Catholicism leads religion in UK

[GavinZac]

Anything can be used to incite war and hatred. Yes religion is one of those things, but only if it is presented in a distorted way. Nationalism, racism, fascism, communism and other ideologies have also been used.

Distorted? The prevalent theistic religions, except arguably for Hinduism, are utter bile, xenophobia and hatred if not "distorted" to some palatable form. Because they have no factual base, they can be twisted and moulded to suit whatever the purpose is; be it as some sort of placebo drug to give the immature some comfort, islam's 'defence of their holy lands', or GWB's God-given mission to defend America.

You rank religion alongside nationalism, racism, facism, and communism as if it somehow justifies it or lessens its guilt. Given that all but one of the others (racism) are products of recent centuries, and all but one (communism, which is an ideal; i think here you mean to say totalitarianism) are artificial metaphorical lines in the sand drawn to create divisions and hatred between human beings, to control, tax and send them to die for their ruling class, it only emphasises the terrible devastation caused by the crutch of religion, and indeed its far longer history as a cancer on humanity.

[Cymro]

Distorted? The prevalent theistic religions, except arguably for Hinduism, are utter bile, xenophobia and hatred if not "distorted" to some palatable form. Because they have no factual base, they can be twisted and moulded to suit whatever the purpose is; be it as some sort of placebo drug to give the immature some comfort, islam's 'defence of their holy lands', or GWB's God-given mission to defend America.

Saying that the vast majority of moderate religious people who are actually perfectly good people should be given the label of 'distortionists' instead of the relatively small extremist sections who base their actions on long redundant, obscure passages is ridiculous.

You claim that religion is 'twisted and moulded to suit the purpose'. Well, ironically, I suppose I agree with that. But that doesn't make religion a 'bad' thing. It simply reinforces my argument that evil people will reach for anything to justify their wrongdoings, even (and this is important) if the vast majority of that religion condemns what they are doing, but also that good people will look to those things for inspiration.

You rank religion alongside nationalism, racism, facism, and communism as if it somehow justifies it or lessens its guilt. Given that all but one of the others (racism) are products of recent centuries, and all but one (communism, which is an ideal; i think here you mean to say totalitarianism) are artificial metaphorical lines in the sand drawn to create divisions and hatred between human beings, to control, tax and send them to die for their ruling class, it only emphasises the terrible devastation caused by the crutch of religion, and indeed its far longer history as a cancer on humanity.

I don't rank religion alongside those things. What I do rank alongside those things is religious fundamentalism, which is a concept that is quite often so far from mainstream religion that it can barely be considered part of it.

I am not suggesting that any of those things (religious extremism included) are free of guilt or justifiable, far from it. I would condemn extremism of any kind, as would most people. However, my point is there will always be extremists in any political or ideological camp. Getting rid of religion won't change that fact, these extremists will just look to something else in order to 'justify' their hatred (incidentally, moderate religion doesn't justify hatred).

I suppose you will now be able to provide me with a point by point justification of the various movements inspired by Darwin's theory, such as the aforementioned Social Darwinism or eugenics movements. I mean sure atheism's squeaky clean isn't it?

Again, getting rid of religion will not solve anything. It is simply being targeted for criticism because it has such a large role to play in society.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Gavin Zac

I am with Cymro on most of his points , but here's a point to ponder. Hitler was a vegetarian and so was Pol Pot. That doesn't mean those of us who eat meat should put all the vegetarians up against a wall and have them shot to save the world from being governed by lunatics does it?

[micls]

Hitler was a vegetarian and so was Pol Pot. That doesn't mean those of us who eat meat should put all the vegetarians up against a wall and have them shot to save the world from being governed by lunatics does it?

Was their vegetarianism, or prejudice against non-vegetarians the reasoning for any of their killings? If not then I dont see the relevance. Its not who they were or what they claimed to be, rather what drove(or they claim that drove) their horrendous actions.

For the record I agree to an extent that the world would be just as corrupt as it is now without religion, as Cymro said fundamentalists will always find a way.

However, one thing I do believe is that religion is the one thing that will drive what I would consider 'non-fundamentalists' t do horrible things, partake in wars, protest against the rights of others (homosexuality etc) because they honestly believe the consequences to do otherwise are to burn in hell.

