Faiths clashes

[blazeofglory]

Today ideologies clash, and the biggest threats come from ideology holders.

We know faith is necessary, and most of us advocate for theism and yet the fact is that faiths or ideologies lead us to war.

The world today is getting more and more threats from ideology holders. All want to establish and extend the domain of their faiths and that has in turn posed great threats to other pathholders.


We all are torn between faiths or un-faith and it is really comfortable to hold a faith that entrenches our own world or domains in point of fact.

[lupe]

Faiths clash because they are meant to do just that - just as religions were invented for very specific purposes.

The fact that they are still people who actually still believe in gods, devils, angels, demons, heavens and hells is the single biggest failure of our civilization.

The rest should not come as a surprise.

[NikolaiI]

"Albert Einstein once observed that you have the most fundamental and major decision that you have to make in your life is this: do i live in a friendly or a hostile universe?

If you see the world as hostile then you will create the world that way"

[B-Mental]

Faiths clash because they are meant to do just that - just as religions were invented for very specific purposes.

The fact that they are still people who actually still believe in gods, devils, angels, demons, heavens and hells is the single biggest failure of our civilization.

The rest should not come as a surprise.

Personally, I seriously disagree with these ideas Lupe. You are welcome to subscribe to them though. I don't believe that the original intention of faiths is to clash, but to guide. Its funny how faiths can be manipulated. The belief in supernatural doesn't actually constitute a failure (perhaps you define failure differently). The biggest failure is that people don't act on the peace that faiths proclaim. Faiths have been manipulated through the ages to accept each one as the true faith. However, conflict arises. I don't truly know of any faith that actually states that violence is acceptable. I often hear people say that "God doesn't exist." or "War is neccessary." This is baloney. Peace is neccessary, & divinity does exist in all living things! The gift of life throughout the universe is connected to the universal God/Goddess (the masculine and feminine perfections, which are somehow the same and yet different).

[lupe]

Though I respect your opinion, B-Mental, let me say that I hear the same thing from all the deists I have spoken with throughout my life: "It's not the fault of religions, but how the humans are using them". Well, of course, last time I checked, animals do not have religions. So what's the argument? Religions were invented by humans (partly for good reasons, I could agree, but that's another question), so if they have produced what we all know they have produced, don't-you think it's time we humans have to think about how to stop them?

Violence, suffering, slavery, war, imprisonment, death, poverty, darkness, hypocrisy, murder and oppression are some of the results - and the weapons - of religious faith, for those who know a little bit of history. Our weapons are different: education, enlightenment, knowledge, progress, science, intelligence and free spirit.

Let's start believe in men and women instead of delusions. We can then maybe have our planet back.

[Delta40]

Are there negative results on your side lupe? I mean can you tell us what are the drawbacks of your system. You outlined 'some' of the results of religion and I note there are no positives and then you reeled off a list of wonderful things which don't seem to have a link to religion under your philosophy and they sound wonderful. Is it a black and white world that you are talking about or are you just being selective here?

[lupe]

Are there negative results on your side lupe? I mean can you tell us what are the drawbacks of your system. You outlined 'some' of the results of religion and I note there are no positives and then you reeled off a list of wonderful things which don't seem to have a link to religion under your philosophy and they sound wonderful. Is it a black and white world that you are talking about or are you just being selective here?

With all due respect, I am not sure you read carefully my post. All this wonderful things are stated as "weapons" - mere tools that can help us reduce ignorance and - ultimately - suffering. We are, alas, very far from that sort of achievement, though in an historic perspective we are better off than people in the overly religious middle age.

There are countless book written to explain why religious faith persists, it is an extremely interesting discussion. However, its devastating consequences are those who matter most - and should make us think how to reduce them for the good of humanity.

[JacobF]

Religion was adopted with good intentions. It was an easy way to implement a system of beliefs into a society, and in turn unite them. It also expanded empires. The Islamic empire thrived in the middle east during the dark ages. Yet even since antiquity, nations have been entrenched in blood shed just because of the notion that some nations carry that "my religion is better than yours and you are wrong."

