Religion has been unfairly maligned instead of human nature.

yammycat

Religion has taken a massive bashing lately and is widely portrayed as the source of great evil, war and persecution, ill treatment of woman and those of different sexual orientation etc etc.

Humans are tribalistic apes and will clutch at anything to hate the other tribe.

My street hates your street and vice versa
My estate hates your estate and vice versa
Northside dubs hate southside dubs and vice versa
Dubs hate culchies and vice versa,
Southern Irish hate northerners and vice versa.
Irish hate English and vice versa.

etc etc

The my street meme can never spread further than my street because if you don't live in my street ...

The jewish/christian/muslim/yabadabadoosey meme can spread forever because everybody dies, it's about the only thing I could have in common with a person on the other side of the planet. We have nothing in common, not culture nor language nor appearance, only our future death but thats all you need to be in a group and so it spreads.

And it spread widely, that doesn't mean it is the source or cause of hate/violence/discrimination.

Is there objectionable ideas in 'holy' text ? yes of course there is it was written by tribalistic apes ! however if it wasn't there people would fight over something else, location or colour or nationality or football team.

God said thou shalt not kill, to somewhat moral people that would give pause. The liverpool supporters club I have no doubt has never expressed a similar viewpoint.


TLDR, humanity is sh1t not religion

zuroph

organised religion is the problem.

in tribalistic stuff, the strongest survives. with organised religion, the weak were given a tool to control the strong.

I have no problem with someone choosing to believe whatever they like, as long as it doesnt affect others lives in any way. That cant happen with organised religion.

Tin Foil Hat

What part of human nature causes parents to stand back, or even be complicit in, the internment of their daughters, while forcing those daughters to give away their beloved 'illegitimate' children?
What part of human nature causes a parent to disown their kids because of their sexuality?
We are not just talking about tribal warfare. Religion. Poisons. Everything.

barfizz

I don't think that your argument needs to be an "either or", both are causes for concern, however i believe that you do answer some of your own question with the street example.
A street meme remains in the street because it does not have a medium to carry it internationally, unfortunately however, religion does.

Dave!

Dogma in all its forms is the problem. Nothing should be above debate, scrutiny or criticism.

robindch

yammycat wrote: »

Religion [...] is widely portrayed as the source of great evil, war and persecution, ill treatment of woman and those of different sexual orientation etc etc.

Yes, because it legitimizes these things.

Are you saying that it doesn't encourage them?

AhSureTisGrand

These tribalistic apes also made religion. What makes you think it would be better than anything else humanity has done?

smokingman

It is human nature to oppress others but religion is the most hideous method to do that so it's not the intent, it's the tools.


....you're right about Liverpool FC though

bnt

OK, but ... what now? What do we do about that?

I don't believe for a second that you can solve this kind of problem by "banning" religion, or indeed any kind of coercion. Those doing the coercion would be saying that they're "right" and everyone else is "wrong", and you can see the problem straight away. I don't have to be right, but I do want to be correct, if that makes sense.

I think about causes and effects, and I want to see results. This is why I think it's incredibly important to focus on the next generation, in how we teach children. I don't mean "teaching them atheism" (even if you could), I mean teaching them how the world really works, the importance of evidence in evaluating objective reality, and not teaching them that a story is true just because you say so.

That's all. Who was it who said "reality has a liberal bias"?

Doctor DooM

If I am getting you right, are you saying that organised religion is a tool created and used by the malignant and shouldn't be blamed because of that?


Isn't that a bit like the argument in America that guns don't kill people, people do, so we shouldn't restrict guns?

PDN

Dave! wrote: »

Dogma in all its forms is the problem. Nothing should be above debate, scrutiny or criticism.

Including that statement?

PDN

Doctor DooM wrote: »

If I am getting you right, are you saying that organised religion is a tool created and used by the malignant and shouldn't be blamed because of that?


Isn't that a bit like the argument in America that guns don't kill people, people do, so we shouldn't restrict guns?

No, I think it's more like saying that "politics" is not to blame for every atrocity committed in the name of a political party or cause.

seamus

Organised religion is an expression of human nature (the need to explain everything and tell everyone else your explanation). So if human nature is ****, then so too is religion by inference.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Including that statement?

Man, that's like ten thousand spoons...

fatmammycat

yammycat wrote: »

God said thou shalt not kill, to somewhat moral people that would give pause. The liverpool supporters club I have no doubt has never expressed a similar viewpoint.