That is a powerful motivator to do things I would consider very immoral. I don't believe every one of these people is evil, as I would many fundamentalists, but they have been imo nearly brainwashed from birth into this thinking. It's a hard thing to break.

There aren't many other things that are instilled into masses of people from birth with the potential for so much harm. For example the laws in strict Islam countries. To me they are abhorrent, but to those who live there it is their sincere belief that women are lesser beings etc. This isn't fundamentalism imo, any more than a priest or someone who adheres to the churches beliefs in Catholicism is a fundamentalist. They are simply adhering to what was drummed into them from birth. They aren't evil, but their actions are.

Cymro the idea behind all religions are great, love everyone etc. But faith imo is a personal thing, something for an individual to give them strength and comfort and I have no problem with that. However organised religion can be a very dangerous thing, and has more potential to influence the masses than anything else.

[GavinZac]

Saying that the vast majority of moderate religious people who are actually perfectly good people should be given the label of 'distortionists' instead of the relatively small extremist sections who base their actions on long redundant, obscure passages is ridiculous.

Of course they are distortionists. The basis of any religion is its scripture and teachings, and the scriptures of the 3 abhramic religions, the majority in the world, specifically state that diluting the scripture will send you straight to hell fire. The idea that any of the word of 'God' would be obscure or redundant would have you excommunicated before Vatican 2. If people choose to take the good ideas from it and ignore the rest, they aren't really practicing the religion. Indeed, you have to wonder why they need a book to tell them that killing and stealing are wrong, especially when the book itself notes that killing and stealing are actually ok in certain circumstances.

I don't rank religion alongside those things. What I do rank alongside those things is religious fundamentalism, which is a concept that is quite often so far from mainstream religion that it can barely be considered part of it.

Whats religious fundamentalism? Is Islamic Is the mormon abstainence from blood transfusions fundamentalism? Is Catholic abhorrance of abortion fundamentalism? Is the idea that a Jew would rather starve than eat pork fundamentalism? Are these not just the particular peculiarities that priests have attached to the basic idea of having some damn morals?

I think your own view of religion has been bent by the very, very new idea of "turn the other cheek" currently emphasised by post-V2 rome and probably bleated at you by a secondary school religion teacher. Look at religious ferverance in America, or Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other in Iraq. Is turn the other cheek the reality in religion now?

I am not suggesting that any of those things (religious extremism included) are free of guilt or justifiable, far from it. I would condemn extremism of any kind, as would most people. However, my point is there will always be extremists in any political or ideological camp. Getting rid of religion won't change that fact, these extremists will just look to something else in order to 'justify' their hatred (incidentally, moderate religion doesn't justify hatred).

I'd like someone to, just once, define "moderate" religion. Is it where you pick and choose what you want to believe because while you definitely dont want to end up going to hell (who would, it sounds atrocious, besides with all that sulphur, it would stink), the hocus pocus and the die-for-my-god attitude is just silly. or what?

I suppose you will now be able to provide me with a point by point justification of the various movements inspired by Darwin's theory, such as the aforementioned Social Darwinism or eugenics movements. I mean sure atheism's squeaky clean isn't it?

What, exactly, do Darwin or eugenics have to do with atheism? Atheism is a lack of belief in God or other irrational constructs. You're refering to science, which is a rigorous examination of evidence and a transient consensus formed by knowledgeable practitioners. While making your decisions based on makey-upy fairytale stories allows for whatever interpretation you want which can then be protected by the "hey, its my beliefs" defence, you can't simply believe eugenics would be beneficial. You can't just say "we can ignore human empathy because it'll be better for the species", as there is years of research into the psychology of empathy, the sociology of acceptance and tolerance, the genetic study of diversity. If you do, you're then immediately working outside science, on your own irrational beliefs. A sort of miniature religion, if you will.

Again, getting rid of religion will not solve anything. It is simply being targeted for criticism because it has such a large role to play in society.