I do agree with Lupe's humanist perspective. In our modern times we are beginning to become more secular, and religion is not necessary. Still, there remains feuds over religion. Ancient feuds still wage in the middle east. Extremist terrorist groups are trying to justify car-bombings with the Qu'ran. Even in the USA, prop-8 got denied -- a sign that church and state still aren't completely separate.

Whether you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, an atheist, I don't really care. I don't judge a person completely based on their beliefs. But when those beliefs affect other people in negative ways, I say that those beliefs need to be changed somehow. The quality of life and safety of people should always come before religion.

[Delta40]

You will have to excuse my ability to understand. Is religion a weapon and/or tool? and did you refer to some of the outcomes as a result of putting this 'weapon/tool' to use?

[skasian]

Faith clashing seems inevitable in our world, as there are diverse religions that holds diverse ideas and values that may be heavily contrasting to another.

However faith clashing should be pulled down to a minimum as most religions advocate the idea that we must be accepting and respectful to other religions that are unfamiliar to us. It is wrong to accuse someone in a bad way just because they do not agree with their belief.

[Delta40]

Whether you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, an atheist, I don't really care. I don't judge a person completely based on their beliefs. But when those beliefs affect other people in negative ways, I say that those beliefs need to be changed somehow. The quality of life and safety of people should always come before religion.

Do you think it is the same with politics?
Are you saying people are allowed to have beliefs, religious or otherwise as long as they are not to the detriment of others?
Is that rational?

[JBI]

The way I see it is, part of the world developed far faster than the rest, and parts of that development have leaked into the poorer world, via trade, and the fact that those countries are loaded with wealth, yet are unable to harvest it, and the result is an identity crisis, giving way to traditional regimes overpowering progress, which in itself is happening to fast. The European and American growth, in terms of culture and industry, was far more gradual, and allowed a development in thought, whereas the current development in places in the world, starting after the first world war I would say, is far faster, and destroys things quickly.

The result - generally a lot of violence, but most contained, but the problem is there is still an old elite who will, eventually, be overthrown by the new global elite, and those people cling to what they have, be they politicians, clergymen, or simply the bourgeoisie.

The term applied until now was generally post-colonialism, but I think that is the wrong term, as many of these countries weren't colonies.

When you have poor people, whose silly superstitions are challenged and destroyed, and ways of life are really quite dated (such as people who don't have agricultural equipment, yet overnight receive equipment they cannot possibly understand) things become difficult.

Another problem then, is identity - where do we turn? To whom do we turn? Who is our friend, who is our enemy? When chauvinism comes into play, things get messy, because of international conflict - our faiths or affiliations end up leaving out, and marginalizing everyone not involved.

It isn't merely about poor countries, but rich countries too. The European Union for instance, benefits Europe, but excludes the rest of the world. That means essentially, they are rich enough to grab oil, but not nice enough to buy other things to help developing economies. They also are nice enough to let in rich countries, with predominantly Christian cultures, but when a poor country, or a Muslim country wants to join, things get difficult - they want the country to help them make money, not to develop itself on its own terms and catch up by means of aid.

I don't want to get into politics today (which are quite proving of many points) but I will say all these affiliations of people to certain groups give trouble. An immigrant is an immigrant, and most try to form new lives with new values, or modified values, while perhaps maintaining some tradition - but there are always exceptions - there are people who bring misogynist values, racist values, and violent attitudes which create further problems. There is also the problem of the culture they move to not accepting them, making them by default either leave or associate with smaller communities, which foster more cultural divides.

[Drkshadow03]

Though I respect your opinion, B-Mental, let me say that I hear the same thing from all the deists I have spoken with throughout my life: "It's not the fault of religions, but how the humans are using them". Well, of course, last time I checked, animals do not have religions. So what's the argument? Religions were invented by humans (partly for good reasons, I could agree, but that's another question), so if they have produced what we all know they have produced, don't-you think it's time we humans have to think about how to stop them?

