Religion is a plague

[billyjoeallen]

Christians, Muslims, Jews and other monotheists almost all believe might makes right. They worship God because they believe He is all-powerful.  I asked many Christians if they would still worship God if Satan was more powerful.  Few responded. You could see smoke coming from their ears. They tried to weasel out question. Ultimately the answer for almost all of them is "no". They would worship Satan if Satan was all-powerful. 

Might=right for these people. This is why they are Statists and why they are perfectly comfortable with a system centered around a violence monopoly. 

[1715274261]

1715274261

[Anonymous]

Might is right. When you deny it to most people, that's when you have problems.

[myhoho]

Anyway, some people really need it! BTW money is religion as well and we are all heretics here .

[Bitcoin_Silver_Supply]

Christians, Muslims, Jews and other monotheists almost all believe might makes right. They worship God because they believe He is all-powerful.  I asked many Christians if they would still worship God if Satan was more powerful.  Few responded. You could see smoke coming from their ears. They tried to weasel out question. Ultimately the answer for almost all of them is "no". They would worship Satan if Satan was all-powerful.  

Might=right for these people. This is why they are Statists and why they are perfectly comfortable with a system centered around a violence monopoly.  

Religion is often a double-edged sword. Today we think of religion as inherently tied to imperial ambitions, but early Christians were actually a revolutionary challenge to imperial authority. The notion that one's soul belonged to a higher order transcending earthly rulers was incredibly troubling to the Roman Empire and, many argue, led to its attempting to co-opt Christianity in order to nullify the threat it was posing.

Likewise, Old Testament passages such as Samuel 1: Chapter 8 where Jews ask Samuel to appoint a king and he teaches them that they would be enslaved by such are hardly supportive of tyranny. More recently, Muslims have been one of the last religious groups to retain opposition to usury and central banking systems while most other faiths (and secular humanists) have fallen silent on the exploitative nature of the latter.

Like any movement, when religion ties itself up with statism and imperial ambition the results are always gruesome. That said, religion has often historically been a driving force for the classical liberal values that form the framework of modern liberty-minded thought. In full historical context I'd argue that the now-common desire to write religion off as a "plague" is too simplistic and, ironically, dogmatic.

[smellyBobby]

You know what I don't get; idiots that say we should get rid of religion.

These same idiots fail to think about a fundamental question; Who invented religion?

You can't get rid of it. Religion is a product of intelligence.

Imagine that first person who had the concept of a god. And your saying that if we completely remove any notion from current human knowledge that it will no longer return. LOL.




Sure I think most current religions suck. But for some reason, maybe someone will do a PhD on it one day, intelligence needs a 'god' to handle some environmental problems. So if intelligence needs a 'god' your better off trying to propose a different religion rather than fighting the impossible battle of removing religion altogether.

[myrkul]

. Religion is a product of intelligence.

Fail.

Religion is a product of fear.

Fear of Thunder, Fear of the Sea, Fear of the unknown.

[Bitcoin_Silver_Supply]

Sure I think most current religions suck. But for some reason, maybe someone will do a PhD on it one day, intelligence needs a 'god' to handle some environmental problems. So if intelligence needs a 'god' your better off trying to propose a different religion rather than fighting the impossible battle of removing religion altogether.

The problem with most religions is that they are either started as, or guided towards, a top-down means of controlling the masses. The latest varieties such as new age earth-worship, technocracy and spiritual humanism are just as bad as many ancient religions despite being marketed as rebellious and liberating for disenfranchised individuals.

That said, I think the drive towards spirituality is very much a part of human nature and it is a sense of awe in the humbling amount of unknowns that still exist today. For many, nothing screams "prime mover" quite like the exploration of the cosmos and the big bang theory.

[em3rgentOrdr]

. Religion is a product of intelligence.

Fail.

Religion is a product of fear.

Fear of Thunder, Fear of the Sea, Fear of the unknown.

+1.  And dont forget, religion is also a product of ignorance.  As science and knowledge improves, religion decreases.

[billyjoeallen]

Might is right. When you deny it to most people, that's when you have problems.

2+2 is not 5, no matter how many guns are pointed at the mathematician.

[terroh8er]

. Religion is a product of intelligence.

Fail.

Religion is a product of fear.

Fear of Thunder, Fear of the Sea, Fear of the unknown.

+1.  And dont forget, religion is also a product of ignorance.  As science and knowledge improves, religion decreases.

I don't know that this is entirely true. I guess I can't really speak for dogs, fish, and ants, but religion seems to have developed with human intelligence. It's not really fair to call people like Plato and Socrates ignorant (depending on your usage of the word) because they believed in the supernatural. It made the most sense at the time. It's like someone 100 years from now saying Einstein was ignorant because his theory of general relativity failed to take into account a yet-undiscovered aspect of the universe.

However, religious people today are overwhelming ignorant because there is so much evidence to the contrary. Sometimes I wonder if even the pope believes that God is real, or if he fakes it so his life of celibacy wasn't all for naught. Otherwise, I think people are afraid to admit that what they believed their entire lives was actually untrue.

[NghtRppr]

Religion is a product of fear.

It's kind of like government. The only people that support either are stupid, scared or both.

[FredericBastiat]

Religion is just like any other association of individuals, except by name alone. Their thinking is typically one of a divine creator who oversees (in the loose sense of the word) his creation. An omniscient and omnipotent being who attempts to communicate with a select few of his disciples/followers/prophets and pass on instructions (gospel/scripture) about how one should comport oneself.