No, it is being targeted because irrational beliefs hold no value and eliminating them would eliminate one more excuse for division and hatred amongst human beings.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Was their vegetarianism, or prejudice against non-vegetarians the reasoning for any of their killings? If not then I dont see the relevance. Its not who they were or what they claimed to be, rather what drove(or they claim that drove) their horrendous actions.

For the record I agree to an extent that the world would be just as corrupt as it is now without religion, as Cymro said fundamentalists will always find a way.

However, one thing I do believe is that religion is the one thing that will drive what I would consider 'non-fundamentalists' t do horrible things, partake in wars, protest against the rights of others (homosexuality etc) because they honestly believe the consequences to do otherwise are to burn in hell.

That is a powerful motivator to do things I would consider very immoral. I don't believe every one of these people is evil, as I would many fundamentalists, but they have been imo nearly brainwashed from birth into this thinking. It's a hard thing to break.

There aren't many other things that are instilled into masses of people from birth with the potential for so much harm. For example the laws in strict Islam countries. To me they are abhorrent, but to those who live there it is their sincere belief that women are lesser beings etc. This isn't fundamentalism imo, any more than a priest or someone who adheres to the churches beliefs in Catholicism is a fundamentalist. They are simply adhering to what was drummed into them from birth. They aren't evil, but their actions are.

Cymro the idea behind all religions are great, love everyone etc. But faith imo is a personal thing, something for an individual to give them strength and comfort and I have no problem with that. However organised religion can be a very dangerous thing, and has more potential to influence the masses than anything else.

micls

Gavin Zac's difficulties with religion, seeing it as the cause of all problems in the world, seem to stem from the acts perpetrated by extremists. Hitler and Pol Pot were non-religious extremists who were vegetarian.. it was a parallel example.

[lopez]

...Is the mormon abstainence from blood transfusions fundamentalism?..

Point of order. It's Jehovah's Witnesses that abstain from blood transfusions. Mormons abstain from drink, tobbaco and drugs (which include tea, coffee and Dr. Pepper).

[GavinZac]

micls

Gavin Zac's difficulties with religion, seeing it as the cause of all problems in the world, seem to stem from the acts perpetrated by extremists. Hitler and Pol Pot were non-religious extremists who were vegetarian.. it was a parallel example.

No it isn't. "Extremists" (arguably, people who follow scripture, but for that post, see above) are committing their acts FOR religion. Her point, and now mine, is that Hitler and Pol Pot did not commit mass murder FOR vegetarianism.

You're being silly. I think its the guys writing Freakonomics who coined the phrased "correlation is not causality". However, nobody said it did in this case. Unless their vegetarianism justified them killing people (it'd be a strange type of vegetarianism, eh?) it would have no bearing on whether he turned out to be a war lord or a fiddle player.

My own view isn't that religion is the cause of all the problems in the world; human nature is. For one, we wouldn't so readily subscribe to such tripe as Jesus walking on water or quetzalcoatl leading an immortal army of white men into tenochtitlan if it wasn't for the facet of human nature related to craving acceptance in a group. Does that mean that religion is an inevitable byproduct of this? No, its not. Religion came about as an answer to the gaps in our knowledge - where did we come from, where did this bountiful world come from, what happens when we die? Because at the time, the only creators we knew about were ourselves, we personified the answers to these questions - some mighty powerful being must have created all this, and i bet he's waiting for us when we die, because after making all this he's not going to let us rot in the ground, right?

Those gaps are now relatively minuscule. We know where we came from, we know where this world came from, and we have a damn good idea as to what happens when we die. Yet irrationalists still abuse those ever shrinking gaps, squeezing the last drop of power out of selling a utopian ideal of everyone who ever lived, save for the bad guys, flouncing about "in the presence of God". Because that's all that remains, for anyone exposed to the outside world - the fear of dying and of our loved ones dying being allayed by this hope, sold to us for a euro a week and our sanity.

Ignoring the outright idiots like the people who think we should ignore global warming because we're all being carted off to heaven within 50 years anyway (these happen to be elected idiots in the USA) or the ones who think thinking really hard about saving your loved one is better than giving them a blood transfusion, removing religion would give us one less thing to kill each other for. I'd be glad of thiis even if it didn't solve all our problems.

