• RTS Part of Sanctuary Networks

Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



4 Pages « < 2 3 4 
Reply to this topicStart Poll
Religion is the cause of most evil in the world
Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+
Kyomaku
post Jul 28 2014, 04:25 PM
Post #46


Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Staff
Posts: 719

Submissions: None
Joined: 30-October 12

From: Germany
Member No.: 111,181

Gamertag: _Raymaku





Looking up always makes the person above look arrogant for the person below, but AC wasnt condescending in any way, atleast when I read it, I didnt get that impression.

Its quite simple. The perception/border of arrogance, condescending behaviour and high self confidence lies pretty close.

Now, what happens when you know what you are talking about is, that you present an aura of self confidence, that great, that people could mistakenly believe it to be arrogance. This kind of aura is also often percepted in an aggressive manner(condescending). People feel threatened/attacked by it, which is also "normal". The reason they feel attacked/threatened is usually a different "opinion"/"knowledge", hence accepting the said as truth equals accepting yourself to be wrong, which could be like winning/losing for you. You obviously don't like any of this and want yourself to be right, but you aren't, hence you are in a conflict where someone is telling you that you are wrong, which makes you think the person you are talking to is condescending because he/she disregards what you say as wrong while condescending behaviour would be something totally different.

True arrogance on the other hand is, when you "believe" to know everything. There are 2 different types of arrogance I want to mention here. The first would be, when you talk about something and think to know everything but get into a conflict and people with greater knowledge tell you to be wrong, but your "self confidence" (stupidity) doesn't allow you to reconsider and evaluate the new information, hence arrogance.

The second type of arrogance is exactly on the border of condescending behaviour. It is, when you run around always mentioning how great you are and superior to everyone else. You might really possess great knowledge, but to hit others in the face with that, is indeed condescending behaviour/arrogance. This is the funniest, when that person is actually wrong/doesn't know that much and gets corrected. You'll see the ego falling apart.

In short, arrogance > no ability to reconsider/question your own knowledge in case of being wrong. (Not enough intelligence to comprehend "new" information quickly?)

Condescending behaviour > looking down on people, treating people bad. Often combined with arrogance.

About religion, to be religion is just a tool. Its the humans who use it to manipulate.

About "evil". I liked the thought of fear producing evil. But I'd rather phrase it, fear produces evil actions. Fear is after all a "good reason" for an action to be done and from that person, it is a self defensive, safety measure. You cant call someone evil for that, although outstanders might view it as evil, not knowing the intentions, reasons behind it.

That being said, I also like to think that evil comes from a lack of intelligence. Now, some might say that there are really intelligent "bad" people in this world, but in my view, they are actually pretty stupid. For them, it might even work out (profit in money?). But the point, that they don't care about others, hurting plenty people on the way, I view that as stupid. If you are truly able to understand others and what your actions do, you wouldnt hurt them, you would try to find a way that helps everyone. This is probably a childish or too positive view, but I like my perception of intelligence. People that use their understanding of others as an advantage to trick them are even far dumber. That is because, even though they can understand others, they apparently don't understand enough to really understand how they feel and what their actions cause. If they could imagine themselfs on the victims side and truly feel what they feel, I'm quite "sure" that noone would really do harm to anyone, so I also "like" to think that those people simply cant truly understand feelings, even tho they can a bit. So in my childish view, intelligence is, when you truly use it to help, because usually that results in a greater profit for everyone.

I apologize for my english, I'm aware that I'm not the best at it but I hope people can understand what I'm trying to say + feel free to skip/forget my thoughts on evil versus intelligence, its really just a childish form of hope that humans arent that bad, they are simply dumb, its easier to forgive/accept. Also, once you understand someones reason/intentions, they are probably not as bad as you previously thought they were. (you should be able to imagine some movies here, where you suddenly sympathise with the antagonist because you understand his intentions and share emotions!) :D

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jul 28 2014, 11:11 PM
Post #47


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,059

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(Kyomaku @ Jul 28 2014, 03:25 PM)
About religion, to be religion is just a tool. Its the humans who use it to manipulate.

