religion will hardly be deleted, so it would be better to refine it.
Offline
Humans are not 'good for nature'. Many proofs could be listed.
The average Human is not intelligent. Let me say that: he is quite dumb.
Those two single points are sufficient to argument that religion can actually be useful in order to establish a "morality" in society and to prevent a lot of 'bad things' that evil and dumb people often tend to do. Politics and Law have replaced in many points religion, but i am still convinced that any effort of "freeing" humanity from Theism is not bound to make the world necessarily better. In a world without religion, people is not more intelligent, and someone will eventually find the way to use this lack of intelligence in order to take the power, with all the consequences we know. This is a form of blind faith, after all.
Of course, a lot of different religions exist, and some of them can be very easily used to make people PROUD of those 'bad things'. Just think about Chatolicism in middle ages, or Islam during all its history.
What is the point? Just imagine a world without religion. Law would be the only thing to establish 'moral order' in this world. And history teaches that Law can change very abruptly, very often in negative direction.
Also, are you sure that the 'average dumb human' really needs to be set free from Theism? If his religion is a good one, he will live with a moral code preventing him from doing foolish things, and in the joyful convinction that another life exists.
I said that Politics change too abruptly. On the other hand, religions change too slowly. Many of the irrationalities of religions are due to that. Islam want its followers not to eat pork. This is a good advice if you are in a desert with no igienic services and you are uncertain if eating or not a rotting pig. But this is no longer useful if you are in a supermarket.
So, i think that religion should work strictly on morality, spirituality and mysticism. So, Hinduism, Buddhism and all the 'philosophical-speculative-devotional' currents of the far east are the most suited. "Common people" will find solace in it, and "Educated Elite" will find a lot of elevated philosofical speculation.
You may think that my idea is "fight ignorance, befor fighting religion". And i mainly agree. But i have to admit that many peoples don't need (and don't want) to be particularly enlightened. Next time you buy some cow meat, realize that someone worked in a hay-field, someone else raised the cow and someone else again killed it. Thinkers as you and me live thanks to those people, but those people are a lot more ignorant. They dont want to know that religion is a bunch of fake statements. All they want is to live in peace and, if they believe in something, to make their god happy. So, it would be batter for him to have a good god.
I don't get shocked if i read that XX percent of YYYYians (put a random number in XX and a random state in YYYY) are ignorants. If they are good workers and happy persons, i surely prefer them to a million rational philosophers.
- Login to post comments
I firmly believe that intelligence is more than just the potential you were born with. I would go so far as to say that a large part of an individual's intellect is due to the way they were raised and the choices they have made.
Yes our genes define our natural ability but if you never used it you would effectively be less intelligent than someone born less genetically gifted who grew up reading and questioning. A lot of the time it seems to come down to a choice - Will I try to comprehend new ideas and challenge my old ones?
I predict that if we have a society where we can no longer rely on the prepackaged wotrld view of religion people will develop the courage to explore ideas as individuals. If we are never offered the crutch of religion we will never become dependent on it.
As for people with boring jobs needing to be kept ignorant I'd say that it's an arrogant assumption to think they are ignorant in the first place. Your job does not need to be your life. One of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people I know worked many years as a cleaner because her situation did not allow her to get the education she needed for a more snobbish job. She spent her time outside of work reading and learning. When she was able she enrolled at university and is now a great english teacher.
Also those non-stimulating jobs will be the first ones lost to automation. Unless you want massive unemployment you'd better hope they are smart enough to train in a more intellectually challenging field.
Religion keeps people ignorant and happy that way. This is dangerous. Ignorant masses are easily led. All you need is one leader to manipulate them to to horrible things. I'd be much more comfortable with the million rational philosophers. When someone tells them "go kill those people because they are evil" the philosophers will ask "Why?" the ignorant masses will just go and kill.
We'll find out soon enough. Religion is dissapearing in modern societies outside of America - you guys are a bit retarded in this aspect. Over here in Perth, Western Australia I'd estimate that in the under 30 age group the atheists outnumber the christians. If all the muslims immigrating here become less insular I predict we will be almost completely atheist in a couple of generations.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Thanks for the defense of us working slugs, Paranoid. Nice post, btw. I would take issue with...
