5 ms·

I hope that people who still think religions "make people better than they would otherwise be" are happy now.

zobzu 14y ago
Like if that ever changed anything. History, while(1) continue; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
ashray 14y ago
I .. I'm just ashamed of what's happening over here these days. Free speech appears to be an absolute illusion. It's all well and good until you say something even remotely related or critical of a popular personality. Then, it's jungle law.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  I don't see religious people disapproving of this and therefore conclude they aren't good. We could probably get a refund on them.
wildranter 14y ago
When you generalize like that you're being narrow minded as the people you're criticizing. Instead, like Feynman, you should take what's best from religion to improve yourself, and ignore the rest. History shows the average human being is stupid, so don't be average.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- zeru 14y ago
  Well, would you disagree with that the world would be a better place without religion in this day and age?
  - stfu 14y ago
    It depends. I would say that religions give a lot of people a meaningful life by providing values, hope and guidance on what they should aspire to. But there are always those on the extreme fringes, who make the rest look bad.
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      It seems faith should be like a prescription drug: it should be practiced by people who need it. But instead it's like illegal drug, which is used by all kinds of people and it hurts a sizable chunk of them: and also makes their relatives' lives tougher.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      That's what they claim to give. And many of those people actually believe this, to the point of assuming that anyone who is not religious has no values or morals, and is obviously driven completely by hedonism. The question is not "what role does religion fulfil", but rather, "if religion wasn't there, would things have been better?". Because, e.g. many recreational drugs ALSO provide values, hope, and guidance (on one hand), and some religions like Mormonism and Scientology also provide them, but apparently forbid leaving them (read about excommunicating in either) to the point that I find unacceptable in a society. Disregarding the obstacle of definition of religion vs. e.g. cult vs. value system[1], my opinion would be, based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states (like Sweden and Norway), would be that value provided by religion is a net negative. [1] if you insist, I will say that beleief X is a religion iff there's a government of a country with >10M residents that accepts it as a religion for the purpose of its law. Specific definition is immaterial - they will all coincide for 99% of the population, and will have essentially no effect in the grand scheme of things.
      - gjm11 14y ago
        > based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states Be careful. I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious, rather than that religion tends to make societies less stable and secure.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  Can I take not being arrested? Because this seems to be the best thing the religions don't provide. Also can I take religion not being shoven in my face? Because where I live (Russia) this seems to be the trend despite decades of atheist state. The problem with religions is that you can't always opt out.
  - wildranter 14y ago
    Ah! I see what bothers you. It's the lack of respect for free speech, it pisses me off too. On one side we have these somewhat free states driven by a set of religious values. On the other side we have totalitarian atheists regimes driven by a set of sociological principles. And in the middle we find ourselves without acces to basic rights like free speech. I frequently ask myself how could we solve that without hurting others rights. I wonder what fellow HNrs think about that.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      The problem is, you also have states that are both totalitarian and religious. So if you already have a totalitarian state (see Shah Iran) bringing in religion will make it worse, not better (the current mullah Iran). Sadly, I don't see any good perspectives. In rich countries, the main voting power belongs to people of considerable age. And they don't use much freedoms therefore freedom is not a selling point for politicians; medical care and pensions are. And in poorer countries you can always band together enough Red Guards to establish a totalitarian theocraty if you don't have one already.
      - wildranter 14y ago
        It seems you value more the problems that religious extremists cause than the current blatant disregard to free speech. In that light you'd be better off moving to China. Going against religion won't do any good to protect free speech or any other human right. You'll only gather more enemies.
pretoriusB 14y ago
Well, nobody said that about all religions (e.g not for "virgin sacrificing daemon worship" -- though it does sound fun), and for all people practicing them. Christianity didn't make Torquemada any good, but it worked quite well for St. Aquinas. With that said, the story doesn't have much to do with religion. The guy who funeral they said shouldn't matter was a political leader, not a priest. The guys that sued/prosecuted the girls did mention "hurting religious sentiments", but that was merely because that was the only semi-plausible accusation under law (since it was a funeral). In actuality it was a political chase -- people thought they insulted their dear party leader. (Oh, and it's not like the police arrested them for what they did. The police detained them temporarily just because they had to: that's the law when such an accusation is made, even for someone who didn't do anything).
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  But if there were no "religious sentiments", there will be no law. Religion looks even worse in this case: they're a politican's bitch (psychology term) and they seem to be content with that.
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
    >But if there were no "religious sentiments", there will be no law. Which is no argument at all. It's like saying, "if there weren't blacks, there would be no racism". You can have restrictive laws based on everything, no need to single out religion. Sources of restrictive laws range from health (like the drug laws), to tolerance (no hate speech), to patriotism (too many to mention), to children (internet censorship etc). That doesn't mean the sources are bad themselves.
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      Religion is a particulary nasty offender in the free speech department. And it's not like I don't blame internet censorships, "war on drugs" and stuff. I do. They have their times.
- _delirium 14y ago
zoul 14y ago
This is an unfair generalization. Also please note that religion does not equal faith.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  I don't blame faith. Faith is your fundamental right. But I do blame religion. The word is 'anticlericalism'.
rockyj 14y ago
Bal Thackeray has nothing to do with religion, he was more like a far right politician. In India there is a huge celebrity cult (people get crazy about politicians / actors / sportsmen) and Bal T's followers / goons virtually own Mumbai. I live in India and it is becoming a police state much like China, people have been arrested just for criticizing politicians on Twitter. Anything I say online can hurt anyone so I stand a risk of being arrested if I criticize even the local politician. Also, things will not improve only get worse. In other news, I am trying hard to get out of here and its not easy.
- z3phyr 14y ago
  ”much like china” I beg to differ... India is finding its own path, and well, it's still mostly democratic.. Much like the USA.
thewarrior 14y ago
Its not religion to blame here . Its the law . Here is the relevant section : >>Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,- >>a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or >>b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
rickylais 14y ago
I think you are confusing the issue here. This is not about religion. Bal Thakrey is a politician not a religious leader.