Violence, suffering, slavery, war, imprisonment, death, poverty, darkness, hypocrisy, murder and oppression are some of the results - and the weapons - of religious faith, for those who know a little bit of history. Our weapons are different: education, enlightenment, knowledge, progress, science, intelligence and free spirit.

Let's start believe in men and women instead of delusions. We can then maybe have our planet back.

Religions produce darkness? Do you mean the sun falls down at night and it gets dark because someone believes in G-d? That's a rather weird thing to ascribe to religions.

Also religion produces violence, slavery, murder, and death? In what way does religion produce these things? After all, there are many tenets within most religions warning against commiting murder, would you not agree? Not to mention slavery, violence, murder, and death exist outside of religious contexts, perhaps in even larger numbers.

If I went into a jail cell and questioned the cell block on why they commited murder, do you believe most of them would tell me Jesus made them do or rather that it was a crime of passion over a cheating wife or husband or some 'secular' equivalent

I find it rather difficult to believe that religion has a monopoly on murder, imprisonment, death, hypocrisy, and oppression, especially in opposition to those other values that you defined.

See, I had this strange belief that it was science, which many would hold up as the so-called paragon of progress, that produced murder, imprisonment, death, and oppression in far greater numbers than the whacky believers with too much religious devotion. I must be mistaken to have thought that nuclear weapons, bombs, germ warfare, and other technologies of destruction require the collusion of science and the theoritical knowledge provided by such a discipline. So you're suggesting that I was wrong to believe this, and these things must in fact be produced by the power of prayer?

I, too, have a background in history; it was my minor in my undergraduate studies. Not to mention I have an extensive background being educated, having gone on to graduate school. Why some might say I cannot get enough education. But I am afraid you must be mistaken about your contention that education, knowledge, and intelligence are weapons to combat religion, for here I am with all that formal education and knowledge -- plus intelligent by most standards of measurement -- and for some odd reason I still am not Enlightened and continue to profess religious devotion to G-d. I'm not really sure how to account for this, but perhaps you will offer a satisfactory solution since you seem to be far wiser than I am.

[NikolaiI]

[quote="JBI"]I don't want to get into politics today (which are quite proving of many points) but I will say all these affiliations of people to certain groups give trouble. An immigrant is an immigrant, and most try to form new lives with new values, or modified values, while perhaps maintaining some tradition - but there are always exceptions - there are people who bring misogynist values, racist values, and violent attitudes which create further problems. There is also the problem of the culture they move to not accepting them, making them by default either leave or associate with smaller communities, which foster more cultural divides.[quote]

There was a store next to my father's business which was a convience store whose owner/manager was an Arabic Muslim. (Not sure which country he was from, but he was Muslim for sure.) Anyway the man was a father of two kids, who were a bit younger than my brother and me -- and now they are college age and in college here in the US, and having lived here all their lives they don't have any accent, they are completely familiar with all common knowledge and they aren't different than other Americans at all. But their grandmother, sometimes she is visiting, and she wears totally traditional clothes, and I believe is very religious.. So even within two generations we can be absorbed into another culture completely.

Also proximity does a great deal to dissolve prejudice. For instance now in America you might see a black person and a caucasian sitting together watching a movie, about the Korean war or something, and both of them might be racist against the Japanese in the movie, even though there arne't any. These two people, 40 or 60 years ago, would not have been in discussion becasue of the overwhelming racial tension, but now they are racist against another group. But time and proximity would dissolve most, if not all other racial divisions. I am not saying all races should blend but I am not against inter-racial mixing, and I think all should live in peace.

[Pendragon]

Violence, suffering, slavery, war, imprisonment, death, poverty, darkness, hypocrisy, murder and oppression are some of the results - and the weapons - of religious faith, for those who know a little bit of history. Our weapons are different: education, enlightenment, knowledge, progress, science, intelligence and free spirit.

Let's start believe in men and women instead of delusions. We can then maybe have our planet back. Scratch hypocricy in a religious sense from the list and you get any sort of people who wish to take advantage of a weaker people. Religion has naught to do with it. For example, religious people came to America seeking freedom, but just as many came seeking land and gold and other goods. Manifest Destiny destroyed the Native American way of life, not religion.

