Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

In a world without religion ....


Alice

Recommended Posts

People will kill people and hate, no matter what.

 

It's human nature. 

 

Religion just gives people the idea that they're doing God a favor while they do it.

 

"His blood be on us and our children".  nice.  How many have died because of that one statement? 

 

And the jews never even said it.

 

As long as you continue to think it is human nature to kill and hate, then it will continue to be human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Alice

    14

  • Ouroboros

    12

  • Cerise

    10

  • Vigile

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

As long as you continue to think it is human nature to kill and hate, then it will continue to be human nature.

 

 

Wow - all this lies in Mythra's hands!

 

Seriously though - are you saying this is a change that can be thought into being, or that it won't be thought unless it comes into being?

 

or have I missed the point ...

 

please elaborate ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - all this lies in Mythra's hands!

 

Seriously though - are you saying this is a change that can be thought into being, or that it won't be thought unless it comes into being?

 

or have I missed the point ...

 

please elaborate ....

 

 

Have you ever seen someone change their actions before they change their thinking?

 

Imagine what could happen if people suddenly thought humans were not flawed and invariably destined for failure. If "original sin" thinking suddenly didn't apply anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever seen someone change their actions before they change their thinking?

 

Imagine what could happen if people suddenly thought humans were not flawed and invariably destined for failure.  If "original sin" thinking suddenly didn't apply anymore.

 

You are right that a change in behaviour requires a change in thinking ... but a change in thinking doesn't always lead to a change in behaviour.

 

I can think myself free to act in all kinds of beautiful ways - but put me under pressure and I do not always 'behave' in the way I think I should or the way I wanted to do ... at an instintual level I am sometimes not very nice at all. This has got nothing to do with someone teaches me a concept of 'original sin' - it appears to be a biological response.

 

I cannot imagine a simultaneous change in thinking around the world ... that would result in everyone changing their thinking at once and deciding never to hate ... and whilst one or two still hate others will hate them back in return "because the hateful deserve all they get".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right that a change in behaviour requires a change in thinking ... but a change in thinking doesn't always lead to a change in behaviour.

 

I can think myself free to act in all kinds of beautiful ways - but put me under pressure and I do not always 'behave' in the way I think I should or the way I wanted to do ... at an instintual level I am sometimes not very nice at all. This has got nothing to do with someone teaches me a concept of 'original sin' - it appears to be a biological response.

 

I cannot imagine a simultaneous change in thinking around the world ... that would result in everyone changing their thinking at once and deciding never to hate ... and whilst one or two still hate others will hate them back in return "because the hateful deserve all they get".

 

If you really thought it would benefit you by thinking in "all kinds of beautiful ways" then you would most assuredly do it. But we are almost invariably taught that thinking that way leads to "giving up things" and "being miserable" and such.

 

Whoever said it had to be simultaneous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hesitant: World War II - not.

 

Read "On the Jews and Their Lies". By Martin Luther. This was the impetus behind the Nazis and the beginnings of their hatred towards Jews..

 

At first I might have agreed that the Japanese involvement was not religion related. But, then I started to think about how they worshipped Emperor Hirohito, maybe it was more or less religious in nature too. But I'll concede Japan to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really thought it would benefit you by thinking in "all kinds of beautiful ways" then you would most assuredly do it.  But we are almost invariably taught that thinking that way leads to "giving up things" and "being miserable" and such.

 

Whoever said it had to be simultaneous?

 

me - because unless everyone gives up hate at once, the hate that remains will breed hate in response.

 

If you really believed it - you would most assuredly do it - is a powerful kind of message we can give ourself to effect changed behaviour - but instinct and emotion and experience are powerful forces as well and however lofty our thoughts sometimes they win -

 

Maybe you've overcome all your instincts and emotional responses ... wow if you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

me - because unless everyone gives up hate at once, the hate that remains will breed hate in response.

 

If you really believed it - you would most assuredly do it - is a powerful kind of message we can give ourself to effect changed behaviour - but instinct and emotion and experience are powerful forces as well and however lofty our thoughts sometimes they win -

 

Maybe you've overcome all your instincts and emotional responses ... wow if you have.

 

But wouldn't the people giving up hate breed that kind of thinking in others? Why would such an effect only go one way?

 

Instinct should tell us to do what is best for us don't you think. What if hating each other wasn't instinct at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question is, does religion make this human tendency worse or does it lessen it?

I would say any kind of dogmatic ideology that requires the "victim" to surrender their mind, free will and reason can worsen humans agressive behavior.

 

It may be that you have to submit your will under an emperor, country, philosophy, political faction or religion. All of them would make people hate other people. Bigotry is somehow prone to pop up its ugly head everywhere.

 

 

I tend to think, based on a cursory glance at history, that it makes it worse.  Try and find one single really horrible atrocity that was not religious in nature or at least was initiated by religious thought.

