Straw Poll - should all religious related threads be banned? Page 5

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • AaronTurner 26 Aug 2012 11:49:24 7,886 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    So what you're suggesting is that Sunday School is like crack?
  • malloc 26 Aug 2012 11:51:12 2,392 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    People's thoughts of religion aside, does this mean we shouldn't be able to even discuss it?
  • Load_2.0 26 Aug 2012 11:51:19 19,685 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I have to agree, whether it be heaven or hell, ghost's, having a soul or accepting the death of a child.

    It may be a coping mechanism but a healthy society absolutely needs an element of mysticism.

    Edited by Load_2.0 at 11:52:03 26-08-2012
  • redcrayon 26 Aug 2012 11:52:31 4,574 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @Eyeland
    Er, what? I like a few beers on the weekend as the pub is a good place to meet with friends, eat, drink and talk about man stuff. And I like the taste of beer, food and talking about stuff. Not because I am out of touch with my inner harmony.

    I think you also discount the human traits of curiosity (with regard to drugs), and how 'a problem shared is a problem halved.'

    Sure, people seeking oblivion alone is one thing, but the huge amount of alcohol consumed isn't entirely down to that- sometimes it occupies the same area of 'social glue' (no pun intended) in a secular society that religion used to, giving people a reason to meet up with others, relax and lay their fears to rest, something like that.

    It's not like heavy drinking didn't occur in previously heavily religious societies- the people filling the taverns in the dark ages/medieval era were doing so for the same reasons as today, meeting with friends and drinking after a day's work.

    Religion and heavy drinking have existed side-by-side for thousands of years, it's not evidence of a loss of anything.

    Edited by redcrayon at 12:00:16 26-08-2012
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 11:57:29
    disusedgenius wrote:
    @kalel

    Sounds like that's more an issue of ultra-conservationism than mysticism.

    I'm also not sure where you get the idea that mysticism isn't an essential part of human development, even if it is something which diminishes slightly over time. At it's core it's us just doing that 'everything must be connected! Even these two completely unrelated things which which just so happen to be all I have to think about all day' thing we do so well.
    Ingnorance creates a vacuous void. We do have a need to fill that void, but the vacuum doesn't have to suck in mystic beliefs. That's just one option, and the one we tend to turn to in the absence of a better explanation.

    There is no innate need to believe in mystical stuff. We just find it very hard to say "I don't know".
  • disusedgenius 26 Aug 2012 12:03:54 5,637 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    We do have a need to fill that void, but the vacuum doesn't have to suck in mystic beliefs
    That statement seems to be demonstrably false though (presuming we aren't talking about an individual living in a modern, first word country here). Mystical only seems mystical when you're in a position of being more informed - where you're 'in there' it just seems like natural consequence.
  • Load_2.0 26 Aug 2012 12:06:39 19,685 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    There is no innate need to believe in mystical stuff. We just find it very hard to say "I don't know".
    There is more to it than trying to explain the unknown.

    Death for example is a good example, if your wife dies should you never visit the grave? Or talk to a photo? I would guess even the most resolute skeptic/atheist still needs an outlet for grief beyound the fact death is inevitable.

    Edited by Load_2.0 at 12:12:49 26-08-2012
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 12:09:31
    disusedgenius wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    We do have a need to fill that void, but the vacuum doesn't have to suck in mystic beliefs
    That statement seems to be demonstrably false though (presuming we aren't talking about an individual living in a modern, first word country here). Mystical only seems mystical when you're in a position of being more informed - where you're 'in there' it just seems like natural consequence.
    Exactly! There is no basic need for "mysticism" just some sort of explanation and mysticism is what we turn to in the absence of a better one.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 12:12:27
    Load_2.0 wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    There is no innate need to believe in mystical stuff. We just find it very hard to say "I don't know".
    There is more to it than trying to explain the unknown.

    Death for example is a good example, if your wife dies should you never visit the grave? Or talk to a photo? A small part of you needs more than accepting death as an inevitable cycle.
    I can understand people behaving irrationally to cope with a death, but others are extremely rational about it. No everyone does those things. I don't.
  • Load_2.0 26 Aug 2012 12:16:49 19,685 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Nor me but I suspect it depends on the nature of the relationship.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 12:22:54
    The greater the loss the greater the need to rationalise it. Not sure how that really contradicts what I'm saying.
  • AaronTurner 26 Aug 2012 12:23:41 7,886 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Load_2.0 Visiting a grave doesn't have to mean anything. Personally I don't visit my mothers grave for no other reason than I have no connection with it. That doesn't mean anyone visiting the grave is religious or believes she is there listening, it's just where she is buried.

    It's such a common argument that we needed religion to form a civilised society but I can't help but think it's nonsense. In the past people were pretty much forced into being religious regardless of if they had faith or not, it was dangerous not to believe. I don't think all our achievements wee because we were controlled by religion in the past. The notion that religion somehow teaches us how to be good people is a load of crap too.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 12:28:06
    Um yeah.

