What two religions would u ban in ur country?

[morphesium]

In a broad manner of speaking, we are a very violent species. We are a dangerous species. All throughout history groups of people have turned violent over many different reasons, including emotions. The only other species known for ganging up on and killing their own is chimpanzees. There are many peaceful people, but it's not unusual for a peaceful person of rational mind to become overcome with something, such as emotion, group thought, and various ideologies.

I don't think violence is in our nature or that we are a violent species. Even those extremist and extremely violent suicide bombers long for eternal peace in paradise!

Even the "not so peaceful" carnivores animals like jackal, tiger, Lion etc has to be taught/trained to do acts of cruelty, otherwise they will tend to be peaceful which doesn’t go with their very survival. In fact I have seen a video on this. A Mother leopard training their cubs with a live rabbit; it didn’t kill the rabbit, but instead forced the cubs to kill it which the kids in the video were reluctant to. We have even seen many cases where animals who keep a prey-predator relationship in the natural world keep a harmonious relationship in captivity- simply because they weren’t trained to be cruel. So, if apex predators like these needs such training to be cruel; aren’t we inborn to be more peaceful?

I agree that there are many reasons that makes people violent - greed for more power, money, politics, religion, when things question the security of themselves or their loved ones, etc, these can quite easily disrupt and overcome "the peaceful state of being". Take or separate these external factors and what is left are just peaceful human beings. (If the water in a cup is boiling, there are external factors playing there that is making it boil).

We all want a peaceful and "happy" world to live in. That is the reason why we formed societies and laws and so on. That is the reason why we have progressed this far from those historic and barbaric times.

 

[Glaurung]

No........I noticed that you said the True God.....I assumed you where Abrahamic from that statement......

I wasn't stating my beliefs.

Islam considers Allah to be the same God revealed to the Jews and Christians (who have corrupted the Qur'anic revelation) hence Christians and Jews are (at least in theory) tolerated as holding to the true God as far as Islam is concerned. Hindus on the other hand, do not hold to the Abrahamic tradition and are therefore unbelievers. My original post points out to you that the question of polytheism misses this point, they are pagans and pagans are unbelievers.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

I wasn't stating my beliefs.

Islam considers Allah to be the same God revealed to the Jews and Christians (who have corrupted the Qur'anic revelation) hence Christians and Jews are (at least in theory) tolerated as holding to the true God as far as Islam is concerned. Hindus on the other hand, do not hold to the Abrahamic tradition and are therefore unbelievers. My original post points out to you that the question of polytheism misses this point, they are pagans and pagans are unbelievers.

Yes I get what you are meaning now. I just told you that I did.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think violence is in our nature or that we are a violent species. Even those extremist and extremely violent suicide bombers long for eternal peace in paradise!

Chimpanzees and us humans are the only two species known to gang up on one of their own, and kill their own in cold blood. The chimpanzee is also one of our closest genetic relatives.

Even the "not so peaceful" carnivores animals like jackal, tiger, Lion etc has to be taught/trained to do acts of cruelty,

Cats, domestic and wild, large and small, are predatory by their very nature. They don't have to be taught to hunt because it is an instinct to them. Even dogs will form packs without being taught how, become protective over their territory and pack (it can include human family members), and even attack to defend without being taught how.

 

[morphesium]

Perhaps unfortunately with respect to your goal, banning religion would not eliminate superstition. This would be ineffective both because religion is not accurately characterized as superstition, and also because superstition can easily be non-religious. .

Oh, hey! I know! Let's ban all humans!

I do agree that banning religion would not eliminate superstition - but i do believe it will decrease "the level" of superstition in the society. For believers in a particular religion, every other religion is just a strange set of beliefs - often not acceptable to their rational mind. For me, every religion is set of numerous ( many are superstitions) under one scattered roof.
I do agree that superstitions can easily be non-religious. But if people are trained to keep a rationalistic mind, then it is unlikely that such beliefs can get deep rooted.

"Magical thinking" is inherent in human psychology

I do agree with this. Fortunately, the branch of psychology has advanced a lot (and still advancing) that we now know the reasons why one is prone to "magical thinking" and why we are prone to superstitions. Such knowledge and understanding makes one more rationalistic.

 

[Quintessence]

I do agree that banning religion would not eliminate superstition - but i do believe it will decrease "the level" of superstition in the society.

