Replacing/Removing God/Religion

[.lava]

Is religion and/or god something that could be removed from human society?

can we remove human from human society? if yes, teach me how.






.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see. However, there are some religions, like Judaism, which include built into the religion a framework for government operation. Surely if a group of like minded people wanted to participate and live in a community structured in such a way it would not be a bad thing.

I think it depends what you mean.

If you're talking about a religious settlement like, say, an Amish community or the like, where people freely choose to stay and participate according to the community's rules, then fine. But when you talk about religion being "a framework for government operation", that suggests to me theocracy, which I have major issues with.

Personally, I think that freedom of religion is untenable without each individual being free to leave their religion. Often, we're not free to remove ourselves from the authority of a government, so if the religion is the government, I would see serious potential for a situation I would consider to be unjust.

Listening to and following the thoughts and opinions of authorities is not a sacrifice of yourself. Neither is submitting to the organized structure of a religion.

I disagree. Left to their own devices, people pursue their own self-interest. Submission to an authority necessarily means denial of some of the things a person would do to further that self-interest. This is a sacrifice.

Now... if you want to argue that the cost of the sacrifice is offset by even greater benefit from submission to the authority, then fine, but that doesn't mean that the cost doesn't exist.

 

[TheKnight]

I think it depends what you mean.

If you're talking about a religious settlement like, say, an Amish community or the like, where people freely choose to stay and participate according to the community's rules, then fine. But when you talk about religion being "a framework for government operation", that suggests to me theocracy, which I have major issues with.

Personally, I think that freedom of religion is untenable without each individual being free to leave their religion. Often, we're not free to remove ourselves from the authority of a government, so if the religion is the government, I would see serious potential for a situation I would consider to be unjust.

The people don't have to be a part of the community. It's by choice. As I said, If people choose to be a part of a community that is run by a religious organization or group, why should we stop them?

I disagree. Left to their own devices, people pursue their own self-interest. Submission to an authority necessarily means denial of some of the things a person would do to further that self-interest. This is a sacrifice.

Now... if you want to argue that the cost of the sacrifice is offset by even greater benefit from submission to the authority, then fine, but that doesn't mean that the cost doesn't exist.

Not everything in life should be done in the pursuit of self-interest. Happier lives are lived by the selfless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The people don't have to be a part of the community. It's by choice. As I said, If people choose to be a part of a community that is run by a religious organization or group, why should we stop them?

Again, as long as all the people do actually choose, I don't think we should stop them. But "community" can mean anything from a group where the people are free to leave at any time, or a cult where people are physically and psychologically restrained from leaving.

And if the "community" encompasses a whole country, then however good or noble its religious government, that freedom to leave doesn't exist because leaving one country means entering another, and nobody has the right to enter a country that's not their own.

Not everything in life should be done in the pursuit of self-interest. Happier lives are lived by the selfless.

By self-interest, I mean the things a person values. That might mean selfish greed, but it might mean selfless service to others.

My point was that an individual person will have their own ideas about how to do things to accomplish the best result possible, however he personally defines "best". A limitation on that person's actions represents a reduction in what it would be possible for him to accomplish.

When my freedom is limited, I take away my ability to make certain outcomes happen. To the extent that these lost outcomes were desirable to me, this is a sacrifice.

 

[TheKnight]

By self-interest, I mean the things a person values. That might mean selfish greed, but it might mean selfless service to others.

My point was that an individual person will have their own ideas about how to do things to accomplish the best result possible, however he personally defines "best". A limitation on that person's actions represents a reduction in what it would be possible for him to accomplish.

When my freedom is limited, I take away my ability to make certain outcomes happen. To the extent that these lost outcomes were desirable to me, this is a sacrifice.