 

(I'm not saying there aren't any, I just can't think of any)..

Vikings pillaging Europe. They did it for the treasures, not because of religion. Even though they did have a religion, but they didn't do it because of it. Greed was the driving factor.

 

Was the US was against UK for its independence based on religion? There were some bad stuff done on both sides. Both were Christian (according to neo-cons).

 

North and South Egypt during the Pharaoes, some warfare there I think... but it was political/religious, because the Pharaoes were gods.

 

I'm going to look through my history books when I get home. I'm at work...

 

Meanwhile, I could give you a list as long as my arm, just caused from people who were followers of the godman Jesus alone.

 

And, I'm not buying the argument that they did it "in spite of" the fact they were christians.

But on the other hand, it was the army of Christian countries the stopped the Islamic Turks from invading Europe in the 15-16 century (IIRC). If they had failed, you would have been reading the Koran today, and praying 5 times a day.

 

I hope no one here would prefer Islam over Christianity? I'd like to get rid of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HANS - WTF?

 

You consider the war for independence an ATROCITY? No sabe quien kemosabe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HANS - WTF?

 

You consider the war for independence an ATROCITY?  No sabe quien kemosabe.

 

I didn't say the war itself was an atrocity. But there must have been acts of atrocity in the war! Or you say it was a clean war, where no one did anything bad? The Brittish didn't burn down houses and kills civillians? I don't get it? Is a war good if you do it, but it's bad when someone else does it? Every war contains rapes and murders of civillians, it always will. But the independence wasn't fought over religion, it was fought for a good cause, and still you have bad things happened.

 

But when the Christian countries in Europe was fighting of the Turks, to save Europes independence from Islam, was that a bad thing because Christians did it, or was it a good thing because it was for freedome from another religion? Which side would you stand on in that war, if you compare it to the indepence war in US?

 

All I hear is that all Christians are bad and only do atrocities when they fight a war, so I guess it was a bad thing that Europe was saved from Islam then?

 

So why do we fight the terrorists then? Why not just turn the country to Islam if Christians are so bad? Every war is bad, regardless of reason, and some wars have been over territory, power or money, and not religion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could have had a couple rebellions and then the British would have given you independance eventually.

 

S'what we did. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, I don't think the French revolution was a religious act either; it was people rising up against a tyranny. But they killed all the noble men in tribunals with very doubtful witnesses. The guillotine was going day constantly those days, executing men with wives and kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what?  I believe that the only way wars will stop and there will be true peace on earth can only be achieved if WOMEN take over the world.. :woohoo: The majority of us don't rape, we aren't physically violent, we don't have to have a pissing contest to prove our greatness. I'm just seeing all these different things being blamed (myself throwing some) and I have concluded that's it's all the mens fault.

 

Is it possible to funny yet serious at the same time???? :scratch: I don't mean to demean men, but history does  point to men just  :close:   bit for being the cause of every single war ever initiated.  Well, it's true, isn't it?

 

Not really. Remember Cleopatra? Or Elizabeth I? There have been a lot of female rulars who went to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what?  I believe that the only way wars will stop and there will be true peace on earth can only be achieved if WOMEN take over the world.. :woohoo: The majority of us don't rape, we aren't physically violent, we don't have to have a pissing contest to prove our greatness. I'm just seeing all these different things being blamed (myself throwing some) and I have concluded that's it's all the mens fault.

 

Is it possible to funny yet serious at the same time???? :scratch: I don't mean to demean men, but history does  point to men just  :close:   bit for being the cause of every single war ever initiated.

Even though I am a man, But I actually been thinking the same way.

 

But then again Margareth Thatcher, or some of the Queens in older times, were not always that pleasant either. I think with power, rulers lose perspective of the real people on the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Han, sincerely, there are many men, yourself included, that I think would strive for peace rather than war.  I was playing but yet, it was said in a partial upset state of mind.  It truly isn't women that I'm worried about in the next five years with a 50% chance of WMD's being used, it's the male dominated world leadership that I am afraid of.  I HATE feeling that way, and I don't mean it directed in an "all" men are pig type of attitude.  It's just a fact right now in this day and age that the world is dominated by men. 

 

I get upset thinking about nuclear weapons and get angry that they were ever even invented.  Somethings that science has brought to the world haven't been for the benefit of mankind, and in that, it can be just as dangerous as a bad religion.

 

Thankful, I didn't take your statement the wrong way. I do agree that there's a lot of problems cause by the male species. And it has to do with the animalistic brain we have. Just look at dogs, the male dogs fight over who to become alpha dog, and female do too, but to a much lesser degree and not as violent.

 

The aggresive behavior some men express, is explained by evolution, and not by religion. Religion sometimes is just the excuse to channel their power and suppress men and women alike.