This hasn't helped to stem wars ordered by either secular or religious leaders yet, I'm not hopeful it ever will.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
With or without religion it's still the ignorant masses that are easily led. Religion is one thing that is very good at keeping people ignorant. there are others and I'd like us to lose them all.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
you're making a lot of assumptions, here. how do you know these people are ignorant? how do you know they wouldn't be interested and/or fascinated by an alternate view of religion, science, etc? who are you to say that their living in peace and want to make their god happy? maybe their living in fear of damnation, trying to appease a strict and controlling god? or maybe living in fear of speaking out against the religious choice of a brutal regime? who says that they see their god as good?
if you raise a dog in a 6x6 cage from birth, it's easy to say that it's happy with the world it knows and to expose it to more would frighten and confuse it. it's also cruel and unfair, because you're denying that dog the ability to choose for itself.
it's what organized religion fears most, that given a second choice the "believer" may realize that they were only content and happy with their first choice because for most of their lives it was the ONLY choice. it's not the atheist community's job to decide what will or won't make someone happy, or to decide who is or isn't smart enough. we only need to be willing to share what we've all discovered, which is that there is an alternative to what most people are taught to believe from birth. after that it's the individual's responsibility, and right, to decide for themselves.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
Let's get this guy together with XKCD. They would be the dynamic duo of self-loathing. Misanthropos and his sidekick, Lashout Boy!!!
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Note To Theists: I will be talking like you aren't even in the room, it will probably be offensive, read at your own risk.
You talk about how humans can't give up religion because the dumb need it to stay in line. This might be true to a point, but it isn't that hard to take a religion or make a new one then cause harm with it. Not in the sense there is a guy on top with a malice goal in mind. A 'true believer' can take an idea an run with causing all sorts of problems.
Now I see the same level of morality in following X religion or X government simply because they are authority or will punish you for disobedience. It is a childish morality, but only the childish would need it to stay in line. The only real advantage of using a god instead of big brother is that god would be a cheap illusion which doesn't watch me in the shower and the person who it would be used on would think its always watching (including the showering bit). Nice, but I don't really think that out weighs the damage of the 'true believers.'
You also said religion is slow to change. While yes a religion can change slowly a person's religion can change over night, or after seeing a frozen water fall. Also it really isn't that stable or consistent beyond myths within it, and even those can change or vary. Take christanity. Lots of different groups the only thing that really keeps them together is jesus. (um together as in category, they'll still argue amongst themselves)
The last bit that amounts to "Lets keep them dumb so we can have worker" is a bit disturbing. Sounds like something a marxist would be claiming the leaders try to make happen... Might be the case, but I'd rather have human advancement over long term then living a little nicer in the short...
EDIT: this is an answer to Paranoid post.
i agree with some of your points, but let me precise some others (i have some problems with the layout of the site and please forgive me for quoting you just by putting quotation marks):
"I firmly believe that intelligence is more than just the potential you were born with."
Sure. But everyday's experience teaches me that a lot of people prefer to talk about football rather than work on their potential.
"As for people with boring jobs needing to be kept ignorant I'd say that it's an arrogant assumption to think they are ignorant in the first place."
first of all, i did not say those are boring jobs! i sincerely have the intention to buy a terrain and to live in an autarchic, hermit-like life, so don't think i was arrogant when speaking about that. Apart from that. My granpa does not believe in basic things as plate tectonic and mountain genesis. I often tried to explain him that. Still, i consider him a man of 'good and common sense'. Simply put, his existence did not require him to know geologic sciences. This do not make him an ignorant, as he have a great wisdom in some other subjects; also, i esteem and envy his ability to be always happy.
Sure, he's not an ignorant in geology "in the first place", as you say. If he studied science all the time he spent working in the fields he surely would think differently. But this would not make him a better person than he actually is.
I did not even meant that "simple people" should be kept ignorant. Everyone with access to an internet point can spend one dollar/euro and go to wikipedia. And i'm happy they can. What i'm saying is that not everyone is interested in doing it (as the "football" guys above).
"Also those non-stimulating jobs will be the first ones lost to automation."
This would lead to a long discussion i sincerely have no strenght to start. Cutting a long story short, i would like to underline the economic problem about this point. If those people working with terrains and animal were the direct benificiary of their work, the "automation" thing could be applicated. (and, sincerely speaking, a robot-based society is my dream). The problem is that all these people live thanks to the money they earn by working, and they would be the first victim of such an automatisation.
"Unless you want massive unemployment you'd better hope they are smart enough to train in a more intellectually challenging field"
Forgive the sincerity, but i'm sure that a lot of them would stick to body building! By the way, i have a couple of friend with scientific background (we studied in the same high school) who prefer physical activity to " more intellectually challenging field". And i don't see anything strange in this.
"Religion keeps people ignorant and happy that way. This is dangerous. Ignorant masses are easily led."
this is why i said that religion have to be "refined": in order tho prevent this kind of control over masses. I don't recall any Zen Buddhist leader that made his followers go killing "evil people". This is the reason i prefer Buddhism to other kind of religion.
As for your prediction about future:
"Religion is dissapearing in modern societies outside of America - you guys are a bit retarded in this aspect."
i'm from Italy. but i have to say that religion is still a major force here (after all, we have the pope).