About "evil". I liked the thought of fear producing evil. But I'd rather phrase it, fear produces evil actions. Fear is after all a "good reason" for an action to be done and from that person, it is a self defensive, safety measure. You cant call someone evil for that, although outstanders might view it as evil, not knowing the intentions, reasons behind it.

That being said, I also like to think that evil comes from a lack of intelligence. Now, some might say that there are really intelligent "bad" people in this world, but in my view, they are actually pretty stupid. For them, it might even work out (profit in money?). But the point, that they don't care about others, hurting plenty people on the way, I view that as stupid. If you are truly able to understand others and what your actions do, you wouldnt hurt them, you would try to find a way that helps everyone. This is probably a childish or too positive view, but I like my perception of intelligence. People that use their understanding of others as an advantage to trick them are even far dumber. That is because, even though they can understand others, they apparently don't understand enough to really understand how they feel and what their actions cause. If they could imagine themselfs on the victims side and truly feel what they feel, I'm quite "sure" that noone would really do harm to anyone, so I also "like" to think that those people simply cant truly understand feelings, even tho they can a bit. So in my childish view, intelligence is, when you truly use it to help, because usually that results in a greater profit for everyone.

I apologize for my english, I'm aware that I'm not the best at it but I hope people can understand what I'm trying to say + feel free to skip/forget my thoughts on evil versus intelligence, its really just a childish form of hope that humans arent that bad, they are simply dumb, its easier to forgive/accept. Also, once you understand someones reason/intentions, they are probably not as bad as you previously thought they were. (you should be able to imagine some movies here, where you suddenly sympathise with the antagonist because you understand his intentions and share emotions!) :D
*



That is basically what Plato had to say about good/evil (a person would never knowingly pursue an evil or a vice, and the only reason they would do it is because of a lack of enlightenment).

This, I think, is a little simplistic, and assumes that there is an absolute good and evil with which to measure the qualities of goodness and evilness. However, the qualities, I think, are relative, and as such the divisions can become impossibly convoluted: that is to say that what is good may be evil for one, but what is evil for one may be good for another, depending upon their own interpretations.

For example: I may knowingly do good, however, for you this may be evil, and you believe I have committed this evil from a state of ignorance; despite the fact that I committed this good from a state of knowledge, and your interpretation stems from ignorance (that my good action was evil).

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kyomaku
post Jul 28 2014, 11:55 PM
Post #48


Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Staff
Posts: 719

Submissions: None
Joined: 30-October 12

From: Germany
Member No.: 111,181

Gamertag: _Raymaku





I'm very aware of that and have given similiar examples throughout my post and as I said at the end of my post, once you understand someones intentions, their actions can become "understandable/followable". But what you said does not only apply for actions, also for persons as a whole. As in, a "bad" person for you, might be a "good" person for someone else.

Little Quote: "fear produces evil actions. Fear is after all a "good reason" for an action to be done and from that person, it is a self defensive, safety measure. You cant call someone evil for that, although outstanders might view it as evil, not knowing the intentions, reasons behind it."

That is also one of the things that affects my way of interacting with others, especially my ability to forgive and reconsider, giving second chances. It proofs to be quite difficult to keep bad feelings towards someone after you understood their reason/intention for their action, that is if you can follow the reason/intention with your own logic.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DoD_J4Jc3
post Jul 30 2014, 12:47 PM
Post #49


The Rag Master
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,868

Submissions: None
Joined: 1-May 06

From: Belgium
Member No.: 37,529

Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3





Haven't read anything and still thinking whether I'm going to read anything, but still:

http://www.economist.com/news/internationa...gressbuttooslow

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-...nandtraditional

Was 'fun' reading this. Religion <3

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jul 30 2014, 09:18 PM
Post #50


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,059

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(DoD_J4Jc3 @ Jul 30 2014, 11:47 AM)
Haven't read anything and still thinking whether I'm going to read anything,
*



good call. I can rape your puny intellect whenever it pleases me.

here's a thought, you bring all of your friends, professors etc. to debate me, and I can bum-fruit all of Belgium at once and get it over with.