[lupe]

Fanny how you seem to interpret the things I wrote in a way that gives them a completely different meaning! This goes not only to your first comments, which I can only take as word-playing jokes, but mainly to what one may consider your serious arguments.




I find it rather difficult to believe that religion has a monopoly on murder, imprisonment, death, hypocrisy, and oppression, especially in opposition to those other values that you defined.

See, I had this strange belief that it was science, which many would hold up as the so-called paragon of progress, that produced murder, imprisonment, death, and oppression in far greater numbers than the whacky believers with too much religious devotion. I must be mistaken to have thought that nuclear weapons, bombs, germ warfare, and other technologies of destruction require the collusion of science and the theoritical knowledge provided by such a discipline. So you're suggesting that I was wrong to believe this, and these things must in fact be produced by the power of prayer?


First of all, who talked about “monopoly”? Certainly not me, nor any of the countless historians, philosophers and political scientists that wrote on the relation between religion and violence throughout the centuries. In the best scenario, I suspect that your confusion comes from a fundamental and common misconception: Even in the most blatant religious wars, the root of the conflict has rarely anything to do with the people’s “metaphysical concerns”. So, practically, religious faith will usually not be considered to be the cause of the violence and its devastating consequences. However, since the beginning of times, no weapon has been found to be more powerful to make people fight one another than religion. Your deep historical knowledge can provide you with many examples. If not, just for a “short” (9 volumes and counting!) sample of only one religion, I recommend you “The Criminal History of Cristianity” from KarlHeinz Deschner, which still covers only until the Middle Age so far! For more recent examples, you can always watch the news on the TV today.




I, too, have a background in history; it was my minor in my undergraduate studies. Not to mention I have an extensive background being educated, having gone on to graduate school. Why some might say I cannot get enough education. But I am afraid you must be mistaken about your contention that education, knowledge, and intelligence are weapons to combat religion, for here I am with all that formal education and knowledge -- plus intelligent by most standards of measurement -- and for some odd reason I still am not Enlightened and continue to profess religious devotion to G-d. I'm not really sure how to account for this, but perhaps you will offer a satisfactory solution since you seem to be far wiser than I am.

You would not have any doubt that I know a lot of very well educated and intelligent people who believe in gods. Therefore, your last comment is not based in anything I have argued. However, your argument is correct: As I said in a previous post, we have a very long road ahead of us in the struggle to liberate us from any kind of religious oppression. On an historical perspective, huge progress has been achieved; just think what educated people like you and me were thinking about our world some centuries ago. This progress was the result of human intelligence and scientific research, against the fierce opposition of the established religions.

But then why so many educated and intelligent people are still attracted by religious faith? You certainly know how many books have written on that question. Most research of the last century has arrived basically to the same conclusion: there are two main reasons:

1. Religious faith brings a much-needed comfort to millions of humans who feel “weak” or” lost” in front of the great mysteries of life, especially in front of death and disappearance (of themselves and their loved ones). A very natural and understandable reason, obviously.

2. People also believe in gods because....well, that’s what they have been told to do since their childhood. Yes, religious faith has been so solidly integrated into the cultural environment in which children are raised, that it’s virtually impossible to treat it as a separate issue or to argue that people should maybe start to critically examine what they’ve been taught to believe. For example, in the third world – where I mostly live during the last ten years – arguing to an average individual that maybe there is no god is the same as arguing that there won’t be day after night...

I stand fully respectful to the first reason of the persistence of religious faith (which of course does not prove any divine existence, just as much believing in Santa Claus does not prove he exists). However, I believe that if we really want to create a much more peaceful world, we should fight to change the way we bring up our children and stop producing little “christians”, “muslims”, “hindus” etc. Instead, let’s develop their critical mind and the capacity to question everything they see or hear and let them choose what to believe.

