Religious affairs

[qigong chimp]

Pish.
I've been pointing to the meaningless flabbiness of the wretched paragraph.

 

[C R]

Pish.
I've been pointing to the meaningless flabbiness of the wretched paragraph.

The paragraph is an observation of the reality of religion. You haven't been able to provide a counterexample.

 

[qigong chimp]

Have too.
With respect, if we define religion/Religion/a religion as that which "tells lies to a large group of people (usually about sky based beings with magic powers) in order to control them [and] isn't about truth [but] about money and power" than it gets a bit tautologous, doesn't it? That's just a nonsense with which it's impossible to engage. So, suggest you both set your goalposts down and perhaps we can have a kick-around.

 

[C R]

Have too.
With respect, if we define religion/Religion/a religion as that which "tells lies to a large group of people (usually about sky based beings with magic powers) in order to control them [and] isn't about truth [but] about money and power" than it gets a bit tautologous, doesn't it? That's just a nonsense with which it's impossible to engage. So, suggest you both set your goalposts down and perhaps we can have a kick-around.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion, not to your facts. It should be trivial to offer a counterexample if the observation is so trivially wrong. Deepities don't count as counterexamples.

 

[qigong chimp]

FFS; the initial asservation is a 'deepity'.

 

[C R]

FFS; the initial asservation is a 'deepity'.

The original paragraph is an observation of reality. Have you found a factual counterexample yet?

 

[qigong chimp]

No it isn't, it's an asservation.

When you're ready...

 

[C R]

The paragraph in question is just a more forthright rewording of the famous Seneca observation that religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Formulated well before christianity was invented.

Found any counterexamples yet?

 

[fozy tornip]

The original paragraph is an observation of reality.

You're entitled to your opinion, not to your facts.

 

[qigong chimp]

The paragraph in question is just a more forthright rewording of the famous Seneca observation that religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Formulated well before christianity was invented.

Found any counterexamples yet?

Cowden is channelling Seneca?

Counterexamples to what?

Won't this - every bit as authoritative - do?

The whole point of Religion is not to tell lies to a large group of people (usually about sky based beings with magic powers) in order to control them. Religion isn't about money and power, it's about truth.

 

[C R]

You're entitled to your opinion, not to your facts.

It should be trivial to provide a counterexample to the observation then. Go on, feel free.

 

[icowden]

because that's risible.

Really?

31.6% of the global population identifies as Christian. Christianity controls and influences the USA, the UK and a huge amount of world history. Christians occupy many positions of power and Christian Churches control huge amounts of wealth from the Pope and Vatican through to megapastors in organisations such as Hillsong in the antipodes, those that heavily influence political policy in the USA and of course the Church of England where they sit in Government.

Islam is second with 25.8% of the global population. Many countries are ruled solely by Islamic Clerics and Islam is used as a method of mass control and coercion including subjugation of women.

Hinduism is 3rd. India's Prime Minister is Modi who represents the BJP which now seems to be focused on hard-line Hindu nationalist policies. In the 1990s they used the religion to back a campaign to build a Hindu temple on the site of the Babri Mosque which resulted in them winning 86 seats. They also organised a rally which ended with the demolition of the mosque and waves of violence killing over 2000 people. Modi himself was accused of encouraging violence against Muslims and his policies have largely been aimed at consolidating power, using religion as a key tool. He lately created a citizenship act to use religion as a criteria for citizenship in order to specifically exclude Muslims.

Buddhism is 4th and I think I've already covered that. Judaism is 6th - do you really need some analysis of the Israeli campaign of annihilating the Palestinians to convince you that religion is involved?

Or is he trying to say something else, something more, er, nuanced perhaps : that 'founders and controllers', without exception, are manipulating liars in it for the money and power?

No, I said what I said which is that Religion is a key tool for coercive control and power. Religions are successful because they can control people.

That Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Williams, Ajahn Chah - we could go on, it's limitless, really - are religious men (oh yes they are, whatever might be Googleable about 'hinduism') who aren't liars in it for personal gain or power, says that's just bollocks.

Lucky I didn't say that then. Of course there are good people of all religious persuasions who genuinely believe in helping the needy etc. Many people find solace in religion. It doesn't also follow that religion is a good thing. If the religion didn't exist those people would almost certainly still be good people. Many atheists are also good, caring people. You'll find atheists and agnostics who volunteer, who work in food banks, volunteer for the Samaritans etc.

So ought we to define what we mean by Religion with a capital 'R' before we spaff bollocks like privately educated schoolboys who feel they can speak their branes with an inflated sense of entitlement and authority?

Not sure I did that. Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods, usually set down as a system of faith and worship.

So what? Has that been a malign or benign influence is the question? Are we talking Ashoka or Sinhalese fundamentalism? What ought governments to be influenced by? Science? How's that playing out as the world dies?

I don't know if you have noticed but governments aren't listening to the scientists. If they were, we might be a lot better off.

 

[C R]

Cowden is channelling Seneca?

Counterexamples to what?

Won't this - every bit as authoritative - do?

Counterexamples would be religions that aren't used as tools of power. It should be trivial.

A couple of trivial counterexamples to your quote, which didn't get quoted in my reply, are the catholic church and scientology.

Edited for clarity.

 

[icowden]

Won't this - every bit as authoritative - do?

The whole point of Religion is not to tell lies to a large group of people (usually about sky based beings with magic powers) in order to control them. Religion isn't about money and power, it's about truth.

No. If it were about truth then religions would have to give up their rituals based around invisible superpowered beings that control every aspect of our lives.

If it were about truth, then Science would be a religion. Science by definition is about determining truth - to wit:

the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Scientific discovery can be proven by anyone who can repeat the same or similar experiment and make the same observations. Science admits immediately (these days - in the old days it was less easy) when it finds out that something that was deduced from an experiment is incorrect if a better experiment produces a more measurable and detailed result.

There is no truth in religion. It is about belief. Christians would have to admit that there is no historic evidence that Jesus existed, that the bit about the virgin birth is made up and Genesis is completely wrong.

 

[qigong chimp]

No. If it were about truth then religions would have to give up their rituals based around invisible superpowered beings that control every aspect of our lives.

If it were about truth, then Science would be a religion. Science by definition is about determining truth - to wit:

Scientific discovery can be proven by anyone who can repeat the same or similar experiment and make the same observations. Science admits immediately (these days - in the old days it was less easy) when it finds out that something that was deduced from an experiment is incorrect if a better experiment produces a more measurable and detailed result.

There is no truth in religion. It is about belief. Christians would have to admit that there is no historic evidence that Jesus existed, that the bit about the virgin birth is made up and Genesis is completely wrong.

It's as if Mary Midgley, for example, never lived.