I agree. But suppose there is a group of like-minded people that purchase a plot of land (that doesn't belong to any country) and decide to run that land under a Theocracy. They all agree to run it that way. Should they accept a person trying to enter their community and live by rules that are contrary to the Theocracy? If they own the land, and they move to some remote place so that they don't bother anyone. And they let people leave if they wish. Should they tolerate someone coming into that community and attempting to live contrary to its values?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. But suppose there is a group of like-minded people that purchase a plot of land (that doesn't belong to any country) and decide to run that land under a Theocracy.

What plot of land doesn't belong to any country? The only one I can think of is Antarctica, which can't be purchased by anyone.

They all agree to run it that way. Should they accept a person trying to enter their community and live by rules that are contrary to the Theocracy? If they own the land, and they move to some remote place so that they don't bother anyone. And they let people leave if they wish. Should they tolerate someone coming into that community and attempting to live contrary to its values?

My issue is more with what happens when someone who has come to the community voluntarily (or maybe was born into it) decides that they don't agree with it. The theocracy would have power over them until they leave the community, and if the land doesn't belong to any country, then they could only leave if they could find some other country to accept them.

Basically, my position is this: governmental power must be derived from the consent of the governed. Normally, this is accomplished through putting the power in the hands of the people... i.e. democracy. However, I suppose it can be accomplished by other means (e.g. theocracy), but only as long as a key condition is met: the people must have the absolute freedom to leave.

My concerns about theocracy aren't so much about who can get in as they are about who can get out.

 

[IndigoStorm]

Since day one ... and who knows when that was ... earthings have looked up at the stars and wondered ... Who made this stuff dude? Then when the sun rose upon a beautiful warm day they said to themselves ... "Wow look at that brilliant life giving warm orb up there ... IT is God!"

 

[TheKnight]

What plot of land doesn't belong to any country? The only one I can think of is Antarctica, which can't be purchased by anyone.


My issue is more with what happens when someone who has come to the community voluntarily (or maybe was born into it) decides that they don't agree with it. The theocracy would have power over them until they leave the community, and if the land doesn't belong to any country, then they could only leave if they could find some other country to accept them.

Basically, my position is this: governmental power must be derived from the consent of the governed. Normally, this is accomplished through putting the power in the hands of the people... i.e. democracy. However, I suppose it can be accomplished by other means (e.g. theocracy), but only as long as a key condition is met: the people must have the absolute freedom to leave.

My concerns about theocracy aren't so much about who can get in as they are about who can get out.

Anyone would be allowed to leave whenever they want. Except for children who are not of age.

 

[IndigoStorm]

Only a misguided one would want to replace god ... Imagine all those Atheists running around all over town! Who the hell would we debate with? Al Quaida?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anyone would be allowed to leave whenever they want. Except for children who are not of age.

... so long as they can find a country to take them, which means they aren't necessarily free to leave.

 

[TheKnight]

... so long as they can find a country to take them, which means they aren't necessarily free to leave.

That's not the problem of the Theocratic country. If you join a community and then want to leave that community then it is your responsibility to find somewhere else to live. Not the community's. If no other country will take you, then you'll just have to submit to the laws of the community.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not the problem of the Theocratic country.

The problem isn't created by the country, but I do think it's of vital concern to that country.

No country exists in a vacuum. When evaluating any decision, we have to take the context into account.

If you join a community and then want to leave that community then it is your responsibility to find somewhere else to live. Not the community's. If no other country will take you, then you'll just have to submit to the laws of the community.

And here's where we disagree. I don't think it's enough to say "well, if those people over there did things differently, my actions wouldn't infringe on your freedom." If a particular arrangement doesn't allow the people to have freedom of belief and conscience, then IMO that arrangement is unacceptable... regardless of how it came to be.

 

[Smoke]

I agree. But suppose there is a group of like-minded people that purchase a plot of land (that doesn't belong to any country) and decide to run that land under a Theocracy. They all agree to run it that way. Should they accept a person trying to enter their community and live by rules that are contrary to the Theocracy? If they own the land, and they move to some remote place so that they don't bother anyone. And they let people leave if they wish. Should they tolerate someone coming into that community and attempting to live contrary to its values?

