Have Religions Outlived its Usefulness in The USA

[Sir Doom]

OK, that was meant to be a rhetorical question. It was meant to drive home the point of my thread.

You've got to be kidding me.

Definitely done with you, now.

 

[Thruve]

Fine by me.

Your first question was:


My answer was:



To put it simply, your question implies that you believe religion, in the past, served a purpose in government. Further, it states that this purpose is increasingly diminished as time goes on. This is what diminishing returns means (as I assume you know).

Now, I am capable of blindly guessing what you suppose this purpose is or was and I can even assume that the benefit of religion to government that you are implying is identical to the benefits that I myself might see. But I find that such guesses are nothing but wasted effort. It would amount to little more than me putting words in your mouth which you could very easily deny by saying as much. So instead, I wish to defer to your opinion on the matter. Then, I can think about the role of religion today, compare it to the returns you expect, and answer your question within the framework you intended for the question in the first place instead of just getting bogged down in guess-and-check.

Now, what I suspected is that you don't believe religion ever really served a purpose at all. That, of course, is a guess. But that's exactly why I asked what I did. The fact that you have thus far refused to answer seemed to support this notion. I'll be happy to be wrong about that. You have only to answer the question. Then we can debate whether or not the returns are indeed diminished or are diminishing (as I hope you actually intend to debate). Then I suppose we can move on to question number two, where the situation is quite similar.

Out of curiosity, could you answer the first question you proposed in the last paragraph in some detail.

 

[Sir Doom]

Out of curiosity, could you answer the first question you proposed in the last paragraph in some detail.

I didn't propose any questions in the last paragraph... The only question in the post you quoted was to ask the OP for clarification of what 'returns' he saw as diminishing.

Is that the question you mean? What returns I see?

 

[Thruve]

I didn't propose any questions in the last paragraph... The only question in the post you quoted was to ask the OP for clarification of what 'returns' he saw as diminishing.

Is that the question you mean? What returns I see?

Yessir.

 

[Sir Doom]

Yessir.

I have absolutely no expectations of a 'return' from religion. The very idea of such a thing is utterly ridiculous to me. This is what makes my question rhetorical (as in, I have no expectation of an answer) and the OP's question ridiculous (since the premise is based on nonsense).

Its the same with the second question he asked.

"Are religions hindering our development as a nation?"

This question suggests that what we are developing into is something specific. That's just nonsense. Who is to say what it COULD be without religion vs. what it will be WITH religion? NOBODY. Its impossible. But the question suggests we already know. So, I asked rhetorically (again knowing the OP was incapable of answering) what exactly we were developing into.

The idea the OP would like you to gloss over is that religion is just bad. This is the assumption he wants you to make. He wants you to say, "Of course religion has diminishing returns... because I don't like religion." He wants you to say, "Of course its holding us back as a nation... because I don't like religion." Forgetting all the while what those things actually mean. Just affirming prejudicial notions instead of actually examining the subject. That may satisfy some. I find it to be nothing more than dishonest back-patting.

Sorry to get off on a bit of a rant there.

 

[Thruve]

I have absolutely no expectations of a 'return' from religion. The very idea of such a thing is utterly ridiculous to me. This is what makes my question rhetorical (as in, I have no expectation of an answer) and the OP's question ridiculous (since the premise is based on nonsense).

Its the same with the second question he asked.

"Are religions hindering our development as a nation?"

This question suggests that what we are developing into is something specific. That's just nonsense. Who is to say what it COULD be without religion vs. what it will be WITH religion? NOBODY. Its impossible. But the question suggests we already know. So, I asked rhetorically (again knowing the OP was incapable of answering) what exactly we were developing into.

The idea the OP would like you to gloss over is that religion is just bad. This is the assumption he wants you to make. He wants you to say, "Of course religion has diminishing returns... because I don't like religion." He wants you to say, "Of course its holding us back as a nation... because I don't like religion." Forgetting all the while what those things actually mean. Just affirming prejudicial notions instead of actually examining the subject. That may satisfy some. I find it to be nothing more than dishonest back-patting.

Sorry to get off on a bit of a rant there.

I have a good understanding of what diminishing returns could be in reference to religion, on a national level, like the U.S, but from my perspective. Im curious as to what you define as 'return' in the first place. Actually, as that's a rather interesting term to use to begin with, im curious as to how tab defines it in reference to religion and its effect on society, as that is how he seemed to use it.

 

[Tabb]

You've got to be kidding me.

Definitely done with you, now.

Oh my God. You're upset because I used a rhetorical question to drive home a point!!! Why???

 

[Tabb]

You've got to be kidding me.

Definitely done with you, now.

Every other poster took those as Rhetorical questions except you. So is it me or was it you.

 

[Tabb]

You've got to be kidding me.

Definitely done with you, now.

Ok, I'm going to try again. What I meant by the diminishing returns comment was that at one time in this country religion was instrumental in establishing things such as our moral compass and homogeneity. Things that are necessary for a new nation. Now we have reached a point that our diversity is what's making us a stronger nation. Religion at times can be a hindrance to it.