This post has been edited by ArmyCore: Jul 30 2014, 09:20 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
i r n00b
post Aug 1 2014, 10:30 AM
Post #51


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,496

Submissions: None
Joined: 12-December 04

Member No.: 12,311






QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Jul 27 2014, 08:48 AM)
QUOTE(i r n00b @ Jul 24 2014, 10:07 PM)
QUOTE(LNC_GoldenAxe @ Jul 24 2014, 01:37 AM)
Fact, the most evil people on earth were Atheist:

1. Vlad Dracula
2. Joseph Stalin
3. Adolf Hitler
*



fact

adolf hitler wasn't an atheist and neither was vlad
*



Dracula certainly wasn't an atheist (and I don't see how he was that evil considering the times and region he lived in), but Hitler certainly was.
*




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Aug 2 2014, 12:53 PM
Post #52


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,059

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(i r n00b @ Aug 1 2014, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Jul 27 2014, 08:48 AM)
QUOTE(i r n00b @ Jul 24 2014, 10:07 PM)
QUOTE(LNC_GoldenAxe @ Jul 24 2014, 01:37 AM)
Fact, the most evil people on earth were Atheist:

1. Vlad Dracula
2. Joseph Stalin
3. Adolf Hitler
*



fact

adolf hitler wasn't an atheist and neither was vlad
*



Dracula certainly wasn't an atheist (and I don't see how he was that evil considering the times and region he lived in), but Hitler certainly was.
*




*



lol well you're certainly not a trained historian (I am, given my 1st 2 degrees in the subject), but taking random quotes completely out of context, with literally no regard for the majority of the countervailing evidence is simply hilarity and nothing more.

so "111111111111"

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DoD_SymphoniC
post Aug 3 2014, 03:12 PM
Post #53


Captain
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 915

Submissions: None
Joined: 8-June 05

Member No.: 17,123






I apologize in advance for making an intentionally limited contribution to this topic (don't have much time at this exact moment), but I will only mention for the sake of discussion that correlations between religion and "evil" acts are as intertwined as they are between atheism and "evil" acts; in other words, not inherently at all.

Religious regimes and professed religious individuals have committed all sorts of atrocities in the name of their religions. However, atheists have a very strange tendency to overlook the same atrocities committed by atheistic regimes and atheistic individuals in opposition to religion. In recent history, the Soviet Union was a primary perpetrator of such acts, formally outlawing religion and exiling or executing religious individuals who refused to conform.

For those who aren't aware, Marx's Communist Manifesto mandates the abolition of God/religion, a mantra which may spur equally violent response as an Islamic fundamentalist practicing jihad.

TL;DR

If you wish to attack religion, dissect the doctrine of the religion itself; not what people do in its name. This hackneyed notion of "without religion, the world would be at peace," is nothing more than wide-scale ad hominem.

*edit* I also feel like it's worth taking issue with the premise of this topic: "Religion is the cause of most evil in the world." Religion causes absolutely nothing. People acting on religious principles (or what they perceive to be religious principles) may cause evil. The other side of that coin, though, is that people acting on religious principles (or what they perceive to be religious principles) may cause good; donating to charities because God wants it, volunteering at soup kitchens, etc. etc. Likewise, atheists can do the same. We can't derive any greater truths about atheism or religion based on what people do in their name. In other words, I'd like to reiterate that the premise of this topic is mere ad hominem and that examining the actual claims made the religion/religious individual need to be examined independently of what actions people perform in their name. Likewise, the same analysis must be made of atheism.

This post has been edited by DoD_SymphoniC: Aug 3 2014, 03:25 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DoD_Rangers
post Aug 3 2014, 04:22 PM
Post #54


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,650

Submissions: None
Joined: 23-October 09

From: USA
Member No.: 78,686






QUOTE(DoD_SymphoniC @ Aug 3 2014, 03:12 PM)
For those who aren't aware, Marx's Communist Manifesto mandates the abolition of God/religion, a mantra which may spur equally violent response as an Islamic fundamentalist practicing jihad.
*


~11~

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DoD_SymphoniC
post Aug 3 2014, 04:24 PM
Post #55


Captain
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 915

Submissions: None
Joined: 8-June 05

Member No.: 17,123






QUOTE(mG_RaNgErS @ Aug 3 2014, 05:22 PM)
QUOTE(DoD_SymphoniC @ Aug 3 2014, 03:12 PM)
For those who aren't aware, Marx's Communist Manifesto mandates the abolition of God/religion, a mantra which may spur equally violent response as an Islamic fundamentalist practicing jihad.
*


~11~
*



"11"

-History

;)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LoVe_Soup
post Aug 4 2014, 02:05 PM
Post #56


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: AoT Gosu
Posts: 1,643

Submissions: None
Joined: 19-September 05

Member No.: 19,609






The title of this thread is the worst possible premise for a real discussion of religion, and it only incentivizes polar extremes in the debate.

