A.J.Rimmer Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thank you Crackpot, I entirely agree with what you say. I would add just one other thing: I remember Jacob Bronowski standing in the mud at Auschwitz which contained the ashes of so many of his relatives. He made the point that the horrors of Auschwitz were not caused by 'evil' men, but by men convinced that they were 'right'. The fact is that the Holocaust was committed by Christians... not a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim in sight. It was the continuation of a process in which good Christians had taken pleasure for centuries... but this time with the addition of a little teutonic efficiency and 20th century technology. Any human being believing he is RIGHT, because he has a running dialogue with the creator of the universe, is a very dangerous person and one we would be much better off without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thank you Crackpot, I entirely agree with what you say. I would add just one other thing: I remember Jacob Bronowski standing in the mud at Auschwitz which contained the ashes of so many of his relatives. He made the point that the horrors of Auschwitz were not caused by 'evil' men, but by men convinced that they were 'right'. The fact is that the Holocaust was committed by Christians... not a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim in sight. It was the continuation of a process in which good Christians had taken pleasure for centuries... but this time with the addition of a little teutonic efficiency and 20th century technology. Any human being believing he is RIGHT, because he has a running dialogue with the creator of the universe, is a very dangerous person and one we would be much better off without. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things it takes religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 9, 2012 I feel somewhat privileged that I never had 'faith'. My family isn't religious (though would still put CofE on a census, because thats just 'Right'), we didn't do church, and the nonsense spoonfed at school I understood from a very young age were just that, stories. I used to watch a lot of natural history shows when I was a kid and loved animals, and that I think gave me a grounding in understanding that what was in the Bible was probably wrong, with it's basic teaching of how some species were related and how some species had arisen from others, and how dinosaurs had ruled the earth and gone but left behind clues. By the time I was able to really think about why things why how they were, I understood that science was much more likely to give me answers than a terribly written piece of much translated fiction was. I got to that level of understanding, that the Bible (and all the others, Qur'an Torah, all the non-Abrahamic ones) was almost certainly wrong and just stories, in primary school. I think thats why I find it quite so galling that grown men and women, who have had as good an education if not better than mine, believe in fairy stories. But then you have to realise that even just looking at old religious discussions here and elsewhere you find absolutely obscene levels of ignorance, stupidity, wilful obfuscation... I would dearly love a wave of enlightenment to wash over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 9, 2012 Administrator Share Posted May 9, 2012 My family isn't religious (though would still put CofE on a census, because thats just 'Right'), we didn't do church, and the nonsense spoonfed at school I understood from a very young age were just that, stories. Isn't that fraud? I see Man Utd play a few times a year, but I don't claim to be a Man Utd fan. If you don't go to church, how can you (your family) claim to be CofE? If you don't go to church, you can't say you belong to a church. It's like wearing an "I Good example of cognitive dissonance though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 9, 2012 They've always just put CofE as their faith - as far as I'm aware neither believes a word but they won't put down 'None' or whatever. The last census I, however, did put the 'without faith' option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I'd say a lot of people here claim to be catholic/protestant despite never going to church etc. Same reason they have kids christened. Trapped in that other refuge of the ignorant, tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why ignorant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 9, 2012 I do think a lot of people who would claim to have a religion are now what you'd probably call 'culturally religious'. They don't really do the temple/church/special house for fairy believing thing, ignore a lot of the guidelines, don't really care about it all all that much... but would still have some leaning towards to the culture/traditions of the faith to the point they still consider themselves Christian/Muslim/Sikh/whatever. Which would be more or less fine if it were possible for them to trim away that last semblance of 'Oh I believe in the Bible/Qur'an/whatever' and just go with whatever their culture defines. Unfortunately they can't and that seems to encourage the nutters. Part of the radical end of Islam is being brought about by the 'rage' at an awful lot of people calling themselves Muslim but not following the (rather grim bits included) Qur'an to the letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why ignorant?I think he means the dictionary definition of ignorant rather than the 'stupid' or 'rude' meaning often used. If you asked your common or garden follower of a religion (i.e. those who don't claim to be an atheist), I'd say the vast majority are ignorant to (i.e. they simply don't know) much of what their faith proclaims. In other words, they are doing it because of tradition. Because their parents did it and because they were brought into it at a young age. Not because they themselves believe in it. The very fact that a tiny minority now go to church kind of shows that they are doing nothing but giving their religious 'beliefs' lip-service (on things like censuses) and nothing more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The outrageous treatment of the poor and the starving worldwide by secular governments and big corporations would suggest that, just maybe, religion is not the be all and end of of evil that some people on here like to think it is. Capitalism is responsible for some astonishing abuse of the land and the people living on it. WW1 and WW2 were hardly religious wars. Stalin.. Pol Pot... etc etc. Religion is merely a side effect of the main problem - humans. We are - especially when we form nations/tribes/etc - cruel, territorial, power-hungry greedy idiots. Religion seems to me to have very little bearing on our propensity to behave in this manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Well I'm talking about N.I in particular. Ignorance towards 'the other' is why people identify themselves as catholic/protestant, rather than being an active member of either