I don't need bribes or fear mongering tactics to make me understand the value of the ethic of reciprocity.
Okay, you may not, but maybe others do.
I'm not talking about others, I'm talking about myself. But if you believe that fear mongering tactics and bribes are what others need to understand the value of the ethic of recipocity then can I conclude that you would opt for those choices over education and rational thought? Should we fear monger and bribe others into the ethic of reciprocity, or should we properly educate them?
This is really a no-brainer, isn't it?
You just described the goals of both Christianity, Islam, and a host of other religions.
While both those rules can be found in those religions, they are hardly the primary goals, nor are they the only rules. The overriding goal of all the Abrahamic faiths is strict obedience to the authority of God, who imposes all kinds of nonsensical and even morally-objectionable rules, not just "the golden rule" and the non-aggression principle. If Christianity, Judaism and Islam just had those two, they wouldn't be so bad.
I did not state that they were "the primary goals, nor are they the only rules," but only that they are goals that each of those faiths intend to accomplish. Indeed also, as
you suggest, they are in fact primary goals of at least 2 of those 3 religions, for Islam and Christianity combined already have almost 2/3 of the world's population in their religions. If that doesn't illustrate to you that it's a primary goal, then perhaps you can demonstate to me a feat of these religions that can compare?
You see, if Islam, for example, conquered the whole world with it's religion, then would the brothers attack the brothers? Same thing for Christianity.
Ummm...you don't even have to wait for them to conquer the whole world-- they do it now and have been doing it for many, many centuries.
You mean as if it was a ... primary goal?
Although i agree with your point of view to an extent, and in spirit, but it's but a pipe dream when we have people believing in some old guy in the sky.
As Tommy said, it's probably a "pipe dream" either way.
So in other words, instead of spreading reason and rational thought, we should just patiently wait in a bus somewhere for the next suicide bomber, or watch the latest David Koresh episode unfold on TV and do absolutely nothing?
Is that about right?
The same problem exists in that we would have people doing things to please that old guy in the sky; ridiculous things that do nothing to benefit mankind.
The ethic of reciprocity and the non-aggression principle are "ridiculous things that do nothing to benefit mankind"?
Perhaps if you didn't insist on extracting my statements out of the context of which they were written into that you just may develop the cerebral capacity to comprehend my statements in their original context? Do you think that's possible, or should the next time you make a statement I should just maybe consider that you are just a few bricks short of a load?
You decide, for I have limited tolerance for those tactics and will expose them instantly, and as viciously as has just been demonstrated.
You seem to be missing the point in the hypothetical religion I posited-- those are the only two demands God would place on his followers-- basically be nice to other people and don't cause them harm unless in self-defense. No rules on which holes you can stick your dick in, and under what circumstances you may do so, no rules demanding you not eat this or that food, consume this or that drug, no rules placing one sex above the other, or demanding you build big-ass churches and go once a week to pray in them.
And you missed my point that the human race does not benefit one iota in believing in such things that are not supported by any evidence and cannot be demonstrated to be true. In your hypothetical religion we still have a belief system in some imaginary entity which only teaches people that lies are the truth.
So we should lie to the people, as opposed to telling them the truth? Is there something so terribly wrong with the truth?
We need to stop believing in "Peter Pan" and more in ourselves and each other as a species. The human race has no faith in itself- which is something real- all because we desire to misguide our faith into some old guy in the sky.
I don't think you can lay that all on worship of God. After all, humankind does a lot of nasty things. I'm an atheist and I have no faith in humanity, at least I don't anymore. And you can find a lot of atheists/agnostics who feel the same way. It's little wonder that people turn to religions which call man sinful and wicked, but provide a supernatural being capable of redeeming them-- given the historical and contemporary evidence, you'd have a hard time making a case that humanity is basically "good".
And why would humanity be basically
not good? What would be the reason for that behavior? The list is indeed endless, but topping that list is a score of various ideologies and religious beliefs, all designed to oppresss those who do not subscribe to them.
I have great faith in humanity. I believe in the goodness of mankind, and that over time we will finally all be on the same page with a primary objective that will benefit us all. Access to education is on the rise around the world due to new technologies, and young minds are being awakened to a brighter dawn. As an agnostic/atheist, it is our responsibility to lead the way towards reason and rational thought, and to deal with
what is, as opposed to
what is not.Now, you can either sit there and wallow in your bitterness regarding your lack of faith in humanity, or you can get a set of balls and lead the misguided and intellectually deprived masses towards
hope, as opposed to
hopelessness.Get in the game, and play to win.
Topic: Religion Sux