In my opinion, religion should always be tolerated as long as it's practiced on a personal level or within a group of likeminded. Once religion interlopes with the rest of society and general common sense it can no longer be tolerated. Likewise, if non-religious people claim poopie like "religion is the cause of most evils" or "imprison anyone who tries to practise it or talk about it in public", this should not be tolerated either.

I have no idea why you are discussing whether Hitler and Stalin was atheists or religious, as it is completely irrelevant. Noone in their right mind would draw any conclusions on religion based on two extreme examples of evil. Hitler was an atheist thus religion is great, or hitler was religious thus religion is the cause of most evil? Is it really that simple???

Also, I'm genuinely interested in what SymphoniC said about Marx. What is this mandated abolition of religion of which you speak? Please refer me to the passage in the manifesto where he calls for a state-mandated prohibition of religion.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DoD_SymphoniC
post Aug 4 2014, 02:37 PM
Post #57


Captain
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 915

Submissions: None
Joined: 8-June 05

Member No.: 17,123






QUOTE(LoVe_Soup @ Aug 4 2014, 03:05 PM)
The title of this thread is the worst possible premise for a real discussion of religion, and it only incentivizes polar extremes in the debate.

In my opinion, religion should always be tolerated as long as it's practiced on a personal level or within a group of likeminded. Once religion interlopes with the rest of society and general common sense it can no longer be tolerated. Likewise, if non-religious people claim poopie like "religion is the cause of most evils" or "imprison anyone who tries to practise it or talk about it in public", this should not be tolerated either.

I have no idea why you are discussing whether Hitler and Stalin was atheists or religious, as it is completely irrelevant. Noone in their right mind would draw any conclusions on religion based on two extreme examples of evil. Hitler was an atheist thus religion is great, or hitler was religious thus religion is the cause of most evil? Is it really that simple???

Also, I'm genuinely interested in what SymphoniC said about Marx. What is this mandated abolition of religion of which you speak? Please refer me to the passage in the manifesto where he calls for a state-mandated prohibition of religion.
*



Yeah, you basically nailed it there. I am not at home right now and don't have my copy of the Manifesto with me, but just doing a quick Google search for the passage that I was referencing did the trick.

From the Manifesto itself: “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

From Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."

If you want to be absolutely literal, you could argue that Marx never argued for a "state-mandated abolition of religion." In other words, he never says "The state must abolish all religion;" rather, he says that "Communism abolishes all religion" and advocates (obviously) for Communism.

Subsequently, as we well know, both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China instituted state-mandated abolition of religion. Incidentally, it still exists in China today, though from my own conversations with Chinese acquaintances, they say that you are able to practice whichever religion you like by yourself; however, you are not permitted to gather with other believers (it is seen as anti-state activity).

Anyway, hope that answers your question.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Oct 12 2014, 01:48 PM
Post #58


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441

Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






QUOTE(LoVe_Soup @ Aug 4 2014, 01:05 PM)
The title of this thread is the worst possible premise for a real discussion of religion, and it only incentivizes polar extremes in the debate.

In my opinion, religion should always be tolerated as long as it's practiced on a personal level or within a group of likeminded. Once religion interlopes with the rest of society and general common sense it can no longer be tolerated. Likewise, if non-religious people claim poopie like "religion is the cause of most evils" or "imprison anyone who tries to practise it or talk about it in public", this should not be tolerated either.

I have no idea why you are discussing whether Hitler and Stalin was atheists or religious, as it is completely irrelevant. Noone in their right mind would draw any conclusions on religion based on two extreme examples of evil. Hitler was an atheist thus religion is great, or hitler was religious thus religion is the cause of most evil? Is it really that simple???
*


Great post.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicTopic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 




Time is now: 15th November 2018 - 10:02 PM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy