Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder at this view. I can understand and even agree with the observation that human nature makes it very hard to change human nature. But this defeatism that seems almost like a denialist rejection of any hope of making humanity better, strikes me as a battle against any improving our lot so as to ensure that Jesusgod is the only Hope.
Maybe bias on my part but this 'No, we cannot make things better! You shouldn't even be trying!" ethos that I hear from the religious side that is all supposed to be about love just befogs me. I can't help but think about the approval of suffering in India, in Childbirth and at the pyre and all in the name of divine love.
Because they know pretty well that, if you alleviate suffering, nobody is rushing to church. Like i say, just a gut feeling I have that might explain this incomprehensible hostility to the idea of trying to improve humanity and society.
That is not at all what I am saying. I believe we can and should make things better. I don't believe in utopianism. At one end of the spectrum would be defeatism/fatalism and powerlessness. At the other end is utopianism-- that often has an element of zealotry to it and calls for purity (either of thought or behavior). There's a million miles in between. The main point I am making is about methods to make things better. "Getting rid of" something vs. properly integrating it and helping things to evolve.
This sounds like a version of utopianism, which is dangerous with its black and white, all or nothing thinking. "If we can only get rid of that bad thing called ....... then we can have a better world! Join the cause!" I completely disagree. Human nature is irrational, greedy, self-serving, rapacious, and deceitful. It is also kind, loving, honest, altruistic, rational, and cooperative. Proper integration of the 'irrational' with the rational is what makes a better world. It won't solve everything, but it will help, incrementally. And it doesn't demonize any one thing, like you are doing with religious belief.
Things like art are irrational. I have a hobby, which is perhaps the most useless and irrational hobby a person can have: I make abstract expressionist art. Totally irrational. There is no purpose, other than to do it. No images that you can make out. It's process over content. And yet...it has value. It allows a channel through which the irrational elements of the human psyche--which are natural and unavoidable-- can integrate in a healthy way with the rational--creating wholeness. You cannot excise the irrational. There are also many outlets for the proper integration of aggression, which is irrational--martial arts, sports, movies. Rather than eliminate, it is better to find ways to somehow integrate, with the goal being wholeness.
Art, religion, music, poetry--these are not rational and don't have to be. They will not give you the evidence you keep demanding. That doesn't make them bad. What makes them harmful is when they are not properly integrated with the rational in healthy ways--such as through a pluralistic society, secular laws, debate, diversity of thought, freedom of speech and religion, and tolerance. You don't seem to be arguing for integration, but for progressive "re-education" of what you declare 'wrong beliefs.' You're couching it in impartiality by saying the 'evidence' will be the ultimate arbiter--the objective standard--so it will be fair and just for everyone. But that is naive.
I agree with much of this, but you are overlooking one small point. There are some things that should not be influenced by the irrational, such as science, health or morality. I do not want to get rid of religion, but I do not want religion to tell me how me or my family should live.
I agree with much of this, but you are overlooking one small point. There are some things that should not be influenced by the irrational, such as science, health or morality. I do not want to get rid of religion, but I do not want religion to tell me how me or my family should live.
In a free society you do not have to partake of any religion. The problem lies in when someone doesn't want you telling them what's best for their family all the while trying to deposit their own views into others.
In a free society you do not have to partake of any religion. The problem lies in when someone doesn't want you telling them what's best for their family all the while trying to deposit their own views into others.
What you want and what you can have are two different things. Because it is a free society. It is perfectly reasonable to tell people that they are living incorrectly and irrationally and why. They may either act on it or not, but the freedom to express judgment is protected. And correct.
Mysticism is an objectively improper way to live as a human being on the planet Earth in 2020. It is perfectly OK to explain that and express that.
Your decision will be whether to continue having mystical impropriety in your life.
If you don’t like that people are telling you how to live, then don’t live that way. But the telling part will continue. That is how we improve society and human life.
What you want and what you can have are two different things. Because it is a free society. It is perfectly reasonable to tell people that they are living incorrectly and irrationally and why. They may either act on it or not, but the freedom to express judgment is protected. And correct.
Mysticism is an objectively improper way to live as a human being on the planet Earth in 2020. It is perfectly OK to explain that and express that.
Your decision will be whether to continue having mystical impropriety in your life.
If you don’t like that people are telling you how to live, then don’t live that way. But the telling part will continue. That is how we improve society and human life.
So it's okay for us to critique your daily carbon footprint, your weight, etc.?
So it's okay for us to critique your daily carbon footprint, your weight, etc.?
Absolutely! All speech should be on the table. Including energy shaming and fat shaming and everything shaming. I welcome people telling me how to live. And then I can evaluate their recommendations and decide whether there is any value. But the freedom to express and tell others what they are doing wrong and why is a feature, not a bug.
I agree with much of this, but you are overlooking one small point. There are some things that should not be influenced by the irrational, such as science, health or morality. I do not want to get rid of religion, but I do not want religion to tell me how me or my family should live.
Discussing one's belief in a designated area is not forcing anything onto anyone...some people simply want to nitpick and/or angry because of the tenets related to various faiths...the number #1 is sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
In a free society you do not have to partake of any religion. The problem lies in when someone doesn't want you telling them what's best for their family all the while trying to deposit their own views into others.
So you can discuss your beliefs, but we can not say why we think they are wrong?
And 'depositing my views into others'* on the internet is different to the religious telling others how to live their lives based on religious concepts.
If you must insist on starting fights, can you please use rational and relevant arguments.
* Question for anyone, is 'depositing views into others' good English?
So you can discuss your beliefs, but we can not say why we think they are wrong?
And 'depositing my views into others'* on the internet is different to the religious telling others how to live their lives based on religious concepts.
If you must insist on starting fights, can you please use rational and relevant arguments.
* Question for anyone, is 'depositing views into others' good English?
Please show me where I have discussed my views? There is no need for personal views on this forum, but if someone has a religion/algorithm they're willing to share they shouldn't be haggled to death just because it isn't your particular 'flavor of worldview' to a capital T.
* Question for anyone, is 'depositing views into others' good English?
Lieber Herr HD,
This is basically another way to express "forcing your views onto others" or perhaps "dumping your views on others"... which could be related to the censored body part in last week's English lesson (what is a "tooter?").
It is not exactly Bad English (in a grammatical sense), but also not a phrase I have ever seen before, so you are not missing anything. Mach's gut!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