Far as I know 'god' said 'thou shalt not murder', he/she/it seems perfectly okay with killing, especially if it's in his/her/its name. Either way, as deity's go this current one is not that much different from any other, in that he/she/it demands loyalty to the point of delusion.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Dave! wrote: »

Dogma in all its forms is the problem. Nothing should be above debate, scrutiny or criticism.

Including that statement?

aniskeptic -- is that you? Regardless, that's spoken like a true authoritarian

More seriously, of course it's open to debate, but only if your response is equally open to debate.

What ideas do you believe should not be open for debate and discussion?

Dave!

PDN wrote: »

Including that statement?

Question everything!

except for this

oldrnwisr

yammycat wrote: »

Religion has taken a massive bashing lately and is widely portrayed as the source of great evil, war and persecution, ill treatment of woman and those of different sexual orientation etc etc.

Humans are tribalistic apes and will clutch at anything to hate the other tribe.

My street hates your street and vice versa
My estate hates your estate and vice versa
Northside dubs hate southside dubs and vice versa
Dubs hate culchies and vice versa,
Southern Irish hate northerners and vice versa.
Irish hate English and vice versa.

etc etc

The my street meme can never spread further than my street because if you don't live in my street ...

The jewish/christian/muslim/yabadabadoosey meme can spread forever because everybody dies, it's about the only thing I could have in common with a person on the other side of the planet. We have nothing in common, not culture nor language nor appearance, only our future death but thats all you need to be in a group and so it spreads.

And it spread widely, that doesn't mean it is the source or cause of hate/violence/discrimination.

Is there objectionable ideas in 'holy' text ? yes of course there is it was written by tribalistic apes ! however if it wasn't there people would fight over something else, location or colour or nationality or football team.

God said thou shalt not kill, to somewhat moral people that would give pause. The liverpool supporters club I have no doubt has never expressed a similar viewpoint.


TLDR, humanity is sh1t not religion

"Religion has taken a massive bashing lately and is widely portrayed as the source of great evil, war and persecution, ill treatment of woman and those of different sexual orientation etc etc."

So are you saying that this portrayal is incorrect?

I would say that describing homosexuality as "inclined toward an intrinsic moral evil" and the pope speaking out against efforts to decriminalise homosexuality is something that should be bashed.

The portrayal of religion is a reflection of the activities of its adherents: The Inquisition, the child sex abuse cover-up, the crusades, 9/11 etc. etc.

The portrayal of religion is entirely justified IMHO.


"My street hates your street and vice versa
My estate hates your estate and vice versa..."

Interesting how you didn't use catholics hate protestants in your examples, especially given the suffering that's caused in this country.

Religion is just another mechanism for humans to categorise themselves into groups. Any grouping of humans is bound to conflict with another group that falls into the same category. Whether it's rival football clubs or religions the basic mindset is the same.

I agree with you that the root cause of this behaviour is tribalism. There has been, historically, good evolutionary reasons why tribalism succeeded. Chief among these reasons is that reciprocal altruism is much more likely to occur if there is some group commonality such as family or tribe. With the development of simple societies, this in some ways became more important since it improved social cohesion and allowed all members of the society to benefit.

I don't think that, in the way you argue, that human behaviour as manifested in tribalism should be maligned. We wouldn't be here without it so I don't see any reason to resent it.

We have, however, over the course of 3.8 billion years of evolution, evolved the ability to suppress certain instincts. The idea, therefore, that we should not continue to treat with contempt those who promulgate hate and vitriol is ludicrous.

Dades

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Interesting how you didn't use catholics hate protestants in your examples, especially given the suffering that's caused in this country.

Because that is a total red herring. The problem there is the difference between Republican and Unionist ideologies - nothing to do with their supposed religions.

oldrnwisr

Dades wrote: »

Because that is a total red herring. The problem there is the difference between Republican and Unionist ideologies - nothing to do with their supposed religions.

Red herring, maybe. Total, no. The troubles in the north had nationalism as a factor but you can't deny that religious sectarianism was just as much if not more of a factor. The same catholic/protestant rivalry has been played out on other stages with varying degrees of trouble. The rivalry between Celtic and Rangers or Liverpool and Everton for example stems from a catholic/protestant divide.

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

No, I think it's more like saying that "politics" is not to blame for every atrocity committed in the name of a political party or cause.