We both belong to a privileged minority of those who have received a proper education and thus are aware of the destruction and suffering that have accompanied religions throughout human civilization. What we do with that information is our choice and our responsibility, I wouldn’t like to judge your stance in this regard. But, since you seem to like history and dislike science (and what it has produced), allow me to recommend you a major opus that was written well before the development of science, even well before major religions start their destructive journey. I’m talking about “De rerum natura” of Lucretius, the first pages of which could so nicely answer the initial post of this thread.

[Drkshadow03]

Fanny how you seem to interpret the things I wrote in a way that gives them a completely different meaning! This goes not only to your first comments, which I can only take as word-playing jokes, but mainly to what one may consider your serious arguments. . . . You would not have any doubt that I know a lot of very well educated and intelligent people who believe in gods. Therefore, your last comment is not based in anything I have argued.

The word-playing jokes are the core of my argument actually because what I’m implying is that there is very little substance to your original post. You claim that I gave a completely different meaning to what you wrote; indeed, you even say my last comment is not based in anything you have argued. To a degree you’re implying that I committed a Strawman: that I distorted your words to make it a simplified version of the argument in order to knock the easier version down. However, I don’t think I actually did commit a Strawman fallacy since you’re arguments are too vague to make them any weaker in the first place.

In my last comment you said that it was not based on anything you argued, except you’re the one that setup a binary between “them” (religious) and us (presumably non-religious). It’s hard to tell precisely if you meant non-religious because you’re so vague; nonetheless, I do think that would be the common interpretation of what this “we” and “our” represent.

You wrote:


Religions were invented by humans (partly for good reasons, I could agree, but that's another question), so if they have produced what we all know they (the "they" right here grammatically refers to religions at the beginning of the sentence) have produced, don't-you think it's time we (the "we" right here is being setup in opposition to religions) humans have to think about how to stop them (the "them" furthers this opposition. Literally the "we" is being opposed to the "them")?

Violence, suffering, slavery, war, imprisonment, death, poverty, darkness, hypocrisy, murder and oppression are some of the results - and the weapons - of religious faith (these things belong to religious faith. It is true you don't say they exclusively they belong to religious faith.), for those who know a little bit of history. Our weapons (However, you do setup this group known as "Our" as not religious. You set them up in opposition to each other. Therefore, implying that those with religious faith do not have these qualities.) are different: education, enlightenment, knowledge, progress, science, intelligence and free spirit.

Let's start believe in men and women instead of delusions. We can then maybe have our planet back (emphasis mine).

You give us a litany of phrases that are the so-called results and weapons of religion: violence, suffering, slavery, war, imprisonment, death, poverty, and even darkness. You clearly put the weapons and results of religion in opposition to your second category defined by education, enlightenment, knowledge, science, etc. By opening your second category with “our weapons” in opposition to religious faith you are in fact implying that such people do NOT include those with religious faith. So while it’s true that you never directly claim that an educated person must not believe in G-d, you quite clearly imply it by setting up these false oppositions. Now if that isn’t what you meant, then don’t blame me for your poor argument.

My main point in my post is that these oppositions are false. One can be well-educated and intelligent, capable of enjoying the fruits of science, while still believing in G-d and practicing their faith.

You also completely misunderstood my point about science. I have no problem with science. It finds treatments for cancer, provides me with a computer to type this, gives me access to new forms of information far more quickly; however, it's completely disingenuous or simply downright ignorant to put science on pedestal as if it is response only for good things, and cherry-pick only the bad for religion. Quite clearly without science there would be no atom Bomb, bullets, and bombs. That was my point. Basically your cherry-picking.

Finally, I was criticizing your argument in general. It really doesn’t have much substance; everything you listed as belonging to religion and even The Other which is opposed to religion are all abstract terms. This can be seen by highlighting my word-play on “darkness.” What the hell is darkness exactly? Now I obviously understood that you meant the word in a metaphorical sense; religious intolerance has cast a blanket of darkness upon the world in which we are still trying to find an inch of light. Still, it's completely misplaced among the slightly more concrete concepts like murder and violence. Nonetheless those terms, despite being MORE concrete, are still fairly vague themselves.