zobzu 14y ago

Like if that ever changed anything. History, while(1) continue; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

ashray 14y ago

I .. I'm just ashamed of what's happening over here these days. Free speech appears to be an absolute illusion. It's all well and good until you say something even remotely related or critical of a popular personality. Then, it's jungle law.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
I don't see religious people disapproving of this and therefore conclude they aren't good. We could probably get a refund on them.

wildranter 14y ago

When you generalize like that you're being narrow minded as the people you're criticizing. Instead, like Feynman, you should take what's best from religion to improve yourself, and ignore the rest. History shows the average human being is stupid, so don't be average.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zeru 14y ago
Well, would you disagree with that the world would be a better place without religion in this day and age?
- stfu 14y ago
  It depends. I would say that religions give a lot of people a meaningful life by providing values, hope and guidance on what they should aspire to. But there are always those on the extreme fringes, who make the rest look bad.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    It seems faith should be like a prescription drug: it should be practiced by people who need it. But instead it's like illegal drug, which is used by all kinds of people and it hurts a sizable chunk of them: and also makes their relatives' lives tougher.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    That's what they claim to give. And many of those people actually believe this, to the point of assuming that anyone who is not religious has no values or morals, and is obviously driven completely by hedonism. The question is not "what role does religion fulfil", but rather, "if religion wasn't there, would things have been better?". Because, e.g. many recreational drugs ALSO provide values, hope, and guidance (on one hand), and some religions like Mormonism and Scientology also provide them, but apparently forbid leaving them (read about excommunicating in either) to the point that I find unacceptable in a society. Disregarding the obstacle of definition of religion vs. e.g. cult vs. value system[1], my opinion would be, based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states (like Sweden and Norway), would be that value provided by religion is a net negative. [1] if you insist, I will say that beleief X is a religion iff there's a government of a country with >10M residents that accepts it as a religion for the purpose of its law. Specific definition is immaterial - they will all coincide for 99% of the population, and will have essentially no effect in the grand scheme of things.
    - gjm11 14y ago
      > based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states Be careful. I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious, rather than that religion tends to make societies less stable and secure.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
Can I take not being arrested? Because this seems to be the best thing the religions don't provide. Also can I take religion not being shoven in my face? Because where I live (Russia) this seems to be the trend despite decades of atheist state. The problem with religions is that you can't always opt out.
- wildranter 14y ago
  Ah! I see what bothers you. It's the lack of respect for free speech, it pisses me off too. On one side we have these somewhat free states driven by a set of religious values. On the other side we have totalitarian atheists regimes driven by a set of sociological principles. And in the middle we find ourselves without acces to basic rights like free speech. I frequently ask myself how could we solve that without hurting others rights. I wonder what fellow HNrs think about that.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    The problem is, you also have states that are both totalitarian and religious. So if you already have a totalitarian state (see Shah Iran) bringing in religion will make it worse, not better (the current mullah Iran). Sadly, I don't see any good perspectives. In rich countries, the main voting power belongs to people of considerable age. And they don't use much freedoms therefore freedom is not a selling point for politicians; medical care and pensions are. And in poorer countries you can always band together enough Red Guards to establish a totalitarian theocraty if you don't have one already.
    - wildranter 14y ago
      It seems you value more the problems that religious extremists cause than the current blatant disregard to free speech. In that light you'd be better off moving to China. Going against religion won't do any good to protect free speech or any other human right. You'll only gather more enemies.