church. Although you could extend the term ignorant to any society determined to cling to tradition. The longer something is a habit the further it gets from the truth etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The fact is that the Holocaust was committed by Christians... not a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim in sight. that's kinda flawed .... it would be like someone saying that it's a fact that the Ottoman genocide in Armenia was committed by Muslims and there wasn't a Buddhist, Hindu or Christian in sight ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2012 The outrageous treatment of the poor and the starving worldwide by secular governments and big corporations would suggest that, just maybe, religion is not the be all and end of of evil that some people on here like to think it is. I think that point has been broached in the last few pages. The fact that by signing up to the good, you are forced to sign up to the bad. That you can't pick a package that suits you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2012 Well I'm talking about N.I in particular. Ignorance towards 'the other' is why people identify themselves as catholic/protestant, rather than being an active member of either church. Although you could extend the term ignorant to any society determined to cling to tradition. The longer something is a habit the further it gets from the truth etcI took your post to mean ignorant even of their own basic beliefs. I think you give modern society too much credit. I'd proffer that many people have forgotten the specifics of what the hell they're fighting over any more. The fighting has become the norm. The fight has become their religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why ignorant?I think he means the dictionary definition of ignorant rather than the 'stupid' or 'rude' meaning often used. If you asked your common or garden follower of a religion (i.e. those who don't claim to be an atheist), I'd say the vast majority are ignorant to (i.e. they simply don't know) much of what their faith proclaims. In other words, they are doing it because of tradition. Because their parents did it and because they were brought into it at a young age. Not because they themselves believe in it. The very fact that a tiny minority now go to church kind of shows that they are doing nothing but giving their religious 'beliefs' lip-service (on things like censuses) and nothing more than that. I know I know, but I'm not sure many of them are ignorant in that sense - the sense that they don't know much about their own faiths. In my view, nominally religious people are just apathetic - they may or may not know about, say, the vile, dirty stuff in the Old Testament, but the important point is, they just don't care Why care anyway? There is more to life than worrying about whether Daddy Big Sky exists, at least for nominal "believers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Well I'm talking about N.I in particular. Ignorance towards 'the other' is why people identify themselves as catholic/protestant, rather than being an active member of either church. Although you could extend the term ignorant to any society determined to cling to tradition. The longer something is a habit the further it gets from the truth etcI took your post to mean ignorant even of their own basic beliefs. I think you give modern society too much credit. I'd proffer that many people have forgotten the specifics of what the hell they're fighting over any more. The fighting has become the norm. The fight has become their religion....and (imo) self-contratulating is at the root of it. People have a tendency to pat themselves on the back for being who they are, it's human nature, and a lot of the time that also involves condemning other people for not being the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why care anyway? There is more to life than worrying about whether Daddy Big Sky exists, at least for nominal "believers." But don't "believers" have to "believe" in Daddy Big Sky, otherwise they wouldn't BE "believers" ? That goes back to Mike's point about dogma versus the other stuff. Maybe I need clarification on exactly what you would call a nominal believer. To me, the fundamental point about being part of a(ny) religion is believing in whoever they say God is. If you don't buy into that, then you're not part of that religion. By being a Christian, you have to believe in God, otherwise you're not a Christian. Back to Simon's cognitive dissonance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2012 ...and (imo) self-contratulating is at the root of it. People have a tendency to pat themselves on the back for being who they are, it's human nature, and a lot of the time that also involves condemning other people for not being the same.Well yes, quite. I'm right and if you're different then you're wrong; and we're enemies by extension. It goes right through human nature and isn't exclusively religious. Though the irony is heightened in religion because religions are often based on some basic message of loving your fellow man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Well I'm talking about N.I in particular. Ignorance towards 'the other' is why people identify themselves as catholic/protestant, rather than being an active member of either church. Although you could extend the term ignorant to any society determined to cling to tradition. The longer something is a habit the further it gets from the truth etcI took your post to mean ignorant even of their own basic beliefs. I think you give modern society too much credit. I'd proffer that many people have forgotten the specifics of what the hell they're fighting over any more. The fighting has become the norm. The fight has become their religion. Quite right, religion provides a platform for a hatred that has nothing to do (anymore) with belief. Although you could argue if the gripes were ever really about each churches core beliefs, or just yet another clash of traditions. That's another story, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why care anyway? There is more to life than worrying about whether Daddy Big Sky exists, at least for nominal "believers." But don't "believers" have to "believe" in Daddy Big Sky, otherwise they wouldn't BE "believers" ? That goes back to Mike's point about dogma versus the other stuff. Maybe I need clarification on exactly what you would call a nominal believer. To me, the fundamental point about being part of a(ny) religion is believing in whoever they say God is. If you don't buy into that, then you're not part of that religion. By being a Christian, you have to believe in God, otherwise you're not a Christian. Back to Simon's cognitive dissonance. Censuses don't care about that, censuses only reflect what people self-identify as and has nothing to do with semantics. Basically, if you do not believe Christ is God, you are then by definition not a Christian, but you can claim to be one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts