributing food to people and other resources by any world organisations will not have the curable effect,because all those noble deeds indeed are not really helping,they are dampening the problem without curing the reasons for all the suffering and inequality...so all other forms of help despite the good intentions are actually insatisfiable when consciously growing imperialism of transnational companies which exploits the poor more is still thriving...what they call help i think sounds more like opium:turning the attention to treatments of the manifestations rather than the reasons...So it reality the problem is getting worse...

[Logos]

I'm sorry but as it says in the forum rules, discussion of current political issues, including that link to the Faux News channel are not allowed.

You _could_ make mention of said religious group that is dealt with in that link, as long as it's presented in a way that follows said rules :)

edited to add: oops, this comment was directed to sHaRp12 after I removed a post of theirs.

[SleepyWitch]

We can't save everybody, can't keep everybody who's starving from dying of starvation. We can't give them enough food or money, so that nobody will ever die again of starvation.


I think that distributing food to people and other resources by any world organisations will not have the curable effect,because all those noble deeds indeed are not really helping,they are dampening the problem without curing the reasons for all the suffering and inequality...so all other forms of help despite the good intentions are actually insatisfiable when consciously growing imperialism of transnational companies which exploits the poor more is still thriving...what they call help i think sounds more like opium:turning the attention to treatments of the manifestations rather than the reasons...So it reality the problem is getting worse...
i was gonna say the same Eagleheart.... there is enough food and resources in the world to go around. plus, even if we could give everybody enough food or money (which we actually can, seeing as there is enough food available world wide... in Europe and the US millions of tons of food are destroyed or perish due to overproduction while ppl in other countries starve).. so even if we could give everybody enough food, that wouldn't abolish the structural causes of poverty, i.e. unequal access to resources.... of course, if we wanted to do something about this problem, we (as in people in the 'developed' world) might have to settle for a more moderate lifestyle.. that does not mean we'd have to become poor or adopt
an 'inferior' lifestyle.. it only means we'd have to get our priorities straight and stop consuming more than we need.... i mean, look at illnesses like obesity, diabetis, asthma, allergies in the 'developed world' for example... people are gorging themselves to death as a direct result of our affluence... so if these people didn't use so many resources they'd be healthier and more resources would be left for people in the South... so that'd be a win-win really...

as for religion's giving people hope... I wouldn't want to deny that it does.. but it's kind of a false hope... or rather, two different standards apply for people from the developed and developing world. let's imagine a rich guy (e.g. a lawyer) from the developed world gets unemployed and homeless... what would our reaction be?? would we say: "well. let him be homeless. he could become religious, so there would be hope of salvation for him".???? or would we maybe rather say "poor sod, this is unfair, he should be given unemployment benefit and a chance to re-enter professional life so he can earn money for himself" ???
whereas for third world people, their worldly problems are immediately treated as inevitable and they are referred to religion for hope...
besides... didn't Jesus feed those 5000 folks.. like when it rained fish and bread or something? he didn't tell them: "well folks, you might be starving and i can see how you think it's unfair, but well, mate can't do nothing about it; so die as quick as you can and you'll go straight to heaven where you'll get food and wine in plenty"
.. maybe if Jesus was alive today he'd at least try to do something about these problems

// end of waffle.

Logos, I hope this wasn't too political??? i didn't mention current events, though....

[cuppajoe_9]

didn't Jesus feed those 5000 folks.. like when it rained fish and bread or something?I believe he had a bottomless basket of bread and fish (a concept which was later adopted by the Red Lobster).

Good post. I think it'll be apolitical enough for the mods.

[Azazello]

Fanaticism is not a modern phenomenon it’s been around since the Dawn of Ages. The only difference is we now have much faster crueller means of expressing it.

S.

[mir]

Azello, you're right, but that doesn't mean we can just accept it! and SleepyWitch, that's a great post. the only problem is, making everone equal even in terms of food distribution (which would probably eventually lead to demands for complete equality in housing and such too) would probably be viewed as communism, something unrelentingly condemned by the US even when it's only a economic factor and not a political one. you're right, though; it's really horrible that we're killing ourselves faster by overeating and such when there are people out there dying because they don't have the chance to overeat, or eat at all.

i think what a lot of other people are trying to say in their posts is that religion is something that can be more easily offered to people than food. but i think that the money it takes to transport however many preachers and missionaries and whatever to starving or oppressed countries would be better used in transporting food.

what we really need is a more personal connection with the people in these situations . . . humans don't act fast unless they experience something firsthand, are involved in it and feel it; we have never known starvation and so do not know what it's like for others - and so sit around in forums talking about helping rather than really helping. i wish, just for one day, that everyone in Africa or Darfur or one of those countries could be transported to the US, an everyone in the US could be moved there. i'd bet a million that when everone was returned, we'd do something right away.

pipe dreams without the pipe . . .

[Azazello]

Whether you wish to accept it or not it will always be there. Fanaticism is irrational and it thrives on a fertile soil of blind faith/belief and its evolution is only to be expected. For as long as you can make promises that can not be disproved there will always be fanaticism.

One thing that always surprises me is that we put more faith in God than in humanity. There is something twisted about wanting to reap the rewards in the afterlife that might not be, than have a rewarding life here and now. People look at Heaven as a gift bestowed upon them for their goodness and the strong belief in God, yet seem to ignore the gift of life and its potential.

Religious does not equate humane. People are capable of doing good without the pretext of the Commandments. If an atheist went to Africa and spent his entire life treating ill, digging wells, planting crops, building houses, do you think people there would think less of him/her for not having a God? Do you think it would be a less worthy task because you would not do it in the name of God but in the name of humanity?

It’s not important what God you believe in. Just like Gandhi said ‘If all Christians acted like Christ, the whole world would be Christian’. Because it is not about one man’s beliefs it is about his action and attitude towards his fellow human beings.

Mir, nice dreams. But first you'll need a revolution to over throw the governments. It is amazing how well corruption flourishes on poverty. People forget how much power they have often choosing to accept their fate rather than tempt it.


S.

[mir]

see, this is why i'm nihilist. then you have less impetus to be good - no heaven to goad you on, no hell as the big stick over your head; you have to be good only because you think it's the right thing to do. unfortunately, one of the reasons people turn to religion could be that it's a lot harder to do good deeds when no one (might be) watching. strangely enough, Jesus said exactly the same thing in the New Testament . . . if everyone followed Christ's laws, the world would be about as close to perfect as can get!

and Azazello, the problem is that the only truly fair government is either a benevolent dictatorship (which can never be lead by a human because of the instict for self-preservation and more concern for people they know than everyone in the entire country or world) or a republic, which hasn't worked since Rome and there's too many people for anyways. so the best government is probably an oligarchy of the common people who have experienced all the problems that need to be combated. and then they'll get power-hungry or people won't like them . . . i don't think there is a perfect government. there just should be . . .

no more time now, but cool discussion.