Congrats on the reducto ad hitlerum, though.

[CollegeTillIDie]

No it isn't. "Extremists" (arguably, people who follow scripture, but for that post, see above) are committing their acts FOR religion. Her point, and now mine, is that Hitler and Pol Pot did not commit mass murder FOR vegetarianism.

You're being silly. I think its the guys writing Freakonomics who coined the phrased "correlation is not causality". However, nobody said it did in this case. Unless their vegetarianism justified them killing people (it'd be a strange type of vegetarianism, eh?) it would have no bearing on whether he turned out to be a war lord or a fiddle player.

My own view isn't that religion is the cause of all the problems in the world; human nature is. For one, we wouldn't so readily subscribe to such tripe as Jesus walking on water or quetzalcoatl leading an immortal army of white men into tenochtitlan if it wasn't for the facet of human nature related to craving acceptance in a group. Does that mean that religion is an inevitable byproduct of this? No, its not. Religion came about as an answer to the gaps in our knowledge - where did we come from, where did this bountiful world come from, what happens when we die? Because at the time, the only creators we knew about were ourselves, we personified the answers to these questions - some mighty powerful being must have created all this, and i bet he's waiting for us when we die, because after making all this he's not going to let us rot in the ground, right?

Those gaps are now relatively minuscule. We know where we came from, we know where this world came from, and we have a damn good idea as to what happens when we die. Yet irrationalists still abuse those ever shrinking gaps, squeezing the last drop of power out of selling a utopian ideal of everyone who ever lived, save for the bad guys, flouncing about "in the presence of God". Because that's all that remains, for anyone exposed to the outside world - the fear of dying and of our loved ones dying being allayed by this hope, sold to us for a euro a week and our sanity.

Ignoring the outright idiots like the people who think we should ignore global warming because we're all being carted off to heaven within 50 years anyway (these happen to be elected idiots in the USA) or the ones who think thinking really hard about saving your loved one is better than giving them a blood transfusion, removing religion would give us one less thing to kill each other for. I'd be glad of this even if it didn't solve all our problems.

Congrats on the reducto ad hitlerum, though.

On a point of information protein deficiency of the brain has been linked with mental illness and 1920' 30's and 40's vegetarian diets( unlike modern ones) were seriously lacking in protein. There was an article written about how vastly improved vegetarian diets are nowadays compared to the 1920's/30's 40's in one of the papers in the last couple of years that stated there was a link between the protein deficiency of Hitler's diet and his extreme behaviour.

As regards Science I have no issue with the theory of evolution or even The Big Bang Theory. One question science has failed to answer so far.... where did the stuff that went bang in The Big Bang... come from? Simple question... as yet no answer !

Maybe something or some supreme being created that stuff? Who knows?

[GavinZac]

As regards Science I have no issue with the theory of evolution or even The Big Bang Theory. One question science has failed to answer so far.... where did the stuff that went bang in The Big Bang... come from? Simple question... as yet no answer ! Maybe something or some supreme being created that stuff? Who knows?

Well a fair few people know, or at least have good ideas. We are, after all, newly evolved monkeys so getting this far is quite an achievement, even if we havent dropped religion or x-factor yet.

You've got to think in terms ofnot 3, not 4, but 5 dimensions: X, Y, Z, Time, and possibility. the last one is the new idea and the stickler for most people; when people talk of "alternative dimensions" or "alternate universes" they are really talking about this 5th dimension. This 5th dimension is the universe; the universe is everything possible, everything impossible is outside the universe. The impossible is of no consequence in the universe, because if its not possible, its not in the universe.

At some point in the 5th dimension (possibility), the mother and father of the person the Christians would come to call their messiah will actually have been called Brian, making it by far the greatest possible universe. This is because whatever particular linguistics choice the indo-europeans made thousands of years earlier was a decision, conscious or otherwise, that included a possibility which would lead to that outcome. however, even Brian could not walk on water, at least not if his planet shared similar characteristics to ours. To pick a better example, Brian could not magically appear next to his friends a few weeks after he had been killed. Its just not possible in our universe, or in other words, our realms of possibility.