 

[Sir Doom]

I have a good understanding of what diminishing returns could be in reference to religion, on a national level, like the U.S, but from my perspective. Im curious as to what you define as 'return' in the first place. Actually, as that's a rather interesting term to use to begin with, im curious as to how tab defines it in reference to religion and its effect on society, as that is how he seemed to use it.

Exactly my point. Its so highly subjective its practically useless to ask such an open-ended question without first knowing what the author of the question means. Considering the overall attitude towards religion of the OP, I felt it was all but given that he sees nothing positive in religion at all, despite his vague insistence to the contrary. His reaction to my inquiry only further supported my assumption. Personally, I find the subjective nature of religion to preclude any kind of discussion about its general worth to the public (especially on a political level). The first amendment essentially makes it a non-issue, to me. Others disagree, I suppose. Hence we have rambling nonsense like this thread wherein the role of fundamentalist is adopted by the anti-religious (quite ironically).

Oh my God. You're upset because I used a rhetorical question to drive home a point!!! Why???

Every other poster took those as Rhetorical questions except you. So is it me or was it you.

You should know what a term means before you use it. A rhetorical question is a question that requires no answer either because the answer is so obvious it need not be stated, or because there is no answer. You did not ask your questions rhetorically. Unless, of course, you think you are so obviously correct in your assessment that everyone simply agrees with you. Is that the case? If so, I can only laugh harder.

Ok, I'm going to try again. What I meant by the diminishing returns comment was that at one time in this country religion was instrumental in establishing things such as our moral compass and homogeneity. Things that are necessary for a new nation. Now we have reached a point that our diversity is what's making us a stronger nation. Religion at times can be a hindrance to it.

This is exactly the sort of answer I've been asking for (and you have only now provided). Congratulations, intellectual honesty is very important, in my opinion.

Now, since you've finally decided to pony-up the goods, I can respond to your original question.

No, we have not reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religion. As you say, diversity is one of our strengths as a nation, but this is nothing new at all. It is also not universally opposed by religion itself, nor Christianity itself even. Certain vocal groups of religious people may believe there is only one true path to walk and may even bend over backwards to try and prove it or force the issue on the rest of us. Any sane individual knows that they are doomed to failure, however. This is not a country run by religion, and it never has been. The fact that we allow even the most ignorant fascist to blather their insane nonsense with impunity is PART of our diversity and NOT a hindrance upon it. It is our allowance of diversity that CREATES the same solidarity you think was provided by religion at some point.

Now, I hope that you decide to respond to this rebuttal with one of your own (or agreement if that unlikely circumstance presents itself) rather than attempting to redefine what you consider the 'returns' to be in order to avoid a reasonable discussion.

 

[Omega Man]

I think that the question asked in the heading of this discussion should be changed to, has religion outlived it's usefulness? Not just in the U.S. but anywhere on this planet.

 

[Tabb]

Exactly my point. Its so highly subjective its practically useless to ask such an open-ended question without first knowing what the author of the question means. Considering the overall attitude towards religion of the OP, I felt it was all but given that he sees nothing positive in religion at all, despite his vague insistence to the contrary. His reaction to my inquiry only further supported my assumption. Personally, I find the subjective nature of religion to preclude any kind of discussion about its general worth to the public (especially on a political level). The first amendment essentially makes it a non-issue, to me. Others disagree, I suppose. Hence we have rambling nonsense like this thread wherein the role of fundamentalist is adopted by the anti-religious (quite ironically).





You should know what a term means before you use it. A rhetorical question is a question that requires no answer either because the answer is so obvious it need not be stated, or because there is no answer. You did not ask your questions rhetorically. Unless, of course, you think you are so obviously correct in your assessment that everyone simply agrees with you. Is that the case? If so, I can only laugh harder.



This is exactly the sort of answer I've been asking for (and you have only now provided). Congratulations, intellectual honesty is very important, in my opinion.

Now, since you've finally decided to pony-up the goods, I can respond to your original question.

No, we have not reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religion. As you say, diversity is one of our strengths as a nation, but this is nothing new at all. It is also not universally opposed by religion itself, nor Christianity itself even. Certain vocal groups of religious people may believe there is only one true path to walk and may even bend over backwards to try and prove it or force the issue on the rest of us. Any sane individual knows that they are doomed to failure, however. This is not a country run by religion, and it never has been. The fact that we allow even the most ignorant fascist to blather their insane nonsense with impunity is PART of our diversity and NOT a hindrance upon it. It is our allowance of diversity that CREATES the same solidarity you think was provided by religion at some point.

Now, I hope that you decide to respond to this rebuttal with one of your own (or agreement if that unlikely circumstance presents itself) rather than attempting to redefine what you consider the 'returns' to be in order to avoid a reasonable discussion.

Totally disagree. This is a nation that only recognized white males as citizens until relatively recently. Blacks were enslaved and considered less than human. Women could not vote simply because of their gender. Interracial marriages were against the law in many states. Most of these actions were sanctioned and backed by Christians as the Christian thing to do. No, diversity is a new strength that the US is discovering.

