Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Anti-theist
Morbus O'Somebody
Junior Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 07-29-2023

Message 875 of 895 (911937)
08-03-2023 12:33 PM

Continuation of discussion with AZPaul3
This is a continuation of the discussion that AZPaul and I were having in the 2024 US Presidential Election topic. Message 173 was AZPaul3's last response to me.
AZPaul3 writes:
If religion were to vanish would that end war? Of course not. It just won’t be available as a shield to hide the war’s true purpose. It wouldn’t be available to (incite) the populous to hatred and bloodshed. The war lords would have to find less insidious and more direct reasons to force mobilization. And the people will not be swayed by appeals to fantasy. It would be much more difficult to sustain war.
I'll point out that neither WWII nor the Vietnam War had religious justifications, and yet they were sustained quite effectively. You don't seem to be making any coherent statement about war and religion apart from the assertion that warmakers often attempt to justify wars on religious grounds.
Religion requires a person to believe a fairy tale. Religion requires a person to act from the basis of fantasy. That is the destruction of critical thought. The historical impact of religious fantasy on societies is well known full of horrors.
This is not sloganeering. This is reality. That is the jack, the substance, the "be all and end all" of religion. Suspend reality. Be manipulated by fantasy.
Once again, you're not telling us anything about religion. You're just telling us you've been defining it in the most puerile, reductive way conceivable and you demand that everyone else take your tendentious definition at face value.
The idea that religion is all about believing in the literal existence of a literal being called God or the literal truth of fairy tales such as the Garden of Eden or Noah's Flood just keeps the God-is-God-ain't debates chewing up bandwidth. And if you've acquired a taste for that kind of low-hanging fruit, there must be plenty of Scripturebots and fundies online on whom you can vent your immature wrath.
The fact is that religion is all about the personal and communal construction of meaning. It's a way of life, not just a suite of claims about the world that you affirm on a provisional basis. You're fixating on the literal truth value of these claims not because that's what religion is, but because that makes it easier for you to accuse literally billions of complete strangers of being delusional and amoral without any qualms about the propriety of doing so.
You & I aren't religious because we didn't get anything out of religion and don't need religious language to make sense of our experience. It's not because we're right and religious people are wrong.

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by Percy, posted 08-04-2023 11:53 AM Morbus O'Somebody has not replied
 Message 878 by AZPaul3, posted 08-05-2023 3:48 PM Morbus O'Somebody has not replied

Morbus O'Somebody
Junior Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 07-29-2023

Message 876 of 895 (911939)
08-03-2023 1:49 PM

Religion has been used as a tool of control and violence for forever.

But by that standard alone, scientific and technological progress makes religion look like a piker. Does the way science enables domination and slaughter reflect badly on it even in the least, he asked expecting the answer NO?
It's been a while since we've seen this inanity from the religionist argument list.
Of course the answer is no. Science discovers. Society, too often guided by religion, weaponizes.
That clumsy attempt at slight-of-hand won't make Penn & Teller lose any sleep. You can't just silo off science from any consequences of its development and application. If a religious person said religion is all love & lollipops, we'd have every right to laugh. And denying the downside of scientific and technological progress is just as absurd.
Science doesn't just "discover" things in some random way, it needs motivation and funding by sponsors whose aims usually have much more to do with profit and domination than the epistemic horizon. You can't separate what we know about atomic energy from the deliberate and costly process that created the knowledge, or the geopolitical context that motivated its creation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by AZPaul3, posted 08-05-2023 4:37 PM Morbus O'Somebody has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024