You never EXPLAIN or DEFINE or ELABORATE on any of them, while I may know what murder is or have a concept in my head for what suffering might be, you never show how religion causes these things or that they function as weapons for religion. Instead I have to take your word for it. You declare something, but you never demonstrate it to be so. Declaration is NOT the same as evidence. This is what my wordplay is all about; what I’m pointing out is your post is not really much of an argument. It’s a lot of vague declarations, ever so much rhetoric, without much substance.

I can do what you did too with other ideas:

Violence, suffering, oppression, darkness are the results – and the weapons – of Capitalism, for those who know a little bit of history. Our weapons are different: education, enlightenment, knowledge, progress, intelligence and free spirit

Violence, suffering, oppression, darkness – and the weapons are the results – of Marxism, for those who know a little bit of history. Our weapons are different: education, enlightenment, knowledge, progress, intelligence and free spirit.

Violence, suffering, oppression, darkness are the results – and the weapons – of the Far Right, for those who know a little bit of history. Our weapons are different: education, enlightenment, knowledge, progress, intelligence and free spirit.

Violence, suffering, oppression, darkness are the results – and the weapons – of the Far Left, for those who know a little bit of history. Our weapons are different: education, enlightenment, knowledge, progress, intelligence and free spirit.

[lupe]

Well, dear Drkshadow03, I tried to deal with the substance in my last post (quite in length I could say, though this is a forum, it’s impossible to elaborate as much as in an article for example).

I notice that you chose to ignore it and continue exclusively with the semantics of the initial one. Though I’m genuinely interested on your views in the substance, I can’t really help more at that point without repeating myself.

[B-Mental]

Lupe, I wonder what are your motivations behind your hatred of all religions. I also like how you completely ignore science's weaknesses. Some people propose science as the new religion, perhaps you will then hate it too.

[lupe]

Lupe, I wonder what are your motivations behind your hatred of all religions. I also like how you completely ignore science's weaknesses. Some people propose science as the new religion, perhaps you will then hate it too.

I wouldn't call it hatred, B-Mental. I think that you could easily figure that out if you read carefully my post [16].

My opposition to religious faith comes mainly from a humanitarian perspective: acknowledging the human suffering that has always been associated with it - some of which I happened to witness personally; and the strong will to contribute to a better world.

As for science, it will never become a religion, simply because it does not rely on faith, but on research, arguments, experimentation and proofs. But I think there are sufficient threads if you wish to go further on this matter.

[Delta40]

Ahem I would like to say that human suffering is associated first and foremost with humans.

Please tell me that the fruits of science - like Hiroshima is a shining example of wanting to contribute to a new, better world....

I weary of hair splitting. Humans cause suffering. Why defend the platform from which that suffering emanates?

[blazeofglory]

History documents faiths clash not humans

[Delta40]

I know you are an educated person but sitting here on Friday evening with a glass of red, I can't tell you how ridiculous that sounds. you may as well say 'people don't kill people. Guns do'

Thank God (if there is one) humans can absolve themselves from this responsibility at least. Nasty evil faith!

human suffering occurs for many reasons, the least of which is humans themselves. A contributing factor is an inability to see eye to eye which can result in suffering. perhaps if humans were removed from the equation, this would not be so much of an issue.....

[blazeofglory]

In fact nobody is a sinner or saint at birth. When people start ageing and assimilate different theories, beliefs, doctrines they get swayed and behave as their minds are programmed.

Man without being hard-wired to certain ideas can not be violent or sinners. It is the program, the system and circumstance that drive humans to behave the way they do.

[skasian]

In fact nobody is a sinner or saint at birth. When people start ageing and assimilate different theories, beliefs, doctrines they get swayed and behave as their minds are programmed.

Man without being hard-wired to certain ideas can not be violent or sinners. It is the program, the system and circumstance that drive humans to behave the way they do.

Just then I wrote a point that is in the similar line as your first statment. But I disagree that our mind becomes programmed in such way, I believe its to having a strong confidence and certainty in a belief or doctrine. If something more forceful or agreeing come along,one may swing into a new direction, maybe into a completely contrasting route. That is how conversions occur.