 

The difficulty in society is that if you have a person that is peaceful and want everyone to have freedom, that person won't have the drive to become a leader, while the person that have a drive to become a leader, have to be strongly egotistic to be able to get to the leader position.

 

So it's kind of counter intuitive, the person that doesn't care about you is more likely be the one bossing you around...

 

Of course, now and then you get someone that has both talents. They can have the drive to be a leader, but also have empathy to lead people right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one addition, the male society is much stronger here in US than in Europe. The equal rights have reached further there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest aexapo

We need to get rid of the concept of king-like "presidents" -- one man/woman with all the power. I thought about this a lot last year, and wondered how it could be changed -- since, as we've all noticed, absolute authority corrupts . . . well, I won't repeat the cliche'.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Council Presidency for the United States.

 

The Presidential Council would consist of 12 members, each elected for a single, non-renewable twelve year term. 6 would be directly elected by the people, and 6 by Congress, with one election being held each year so that a single new member would be elected in the same year that the term of one of the twelve would end. Election by the people and by Congress would be staggered so that an election by each would happen every two years.

 

Any executive action (signing legislation; presidential decrees; executive, military, diplomatic, judicial, etc., appointments) would be made by a majority vote of the presidential council. This would make the "will of the council" to be the "head of government."

 

The most senior member of the presidential council, the one whose term would expire in one year, would be the nominal "head of state," and would carry the title of President of the United States, and would abstain from voting on executive issues, except in the circumstance of a tie. There would be no additional power conferred to this member.

 

The Commander in Chief would be the President of the United States, but the commandership could be conferred on another member of the council whose term has more than a year before expiration during a time of war.

 

Kinda like a return to a "council of elders."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's buy and Island and start our own country!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's buy and Island and start our own country!

 

Sounds good! We will have to make sure that certain amenities are available though.

 

T1 line, Satellite TV/Radio, Gas/Electric/Water etc., Import treaties for good food, wine, candies, and other essentials.

 

Would it be possible to create a government that could work with other governments yet not allow their influence into our special population?

 

I'm imagining if Canada + Holland had a baby country ... but one with balls :grin:

 

PR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's buy and Island and start our own country!

 

i already proposed that idea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

\

Now you're talkin'!  You don't think it turn into a "Lord of the Flies" though, do you? :scratch:

 

Oh you mean my favorite Anti-God: Belsebob? :grin:

 

There's Bob Almighty, and then there's his nemesis BelseBob.

 

We won't have any problems with kids terrorizing eachother, as long as we make a good political system, like a dictatorship or something... :grin:

 

 

(footnote: Belsebub means "lord of the flies", if someone didn't know)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i already proposed that idea!

Oh, sorry, I'm stupid. When a thread goes on for a couple of days, and you read different parts different days, you tend to forget what was said earlier. So please accept my excuses. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wouldn't the people giving up hate breed that kind of thinking in others?  Why would such an effect only go one way?

 

Instinct should tell us to do what is best for us don't you think.  What if hating each other wasn't instinct at all?

 

I've been thinking about this a lot.

 

I see 'instinct' as being composed of things like the 'fight or flight' reflexes and in that way these repsonses do attempt to 'tell us what is best for us' in threatening situations (although the reflex the body chooses sometimes turns out not to have been the 'best' option!)

 

If perception of the 'threat' was changed, then I guess the 'instinctual' response would change?

 

On an individual level I can see this - in that people who I love and trust will generally engender a 'different' instinctual reponse in me if they pass a critical comment, than someone I don't know or don't trust, even when the comment is identical - and I guess this about my perception of the 'threat' posed. On an international level - national responses to say, expansion of nuclear power in another nation vary as to the 'perception' of that nation.

 

In order for the perception we have of others to change, sometimes all that is required is for us to discover that our 'perception' was wrong ... and that actually there was nothing 'hateful' or 'threatening' about this person, or these people, or that nation - afterall ... but sometimes individuals, groups, nations go and do some pretty hateful stuff and when that happens .... what I have seen surge up in response is 'hate'. Sometimes it seems that 'hate' is a sort of pre-emptive strike against individuals or groups that seem 'threatening'.

 

I guess (from reading some of your other posts) you'd be saying that the 'instinctual' response is 'anger' - and that anger is useful to us - where as 'hate' is not.

 

Am I going in the right kind of direction with this?

 

And ....... :wink: does this mean the way forward for the world is that we all become canadians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ....... :wink: does this mean the way forward for the world is that we all become canadians?

 

We can't all be canadians. The country isn't big enough for that. Besides which, then where would I go for a holiday from canadians?

 

I guess (from reading some of your other posts) you'd be saying that the 'instinctual' response is 'anger' - and that anger is useful to us - where as 'hate' is not.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.