"If all the muslims immigrating here become less insular I predict we will be almost completely atheist in a couple of generations. "
What you mean with "less insular"? If you intended "less religious" i say that is quite a strict assumption. Well, this is only a question of time.
EDIT: and this is a reply to Voiderest.
"The last bit that amounts to "Lets keep them dumb so we can have worker" is a bit disturbing."
Well, it would be if i actually said that. I have nothing against a worker going to inform himself about literature or what else. What im saying is that i don't see the need to set them free from religion, if the religion is a good one.
What i mean with "good" is a bit explained in the previous response. And i can think of a religion that is not against free thinking rationalism, illuminism. So these should not be rejected. What i say is that in a world without religion, people will not wait to find a surrogate, unless they all are enlightened by the principles of rationalism. (and this is quite a difficult condition to achieve, you'll agree).
Yes, maybe the next generations will mostly get rid of religion, and a lot of people of my same age already profess themselves as atheists. But their are not "free". their god are television and fast cars, and their only precept is social status. They can't do anything, exception made for flirting and dancing and talking about rubbish. they would not know where to start if they had to work in the fields. this is not the humanity i'd like to see around.
Right, what is the humanity i'd like to see? I answer by saying two book titles.
Thoreau's Walden, and Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
I suppose that if djneibarger is going to read the first one, he'd understand i'm no talking about dogs in cages.
i'm also convinced that we have to drastically reduce the number of people on earth before even thinking about a "crusade for freedom". half a billion would be ok. i let you decide how to achieve this (eheh). But this'll lead to quite another subject.
At the moment a large number of muslims are immigrating to Australia. They tend to form their own little communities and not integrate with society at large. I predict that if they do eventually become part of our soceity, rather than a society within our society, they will become less religious just like the rest of us. At the moment there's little hope of that because they make point of not allowing themselves to be tainted by outside ideas.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
ciao e benvenuto alla tribuna alcofibras
May I correct you on some points, the world's population is not too large, this is a common misconception, most of this planet is uninhabited, and the resources are available to sustain far higher numbers, if the infrastructure and leadership were use to its best ability, this would not be an issue
A job does not defined a person, ? how many high paid manages, with virtually no intellectual capability do you know
Although you are correct, that there are lots of un-educated people, the solution is a good education system for all
grazie..!
earth population may not be too large, but this doesn't imply that a minor number of person livin on itwouldn't solve some problems. i may agree that earth is theorically able to sustain 10 billion people, but i continue believing in the saying: "the fewer the people, the more everithing else". So, why playing with our planet's limits?
also, when you say "if the infrastructure and leadership were use to its best ability, this would not be an issue", you are making a very strong premise. Infrastructure and leadership have no reason to do that, because they are composed by evil people (for the first axiom of my philosophy).
Please learn to use the quote function. There is a tutorial here.
Another note, I suspect the length of the page is due to writing posts in some type of word editor (MS Word, Lotus Word-Pro, Word Perfect). Editors such as those have all sorts of "hidden" instructions which can do odd things when copied into a comment box.
If using a separate application to write posts, please use a plain text editor.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
In the case of world population, I believe the more the better, to increase the chances of overall survival of the species, there are plenty of natural disasters waiting to happen, that could wipe out a significant portion of the population, not to mention that when a enlightened society, reaches population X, it then tends to become self limiting,? is this not the case in Italy already, with a stable or falling population, ? And how long before Etna explodes which is part of a larger super massive volcano Beneath Naples.
You are correct with the leadership,
maybe a French style revolution with, monsieur guillotine (signore guillotine), would be helpful from time to time 
Pretty big if
I would agree it would be difficult, but I wouldn't be consistent if I left off the bits of religion that aren't overtly damaging. By a faith or followers in name alone existing it gives power to the people who do most of the damage.
Maybe you should talk to more atheist teens and look into psychology. Most kids are going to care about their social status in highschool because thats where they are at in there life. If I remember right thats around the time people start grouping themselves off. Might have more to do with how the mind grows then how the future is going to look.
I know I might be an odd ball, but I wasn't talking unless it was interesting. Also knowing how to "work in the fields" isn't the embodiment of life skills. Besides if someone wants to know how to work in the fields they can use google, how it works, yahoo answers, or even wiki.
http://www.netlingo.com/more/poptick.html
Good luck with that. The not so bloody or removal of freedoms answer is develop the earth. The developed world has far lower growth rates then the developing world. Something about knowing what STDS are and knowing how not to knock up your girlfriend helps that sort of thing. Also people within those nation seem to choose to have less kids if any. The most kids I'd have is 2, replacement.