This 'stuff', or energy and matter (some argue matter IS energy, and they have a point), was not created. Its very easy to think about the beginning of the universe in our own sort of timeline; 0 seconds, 1 second, 2 minutes later, etc. However, space and time are inexorably linked; if you approach a limit of possibility (the edge of possibility is the edge of the universe), strange things happen. For instance, one edge of possibility is that all the energy and matter in the universe is condensed as far as it is possible. It cannot be condensed any further; and the only way to get there is with an intense concentration of energy in the time around it. From our point of view, on the timeline we have evolved to observe, we see this as the matter coming outwards, in a burst of extreme heat, light and other energies: an explosion, or a Big Bang.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, is the possibility where ever single particle of energy and matter is so far apart, after a mind-boggling length of time, that no particle can interact with another; every particle will cool to 0 Kelvin, and beyond point, nothing else is possible. It is the other edge of possibility; or, the end of the universe. No restaurants there unfortunately, and it would make rather bleak viewing.

If there is something outside our universe, it cannot affect our universe as it would break the rules of possibility in this universe, and that simply cannot happen. For example, creation is an act of cause and effect; i put together components of a computer, and the effect is I have created a computer. However, cause and effect require space and time; one must come before the other. Because space and time is limited by possibility, we cannot have any space and time outside possibility. Therefore without cause and effect, we cannot have creation before the expansion of our universe.

There is another train of thought whereby, at the point of expansion of our universe, there weren't any chances, no other possibilities; this would restrict us to only one point of possibility, one flow of space time, one flow of energy from one point to another in our universe, ending again with an inevitable cooling of the universe. This would mean -every- we observe is not only within this one possibility, but cannot split to another. Every movement of electron, every sparking of neuron, every thought and every contruct and every decision we ever make is simply the inevitable result of electrons bouncing from one to the other, creating our minds and their decisions as a necessary illusion of free will that simply evolved as the best way of propagating our species and thus keeping this one possible flow of energy going onwards until it in some inevitable way returns to another path. Frankly, I prefer to think of Brian the messiah, but then that keeps me happy and willing to propagate the species

[Cymro]

Of course they are distortionists. The basis of any religion is its scripture and teachings, and the scriptures of the 3 abhramic religions, the majority in the world, specifically state that diluting the scripture will send you straight to hell fire. The idea that any of the word of 'God' would be obscure or redundant would have you excommunicated before Vatican 2. If people choose to take the good ideas from it and ignore the rest, they aren't really practicing the religion. Indeed, you have to wonder why they need a book to tell them that killing and stealing are wrong, especially when the book itself notes that killing and stealing are actually ok in certain circumstances.

I disagree. As I've said, religions evolve and branch out over time due to social influences. For example, Christianity grew out of the old Judeo-Christian faith, and new faiths such as Mormonism grew out of Christianity. The basis of a religion is faith in God, or in some religions, gods, not believing what certain men wrote 4000 years ago.

Whats religious fundamentalism? Is Islamic Is the mormon abstainence from blood transfusions fundamentalism? Is Catholic abhorrance of abortion fundamentalism? Is the idea that a Jew would rather starve than eat pork fundamentalism? Are these not just the particular peculiarities that priests have attached to the basic idea of having some damn morals?

Religious fundamentalism is, in my view, sticking to the same outdated religious values that were practiced by some people years ago but are now denounced by modern religious teachers and modern western society in general. The things you listed are not necessarily fundamentals in my opinion because plenty of non-religious people abstain from pork and other meat, as well as opposing abortion for reasons not at all related to religion.

I think your own view of religion has been bent by the very, very new idea of "turn the other cheek" currently emphasised by post-V2 rome and probably bleated at you by a secondary school religion teacher. Look at religious ferverance in America, or Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other in Iraq. Is turn the other cheek the reality in religion now?

I didn't do Christianity in secondary school, I did Buddhism. But I know a good deal about Christianity of course, being born in a Christian country. Anyway, I would say that your view of religion has been bent by the ancient, now widely-condemned religious xenophobia. Can you really claim that, especially given that the vast majority of religious people are not fundamentalists/extremists, that you are right here? Could it not be that you are picking the view of religion which suits your anti-religious views best?