Yeeeah, but my entire point there was that regardless of the mediums "innocence" it doesn't get a free pass. You don't allow anyone to use a gun because it's not a guns fault if you shoot it. You don't allow politicians free reign to do as they please or you get Ireland and you don't allow religion a free pass either, as atrocities have surely been allowed pass under it's name and would continue to do so.

strobe

PDN wrote: »

Including that statement?

Yes.....obviously.......

Agonist

Dave! wrote: »

Dogma in all its forms is the problem. Nothing should be above debate, scrutiny or criticism.

I was watching The Meaning of Life with Mark Patrick Hederman of Glenstall Abbey the other night. He used the word (Catholic) 'dogma' in a positive context - He must be is a very special timewarp.

Newaglish

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Red herring, maybe. Total, no. The troubles in the north had nationalism as a factor but you can't deny that religious sectarianism was just as much if not more of a factor. The same catholic/protestant rivalry has been played out on other stages with varying degrees of trouble. The rivalry between Celtic and Rangers or Liverpool and Everton for example stems from a catholic/protestant divide.

Yes but that divide isn't actually based on religious ideology, that's just a handy way of defining the sides. Do you ever see football supporters fighting over the Sola Scriptura?

oldrnwisr

Newaglish wrote: »

Yes but that divide isn't actually based on religious ideology, that's just a handy way of defining the sides. Do you ever see football supporters fighting over the Sola Scriptura?

Ok, to clarify slightly, I am not saying that the catholic protestant divide is the only causal factor in the sectarianism found in places like the Old Firm rivalry. All I am saying is that it is one of the factors. A rivalry as entrenched and historic as that is a complex matter filled with religious, political and ideological disputes.

No, they don't fight over the Sola Scriptura but I remember the controversy that blew up in 1989 when Rangers decided to sign Mo Johnston.

barfizz

Dades wrote: »

Because that is a total red herring. The problem there is the difference between Republican and Unionist ideologies - nothing to do with their supposed religions.

Not totally accurate in my opinion.

The reason for the divide is a result of the Plantation of ulster, and to be a successful applicant you had to be protestant, no catholics were allowed to apply for the land.

So religious affiliation was used as a means to separate.

Dades

barfizz wrote: »

So religious affiliation was used as a means to separate.

In the 17th Century.

Even then, it was just a handy way of separating those loyal to the crown and those they wanted gone.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

barfizz wrote: »

So religious affiliation was used as a means to separate.

In the 17th Century.

The word "ghetto" is a lot older than the 17th century. And it still applies in many places...

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dades wrote: »

Because that is a total red herring. The problem there is the difference between Republican and Unionist ideologies - nothing to do with their supposed religions.

It intensified things and was used to maintain the divide. Even as far back as "Home rule is Rome rule"

Protestants were told their religion would disappear in a united Ireland. So even if they didn't want to remain in the union they were more afraid of their religion being taken away.

Had Protestantism been the main religion all over, the country would either be independent or content in the union, the notion of partition would be unthinkable.

This sort of fits in with my response to the OP. Yes you are correct, human nature is responsible too, however, organised religion is a massive barrier to community relations and in every conflict scenario you find religion makes things worse.

b318isp

yammycat wrote: »

TLDR, humanity is sh1t not religion

I think your conclusion is not quite correct. If humanity is sh1t (which is a gross generalisation) then, by your logic, religion is also sh1t. What I think you may need to expand on to support your conclusion is how religion manages to improve the human tribal condition.

Zombrex

yammycat wrote: »

Religion has taken a massive bashing lately and is widely portrayed as the source of great evil, war and persecution, ill treatment of woman and those of different sexual orientation etc etc.

Your title is rather odd given that religion is a manifestation of human nature. Its like saying you should blame the manipulation of people in order to control and structure society for bad things you should blame human nature.

Religion is a manipulation of quirks of the human mental process, in the same way a con-man might manipulate social conventions to get people to do what he says. If you say things and position things in a particular way that is pleasing to the human mind people will believe you, irrespective of whether it is true or not.

That is human nature, but to say you shouldn't blame religion for it is ridiculous. What else would you blame?

yammycat wrote: »

God said thou shalt not kill

No actually he said do not murder, before proceeding to instruct his people to carry out genocide on various neighbouring civilisations that displeased him. Or if you live in the real world, the warring armies of the Israelite armies captured and destroyed their neighbouring civilisations and then used "God told us to" as an excuse to justify this to their people and this was incorporated into the oral history of the country. This is a good example of what I'm talking about above.

yammycat wrote: »

TLDR, humanity is sh1t not religion

You might as well say humanity is sh1t not pyramid schemes.