Associations of individuals of like-minded thinking aren't necessarily bad. One could obviously have a family "religion". A family could be considered a religion because of it's group-think similarities. This is almost unavoidable. To wit, I don't think the destruction of the family is such a good idea because of it's religious tendencies.

Within any association, there will be individuals who will have differing opinions and beliefs separate from the majority of the other followers. These may or may not be correct. I should be careful, "correct", may be hard to discern in some instances if one is trying to determine absolute right (that may never be known). Natural laws may be easy to observe, and they appear to be immutable, but human nature and it's behavioural traits in relation to "righteousness" and "wickedness" will always be open for interpretation.

In any case, the only thing anybody should be concerned about, isn't necessarily whether another man's beliefs are "right" or "wrong" but merely that they don't infringe upon another man's ability to believe and do otherwise (at least in contradistinction to other religious beliefs and norms).

In which case, who cares. Being ignorant isn't a crime, forcing ignorance is.

[NghtRppr]

In any case, the only thing anybody should be concerned about, isn't necessarily whether another man's beliefs are "right" or "wrong" but merely that they don't infringe upon another man's ability to believe and do otherwise (at least in contradistinction to other religious beliefs and norms).

In which case, who cares. Being ignorant isn't a crime, forcing ignorance is.

I disagree. It should be (and is) legal to be an insufferable douche. I wouldn't use violence against anyone to stop them from being one. But I would still care if a significant portion of the population were douches. Just because people are doing something legal doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned. I am concerned. I want more than to be left alone though I would settle for that. I want everyone to appreciate our likely place in the universe. If you walk around thinking you'll spend eternity with your relatives, you might not think it's so urgent to spend time with them while alive. I think that's a tragedy.

Anyways, you're contradicting yourself. You're concerned with whether or not we are concerned with anything other than legal issues, which itself is not a legal issue. If you were being consistent, you wouldn't be concerned to write your post in the first place.

[FredericBastiat]

Anyways, you're contradicting yourself. You're concerned with whether or not we are concerned with anything other than legal issues, which itself is not a legal issue. If you were being consistent, you wouldn't be concerned to write your post in the first place.

I didn't say anything contradictory. I am just as concerned with the direction some ignorant people take as you are (apparently). The original poster of this thread mentioned religion as "the plague", "or might makes right". Those are pretty strong words. I would assume where there is a plague, you'd want to eradicate said plague. Are we trying to get rid of the plague thru passive means or thru forceful means? I'd like everybody to be caring, loving and concerned individuals. I can't make them that way.

If we're going to talk about "the plague" and "might makes right" there is the stigma of legality. I do care about being nice too, of course.

I think my post was very apropo.

[NghtRppr]

You came off sounding as if we should only care about things that are illegal and no other social issues.

In which case, who cares. Being ignorant isn't a crime, forcing ignorance is.

I care and you should too. Being ignorant isn't a crime but there's more to life than justice. We shouldn't adopt a "who cares" attitude. If that's not what you meant then I don't know. Your posts usually strike me as wordy and pretentious. Your whole style does. So it's kind of difficult to know when you're being sincere.

[terroh8er]

"Plague" is a figure of speech. If someone developed a course to eliminate religious thought, it goes without saying that I wouldn't support forced attendance for religious people. Everyone has the right to live in their own ignorance if they choose. However, the problem comes about when, through democracy, people force religious ideas on others. What defense do we have besides trying to educate as private citizens? When people want de jure discrimination against gay people or Muslims because they think a man living behind clouds will disapprove, it is my right and arguably my duty to convince them otherwise.

[myrkul]

I don't know that this is entirely true. I guess I can't really speak for dogs, fish, and ants, but religion seems to have developed with human intelligence. It's not really fair to call people like Plato and Socrates ignorant (depending on your usage of the word) because they believed in the supernatural. It made the most sense at the time. It's like someone 100 years from now saying Einstein was ignorant because his theory of general relativity failed to take into account a yet-undiscovered aspect of the universe.

Ignorance is simply lack of facts. There's nothing wrong with that that a textbook can't fix. It would be perfectly correct to call Einstein ignorant if some new data came up and showed him to be. Plato and Socrates were likewise operating from flawed knowledge.

[josell]

For some people, of course, religion may be a product of ignorance and fear.

However, we should Not generalize, specially on the believers, who are individuals. Many of them have many different reason to have a religion. My reason is the love of God; but I cant explain it to those who have never feel it.

In the same way sport, rock n roll, an politics have been like religions. There is fanatism as well.

We can say that religion is bad because of religious wars, but in fact, religious warS were just excuses for get money and power. Religion itself was not the problem, was a victim. In the same way, science have been a victim of these interests in some ways: atomic bombs, chemical bombs, and so. However, I dont say science is bad because of that. In the same way, we shall not judge religion for the same reason.

[myrkul]

However, we should generalize, specially on the believers, who are individuals. Many of them have many different reason to have a religion. My reason is the love of God; but I cant explain it to those who have never feel it.

Don't get me wrong, the modern incarnation of most religions are very positive in their message, for the most part. Christianity, in particular, has toned down its 'kill the infidel' stance considerably, A fact which I, again, thank Martin Luther for. (Didn't help right away, I'll grant you that - but when churches realized they could simply split off instead of slaughtering the 'heretics', life got a lot nicer.)

But the original religions were born of fear and ignorance of the natural world.

Let me ask you, though... The Question in the OP. Would you still worship God if Satan were all-powerful?

[josell]

Well, I Satan would be more powerful than God, but still being bad, then I would still believing in God. However, if Satan would be all-powerful, he would know that to be bad is not sustentable, so he would not be bad.