    Lots of violent agreement in this discussion. Really not convinced anyone is making a point different to anyone else.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 12:41:45
    Religion hasn't just provided a means to an explanation. It has provided social structure and coherance in some cultures. Maybe a degree of subdugation is necessary for a successful society. The law is kind of a form of subdugation that prevents chaos. Maybe tribalism is inherent in humans and all the atrocities pinned on religion would have happened anyway. Dunno?
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 12:48:32
    You're the one protecting modern views onto another time. Death may well have been of no concern at all in those terms. Certainly the death of a child would have been considered no big deal it was so common.
  • Load_2.0 26 Aug 2012 13:06:45 19,685 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Barry you still haven't thrown that baby into the corpse pit. Anyway lets get cracking on making a few more!

    Pretty sure a dead kid was an issue no matter how common infant mortality was.

    Edited by Load_2.0 at 13:07:48 26-08-2012
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 13:11:11
    Ok no big deal was too far, but you know what I mean.
  • LeoliansBro 26 Aug 2012 13:13:31 44,966 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Some people need the emotional support to be found in religion even if they haven't suffered any loss.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Load_2.0 26 Aug 2012 13:16:46 19,685 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Sure.

    AaronTurner wrote:
    @Load_2.0 Visiting a grave doesn't have to mean anything. Personally I don't visit my mothers grave for no other reason than I have no connection with it. That doesn't mean anyone visiting the grave is religious or believes she is there listening, it's just where she is buried.
    But why visit a grave at all? For me that falls outside the realm of rational behaviour and into mysticism.
  • redcrayon 26 Aug 2012 13:25:25 4,574 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @EyeLand

    Even my coffee now? I drink a couple of cups a coffee a day and love my job (and good coffee). I have to get up at oh-dark-thirty to commute, I think that's a more likely reason for my caffiene intake, surely?

    The idea that I drink beer every now and then, one of the most common social activities on the planet, because I am unhappy rather than because pubs are everywhere and provide a table and music in the centre of town where it's easy for everyone to get home from seems a bit unlikely to me. Its a broad generalisation you are using there- out of interest do you drink beer, coffee or anything yourself?
  • redcrayon 26 Aug 2012 13:30:37 4,574 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    EyeLand wrote:
    AaronTurner wrote:


    It's such a common argument that we needed religion to form a civilised society but I can't help but think it's nonsense. In the past people were pretty much forced into being religious regardless of if they had faith or not, it was dangerous not to believe. I don't think all our achievements wee because we were controlled by religion in the past. The notion that religion somehow teaches us how to be good people is a load of crap too.
    Religion wouldn't have been a controling influence right at the beginning. It would have been to console a mother when she lost 3 babies in a row, or when a partner was killed in a hunting accident. You're giving people too much credit. People are fragile mentally and a tribe of people who knew scientifically like today death was the ultimate end, would literally go insane.
    You don't know that. Empathy isn't a uniquely religious trait, there's every chance religion spawned out of ritual. Hunters having good luck after killing a deer in a certain way, or good crops grow after a sacrifice, then the ritual becomes more elaborate as time goes by. Not sure where death comes into it- the rituals for dealing with death may well have contributed to religion as the 'right' way of saying goodbye, but I doubt the idea of consoling those who have lost someone was 'invented' as part of the birth of religion.

    Religion is more likely to have been a hotch-potch of the groups rituals, tied together into an encompassing mythology, much like the birth of modern religions absorbing and twisting the stories of the older ones. Control would certainly be an aspect of it. Not all control is a bad thing- having a mantra about not eating certain foods might well hark back to a tribe member being poisoned by it, that kinda thing.

    Edited by redcrayon at 13:33:38 26-08-2012
  • LeoliansBro 26 Aug 2012 13:32:23 44,966 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    And having a coping mechanism isn't the same as saying you're unhappy.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • AaronTurner 26 Aug 2012 16:11:54 7,886 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Load_2.0 surely this is obvious? There is a body of a deceased loved one there, that doesn't mean people actually believe they see talking to them. I don't see what's strange or mystical about that. It's not for me but I can understand why people visit the place where a body is buried.
  • bladdard 26 Aug 2012 17:08:39 1,030 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Seems ironic to contribute when I disagree with threads on religion but here comes the controversial bit.

    I'm an atheist and don't have anything against people who have faith, most are good people who have been conditioned and brainwashed.

    The way religion in general is taught as an undeniable truth with threats against those that are not is wrong. The whole "if you join us you'll be saved but if you don't you'll be damned for all eternity, can you afford to take that risk?" is classic brainwashing.

    Cults use similar techniques when recruiting and they're demonised - no difference for me. I strongly disagree with any form of mainstream media giving a voice to cults, religious or otherwise.
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply