What if we didn't accept other peoples' religions

[ppp]

It would have to be very political, the very best conceptions of that word. It would be on the lookout for authoritatian tendencies and value awareness of social, ideological, religious and political trends. It would have to be, for without that awareness we end up falling back into nationalism and authoritarianism.

Well put. We are so authoritarian, it's ridiculous

 

[ppp]

I'm not aghast, nor did I object. I'm merely baffled by the question.

[shrug] However you want to put it, I am not going to try to guess why you are baffled.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Really? Do you don't think that the religious people here are representative of the population as a whole?

No. I think a lot of people, that are doing a lot of good, from faiths or no faith, would not have time to post often on a forum. They would all be working for the good of all, they would be very accepting.

Which is also a personal self reflection.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

Can you give me some examples? I am a bit lost in trying to figure how that would work.

Far as I can tell, we do not exist in a very epistemologically solid world.

Drop a brick on your foot and you will find that, whilst not epistemologically perfect, the world is epistemologically solid enough.

But groups that demand agreement with the demonstrably false for the sake of peace are not even trying to come as close as we can get to epistemological solidity in my view.

 

[ppp]

No. I think a lot of people, that are doing a lot of good, from faiths or no faith, would not have time to post often on a forum. They would all be working for the good of all, they would be very accepting.

I didn't ask if you think that religious people here are representative of "lot of people, that are doing a lot of good". I asked if you think that religious people here are representative of the population as a whole.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I didn't ask if you think that religious people here are representative of "lot of people, that are doing a lot of good". I asked if you think that religious people here are representative of the population as a whole.

Given the size and diversity of the human race, how could that at all be possible?

We are but a few voices amongst the billions.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

Given the size and diversity of the human race, how could that at all be possible?

We are but a few voices amongst the billions.

Regards Tony

Representative of the population is about demographic scaling, not one to one correspondence. The map is not the territory. But it can still be a nap.

 

[Vinayaka]

Big difference between accepting another person's religion, versus accepting their human right to have said religion. The second part goes a very long way, and when it is an unacceptance instead, we have huge problems of invasions and conquering mentality. "Kill the _______s!"

 

[paarsurrey]

What if we didn't accept other peoples' religions

If my own Religion is reasonable and supports reason as far as reason could go and I find other Religions and or No-Religions, then, why I would accept any of them, right?

That is a reasonable question. What is acceptance and how does it apply to groups that we deem non-reasonable?

By accepting I meant converting to some other Religion/no-Religion, otherwise they have every right to have any religion/no-religion they like to whether reasonable and or unreasonable , and I have no objection to it, right?

Regards

 

[ChieftheCef]

Suppose that we just acknowledge from the get-go that any two given religions or subcultures will have many compatibilities and many incompatibilities. And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

Suppose that we try to build a society that acknowledges that there will be inevitable conflicts between that society's respective subcultures. Where we teach people that the mere existence of conflict is not an existential threat.

What would the foundations of that society look like?

So you're a Christian. I'm gonna discuss a few points that make the rest of us uncomfortable around monotheism.

One, monotheism is against everything but itself, including the thing you can't change, the world. It separates itself from the nature of ourselves, inextricably tied to the natural, shared world, and anti-nature doesn't work. I'll give you an example. Current-day farming uses lots of synthetic pieces and parts. Those leak into food, water reservoirs, and the otherwise environment. Regenerative farming is farming without destruction to Nature's ecosystem, it mimics Nature. And it doesn't poison us. And makes great food. Whole foods food that doesn't kill you overtime.

The whole premise of subdue your nature to the point of impotence of fun is actually altogether damaging. Even down to prostate cancer if a male doesn't cum every once in a while.

Certainly, moderated pleasure ends up being better than wanton tomfoolery, but none of the religions preach this. They all made the mistake of seeing the destructive POTENTIAL and threw the baby out with the bath water.

If you don't have fun, you start to make it.

Onto the maybe, slightly, more important point...

You guys have a unified fantasy where all the nonbelievers die. You can see why everyone but your friends hates you. I wish I could say more, but it's impolite. Seriously, have wherewithal.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Right now Jeremy Soule's music accompanying the rain falling in Skyrim.

But regarding your post, I'm reading the question you asked @TransmutingSoul that references that for some reason compares the religions denizens of RF to the population as a whole. Why on earth would you compare the religious people here to the entire population? That's essentially comparing apples to fruit.

Dude, I ****ing love Skyrim. That's such a 10/10 game. I've played it since it came out. That's also a very good point, Salix.

 

[ppp]

So you're a Christian

Oh my.

 

[siti]

it can still be a nap.

What an excellent idea...its a very rainy afternoon here and I'm feeling quite snoozy reading through this thread in which the Original Poster proceeds to demonstrate exactly why the proposition of the OP is exactly what we already have...a lot of people who think and believe differently from one another completely failing to understand one another's viewpoints because they cannot see beyond their misinterpretations of each other's words. Yawn...nap - or coffee? That is the real question.

 

[Bthoth]

Suppose that we just acknowledge from the get-go that any two given religions or subcultures will have many compatibilities and many incompatibilities. And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

Lousy wording but nice application.

Yes, skip the differences and focus on the similarities. Observing mankind and the variety of descriptions is what I have done for the majority of my life. All have something to contribute, no matter the culture or geography.

A huge concept on the 12 tribes is directly addressing that scope.

Suppose that we try to build a society that acknowledges that there will be inevitable conflicts between that society's respective subcultures. Where we teach people that the mere existence of conflict is not an existential threat.

Fine perspective.

The similarities should be the focus. Benchmark perspectives equally held by most all cultures and persons. For example: life. So that step or benchmark should be addressed first.

What would the foundations of that society look like?

Equal foundation based on equal application of truth (benchmarks).


I see a very unique item:



The title

What if we didn't accept other peoples' religions​

The term 'religions' should be defined clearly. Many suggest that's their religion is their culture. All cultures are important to support continuation. Avoid the extinction aspect of 'once gone, lost to all of us', the common.



I enjoy the variety of perspectives but overall, there are grounded foundations of fact (truth) about equally.

 

[ppp]

Yes, skip the differences and focus on the similarities.

You know I said the opposite of that right?

And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

 

[Bthoth]

You know I said the opposite of that right?

OK............. I still dont see it.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Take a look throughout history all the way up to present-day and you'll see exactly what that looks like. The only difference is that most modern societies can no longer force, torture and kill people over it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think more of this gives promise of a peaceful future where religion mobilises its masses for peace.

https://www.rfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/STRATEGIC-PLAN-FINAL.pdf

 

[ppp]

Take a look throughout history all the way up to present-day and you'll see exactly what that looks like. The only difference is that most modern societies can no longer force, torture and kill people over it.

So many of the religious in the US are certainly doing their best to revert to force, torture and killing.

 

[Unfettered]

Suppose that we just acknowledge from the get-go that any two given religions or subcultures will have many compatibilities and many incompatibilities. And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

Suppose that we try to build a society that acknowledges that there will be inevitable conflicts between that society's respective subcultures. Where we teach people that the mere existence of conflict is not an existential threat.

What would the foundations of that society look like?

The foundation of that society would look like the ideals portion of Declaration of Independence.