I'd like someone to, just once, define "moderate" religion. Is it where you pick and choose what you want to believe because while you definitely dont want to end up going to hell (who would, it sounds atrocious, besides with all that sulphur, it would stink), the hocus pocus and the die-for-my-god attitude is just silly. or what?

All religious people 'pick and choose' what they want to believe, even the extremists that you seem to believe represent the entire religious community when they only represent a small minority. Taking Christianity for example, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but it also says, in the New Testament, we should not judge others because we are all sinners. And if you consider that Jesus is supposed to be main figure of Christianity, then those who call themselves Christians whilst yelling hatred left, right and centre against gays, non-Christians etc. are not being very 'Christian' and are probably more 'picking and choosing' than the moderates. So if you think the moderates are picking and choosing, what does that mean for the extremists?

What, exactly, do Darwin or eugenics have to do with atheism? Atheism is a lack of belief in God or other irrational constructs. You're refering to science, which is a rigorous examination of evidence and a transient consensus formed by knowledgeable practitioners. While making your decisions based on makey-upy fairytale stories allows for whatever interpretation you want which can then be protected by the "hey, its my beliefs" defence, you can't simply believe eugenics would be beneficial. You can't just say "we can ignore human empathy because it'll be better for the species", as there is years of research into the psychology of empathy, the sociology of acceptance and tolerance, the genetic study of diversity. If you do, you're then immediately working outside science, on your own irrational beliefs. A sort of miniature religion, if you will.

My whole aim of making that point was to show that any idea, even science, which is supposed to be paragon of objectivity and is usually, but not always, linked to atheism, or agnosticism/lack of belief etc., can be dangerous if it is promoted by ignorant individuals, which was certainly the case with eugenics and social Darwinism (for example, many scientists believed in the 18th century-and this continued well into the 19th century- that other races were genetically inferior to the white man). Religion is indeed dangerous if the same kind of people are involved. But that is by no means the case with all religious people, or even a majority.

To sum up, I agree with CollegeTillIDie here, and probably with micls too. I agree that when religion gets too influential, it can be dangerous-certain people will take things out of context to justify but I also think that the vast (and I mean that) majority of religious people are good people, just as the vast majority of non-religious people are good people.

[GavinZac]

To sum up, I agree with CollegeTillIDie here, and probably with micls too. I agree that when religion gets too influential, it can be dangerous-certain people will take things out of context to justify but I also think that the vast (and I mean that) majority of religious people are good people, just as the vast majority of non-religious people are good people.

Yes, I know this, but while they may be good people, they would still be good people if they didn't have to worry about a their son coming out means they've failed in the eyes of God, or if they don't pay the annual dues they'll be cast out. Frankly, I don't know any Catholics, despite everyone I know having been baptised and confirmed as one. If we are at the point where everyone I know in deepest darkest catholic Ireland, is pretty much agnostic or atheist, and we're just picking the best bits and living by them (and there are very good bits) be it the new testament or the dhammapada, why can't we finally do away with the hocus pocus and the threats and the fear and the placebo hope and just live life right, relying on our own favourite bits? By allowing -any- irrational beliefs to influence the world we live in, be it as small as feeling bad because we missed church on christmas, as disgusting as Bush blocking stem cell research or saudis denegrating their women because "its their beliefs", or as heinous as suicide bombing, we are facilitating it. Tolerance of irrationality is facilitation of all these things because a good moderate Christian telling a muslim he shouldn't believe in the 70 virgins waiting for him in heaven is a damn hypocrite.

[Macy]

If Catherine of Aragon had given birth to a son who had survived, there would probably never have been an Anglican Church. Because she didn't or seemingly couldn't, Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, so he could have a son, the church refused to grant him a divorce, hey presto Church Of England!

It's a bit of an over simplification to suggest that the non-granting of the divorce was the only reason. It was only one of the factors.

I think we're less inclined or not inclined at all to give a toss about a politician's religious beliefs or absence of than some of our more apparently secularised neighbours

Unfortunately, given the way the Government has handled sectarian blocking of children from State schools. A bit more digging and people might draw their own conclusions.