pretoriusB 14y ago

Well, nobody said that about all religions (e.g not for "virgin sacrificing daemon worship" -- though it does sound fun), and for all people practicing them. Christianity didn't make Torquemada any good, but it worked quite well for St. Aquinas. With that said, the story doesn't have much to do with religion. The guy who funeral they said shouldn't matter was a political leader, not a priest. The guys that sued/prosecuted the girls did mention "hurting religious sentiments", but that was merely because that was the only semi-plausible accusation under law (since it was a funeral). In actuality it was a political chase -- people thought they insulted their dear party leader. (Oh, and it's not like the police arrested them for what they did. The police detained them temporarily just because they had to: that's the law when such an accusation is made, even for someone who didn't do anything).

guard-of-terra 14y ago
But if there were no "religious sentiments", there will be no law. Religion looks even worse in this case: they're a politican's bitch (psychology term) and they seem to be content with that.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >But if there were no "religious sentiments", there will be no law. Which is no argument at all. It's like saying, "if there weren't blacks, there would be no racism". You can have restrictive laws based on everything, no need to single out religion. Sources of restrictive laws range from health (like the drug laws), to tolerance (no hate speech), to patriotism (too many to mention), to children (internet censorship etc). That doesn't mean the sources are bad themselves.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    Religion is a particulary nasty offender in the free speech department. And it's not like I don't blame internet censorships, "war on drugs" and stuff. I do. They have their times.
_delirium 14y ago

zoul 14y ago

This is an unfair generalization. Also please note that religion does not equal faith.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
I don't blame faith. Faith is your fundamental right. But I do blame religion. The word is 'anticlericalism'.

rockyj 14y ago

Bal Thackeray has nothing to do with religion, he was more like a far right politician. In India there is a huge celebrity cult (people get crazy about politicians / actors / sportsmen) and Bal T's followers / goons virtually own Mumbai. I live in India and it is becoming a police state much like China, people have been arrested just for criticizing politicians on Twitter. Anything I say online can hurt anyone so I stand a risk of being arrested if I criticize even the local politician. Also, things will not improve only get worse. In other news, I am trying hard to get out of here and its not easy.

z3phyr 14y ago
”much like china” I beg to differ... India is finding its own path, and well, it's still mostly democratic.. Much like the USA.

thewarrior 14y ago

Its not religion to blame here . Its the law . Here is the relevant section : >>Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,- >>a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or >>b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

rickylais 14y ago

I think you are confusing the issue here. This is not about religion. Bal Thakrey is a politician not a religious leader.