Are we assuming that none of these people will ever change their minds and none of them will ever have any children?

 

[TheKnight]

Are we assuming that none of these people will ever change their minds and none of them will ever have any children?

If they change their minds, they can leave. Their children can leave when the become of age.

 

[Thief]

Maybe I missed it.
Has it been determined that letting go of a religion is also denying God?

I don't think so.

 

[Smoke]

If they change their minds, they can leave. Their children can leave when the become of age.

Well, that's about what the Amish do. They have their own insular societies and their own strict rules, and if their children don't like it, they're welcome to venture out into the world alone and uneducated, at the cost of being cut off forever from their friends and families. I think it's despicable.

 

[TheKnight]

The problem isn't created by the country, but I do think it's of vital concern to that country.

No country exists in a vacuum. When evaluating any decision, we have to take the context into account.


And here's where we disagree. I don't think it's enough to say "well, if those people over there did things differently, my actions wouldn't infringe on your freedom." If a particular arrangement doesn't allow the people to have freedom of belief and conscience, then IMO that arrangement is unacceptable... regardless of how it came to be.

How, then, can there be standards? Part of having a standard means that some people won't meet that standard. Should we just drop the standard because not everyone can meet it? I don't think so.

Well, that's about what the Amish do. They have their own insular societies and their own strict rules, and if their children don't like it, they're welcome to venture out into the world alone and uneducated, at the cost of being cut off forever from their friends and families. I think it's despicable.

It's their choice. A choice they make being fully aware of its consequences.

 

[lockyfan]

Is religion and/or god something that could be removed from human society? If so, could they simply be removed, or would they need to be replaced with something else? If so, what thing(s) could serve as adequate replacement(s) for religion and/or god? Essentially, if there are components of god/religion which fill a necessary role for people in general, what are these components, and what else shares them?

Bible actually tells us (in Revelation) that religion is going to be destroyed.

 

[imaginaryme]

Not quite.
Regardless of faith and religion, there is a grand scheme ...undeniable.

We die.

I believe in life after death. Most people reconcile with their mortality by a practice of religion.
This would be the primary resistance in letting go of religion.
For religion to be dispelled, some other reconciliation must take it's place.

6billion people will die within my lifetime.
As we stand up from our dust, some will call for Jesus, some will call for Muhammad, some for Moses, and so on.

Any prophet who spoke well and correctly will be found in the presence of God. The nay saying will be left at the door.

The rule of thumb is simple.
Do unto others as you would have it done unto you.
This is all Man ever needed.

Here in this world you have choice.
You may be Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or any other practice.
But there is only One Almighty.
For now you may say as you please. Later on...your objections will left at the door, and it will be done unto you as you did unto others.

Now you are in control....go ahead...say as you please.

Wrong. I can say that, because I know stuff. You won't find no prophet in the presence of god - because essentially a prophet is a tool, as such used and abused; and as such intrinsically meaningless. You may think of eternal life - I think of eternal utility, for the fate of broken tools is the dustbin.

The golden rule is actually silver - it often works as a quickie cliche - but it ain't no kind of knowledge. I could speak of my sexual fetish, but that's easy. How about the lesson of giving? Go ahead - home experiment - see what happens when you give and do not receive. I'll tell you. You will alienate yourself from society. It's my turn, is it?

Parrots don't speak, they parrot; and what they parrot is often spawn by emotional, unspoken cues resulting from tone. Ohh, golden rule... we all die...

Wrong. The fear of death is enhanced by its being unknowable - but the far greater fear is what drives religion. The fear of being alone. Parrot. :jam:

 

[imaginaryme]

Bible actually tells us (in Revelation) that religion is going to be destroyed.

The last paragraph of Revelation is an escape clause, the last line a blessing. Are you a prophet to speak of the actuality of the Bible?

It's not you, it's me being sick of Revelation. Ancient history.