I have to be honest. I don't know why you couldn't argue this point with out me answering my Rhetorical question.

 

[Sir Doom]

Totally disagree. This is a nation that only recognized white males as citizens until relatively recently. Blacks were enslaved and considered less than human. Women could not vote simply because of their gender. Interracial marriages were against the law in many states. Most of these actions were sanctioned and backed by Christians as the Christian thing to do. No, diversity is a new strength that the US is discovering.

Please feel free to come up with whatever source you like to demonstrate these 'facts' you believe in. For bonus points, see if you can prevent me from demonstrating the opposite directly afterwards. Good luck.

I have to be honest. I don't know why you couldn't argue this point with out me answering my Rhetorical question.

Again, you don't know what that means. Stop saying it. What I wanted was for you to answer MY question, hero. Are you paying attention at all? By the way, it wasn't that I COULDN'T, it was that I DIDN'T WANT TO. What I wanted was exactly what is happening now. You have abandoned the false, sugar-coating of the OP and have allowed your inner-bigot to rear its ugly head. Thanks for that. Now I don't even need to bother with the pretense of respect.

 

[Tabb]

Please feel free to come up with whatever source you like to demonstrate these 'facts' you believe in. For bonus points, see if you can prevent me from demonstrating the opposite directly afterwards. Good luck.



Again, you don't know what that means. Stop saying it. What I wanted was for you to answer MY question, hero. Are you paying attention at all? By the way, it wasn't that I COULDN'T, it was that I DIDN'T WANT TO. What I wanted was exactly what is happening now. You have abandoned the false, sugar-coating of the OP and have allowed your inner-bigot to rear its ugly head. Thanks for that. Now I don't even need to bother with the pretense of respect.

Doom Baby, lets end it right here, since only you know what this convo is about. My inner bigot, where are you getting this stuff?? I invite anyone to explain to me what's he's talking about. Also it was a rhetorical question if you keep it in context of the whole statement. You Sir are the only one that didn't get it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

We live in a Post Theistic age, it is of no surprise religions are being replaced by secular philosophies like Humanism. As a whole most religions need to go away or at least the ones present in the US and Middle East

 

[Tabb]

Religion being a hindrance to peace is so glaring in middle east politics that a blind man can see it. Also it's used as a smoke screen to hide what's going on there.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Religion being a hindrance to peace is so glaring in middle east politics that a blind man can see it. Also it's used as a smoke screen to hide what's going on there.

Praise Non-God brother!

 

[Sir Doom]

Doom Baby, lets end it right here, since only you know what this convo is about.

I'm certain I'm not the only one.

My inner bigot, where are you getting this stuff?? I invite anyone to explain to me what's he's talking about.

You just blamed slavery, racism and sexism on Christianity itself. All three predate the USA and Christianity. You are obviously wrong about that. Your refusal to provide the evidence proves it further. However, even if you had provided evidence, it would have been a simple matter to provide contrary evidence of the undeniable role that Christianity took in abolishing slavery, granting rights to women and combating segregation. Probably very easy things for you to ignore, being that you find your own opinions so compelling.

Also it was a rhetorical question if you keep it in context of the whole statement. You Sir are the only one that didn't get it.

As I said, your question can only be rhetorical if you think you are so obviously correct about the answer that it doesn't even warrant one. I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated how wrong you are about that. Your refusal to engage only supports my argument, despite how wounded you'd like to pretend to be.

 

[Tabb]

I'm certain I'm not the only one.



You just blamed slavery, racism and sexism on Christianity itself. All three predate the USA and Christianity. You are obviously wrong about that. Your refusal to provide the evidence proves it further. However, even if you had provided evidence, it would have been a simple matter to provide contrary evidence of the undeniable role that Christianity took in abolishing slavery, granting rights to women and combating segregation. Probably very easy things for you to ignore, being that you find your own opinions so compelling.


As I said, your question can only be rhetorical if you think you are so obviously correct about the answer that it doesn't even warrant one. I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated how wrong you are about that. Your refusal to engage only supports my argument, despite how wounded you'd like to pretend to be.

I see you just want to debate for the sake of debating. Okay I'll be your Huckleberry. I did not blame slavery, racism, sexism, and the tooth ferry on Christianity. I said these things were sactioned by religion, Big difference. I have nothing but respect for religion I just don't think it should be part of public policy.

You disagree with my argument, that's fine. But stop trying to reframe my argument to suit a point you're trying to make. You got something to say just say it. You don' t need me to have an opposing view for you to make your point. Either you think religion has outlived its usefulness or you don't. Lets stop all these side arguments where you try to tell me what I mean. This is beneath a man of your intellect.

Also, look up the definition for Rhetorical Question. You will find out how wrong you are. No apologies necessary.

 

[Thruve]

We live in a Post Theistic age, it is of no surprise religions are being replaced by secular philosophies like Humanism. As a whole most religions need to go away or at least the ones present in the US and Middle East

No likey the western culture taking ova.. the orients huh?