Since you seem to think religion and superstition go hand in hand, I somewhat understand why you would think that. Personally, I don't see it, in no small part because I very much disagree with how you are characterizing religion. Although, since it strikes me as completely impossible to "ban" religion in the first place, my sentiments about this are a moot point.

For believers in a particular religion, every other religion is just a strange set of beliefs - often not acceptable to their rational mind. For me, every religion is set of numerous ( many are superstitions) under one scattered roof.

As a "believer" in a particular religion (though "believer" is really the wrong word to be using for religions that are not faith-based or orthodoxic), I do not feel every other religion is just a strange set of beliefs. I think that they all do what religions are supposed to do - ask and address great existential questions of life and living - and that they go about asking and answering these things in different ways based on the cultural environment and chosen value system. That sentiment is part of why I wretch at prompts like that of the OP. Why should I broadly condemn some particular people's way of weaving meaningfulness into their lives? To me, it makes about as much sense to do that as to condemn people for liking the color blue or something.

I do agree that superstitions can easily be non-religious. But if people are trained to keep a rationalistic mind, then it is unlikely that such beliefs can get deep rooted.

Are you suggesting that magical thinking is somehow undesirable? I don't understand. What's wrong with seeing enchantment in the world, and weaving layers of meaning into one's life, as acausal "magical" thinking does? What's wrong with seeing a crow flying north, and seeing it as a positive sign filled with meaning that enriches one's life?

 

[Milton Platt]

It would be Hinduism and Christianity.

Nothing personal guys!



Correction: which two religions...

Excuse my poor english skills!

Do I have to choose only two??? I would just ban religion. Fortunately for the religious, I don't "have" a coutry, I just live in one like everyone else.

 

[morphesium]

Since you seem to think religion and superstition go hand in hand,

Yes, for i haven't seen a religion that doesn't have a fable or a mythical story associated with it which the believers take it as truth. Usually, there is no harm there but, when it does -

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."—Steven Weinberg​

“…. Too often religion has been an aphrodisiac for horror, a Benzedrine for bestiality. At its best it has lifted spirits and raised spires. At its worst it has turned entire civilizations into cemeteries." —Phillip Adams​

I somewhat understand why you would think that. Personally, I don't see it, in no small part because I very much disagree with how you are characterizing religion.

Fine.

Although, since it strikes me as completely impossible to "ban" religion in the first place, my sentiments about this are a moot point.

Agreed. Banning religion is impossible and trying to do that only makes the situation worse. The best way is to educate people that there is no truth in their religion, that our morals are better in guiding us. (My original comment " to ban every" religion was a lighthearted answer to the lighthearted OP "what 2 religions would u ban...."). Since this has taken us this far - my apologies .

As a "believer" in a particular religion (though "believer" is really the wrong word to be using for religions that are not faith-based or orthodoxic), I do not feel every other religion is just a strange set of beliefs.

Am i right in saying this - Nonorthodoxic religions are just orthodoxic a generation or two later.

Unless a religion interferes with others or it can tolerate others, it is OK for me. Almost all religions has done some kind of harm to human society in the past (or are still harming). Christianity tortured many people to death just because there were the first ones to believe in some scientific facts that we now take for granted. There was a time when if someone said, "Sun is at the centre of the solar system" and he would be punished for that. I am afraid of Islamic terrorism that is popping up here and there, to make matters worse, there are a lot of supporters for them - even from the developed countries at a time there is ample proof in front of them to disprove their religion.

Whats bothering me is this - there were morally uncivilized civilizations in the past (and right now -in some corners of the world), keep laws such as stoning to death, an eye for an eye etc and we are same kind of human beings (that once kept such laws). We are advanced morally, but we haven't developed any further in brain size or intelligence. For this reason, I am afraid what if these religions re-emerge in its "past glory". There was a Golden age for Islam once - what if similar things happens to our society? There has been Golden civilizations (culturally and ethically) out there in the past that succumbed to uncivilized religious communities - What if our society is heading in that direction?

The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. —Arthur C. Clarke​

I think that they all do what religions are supposed to do - ask and address great existential questions of life and living - and that they go about asking and answering these things in different ways based on the cultural environment and chosen value system.

What questions did they ask ? and how did they address it? Rationally?
Questions are best answered with science, and religion and science never go together, for one is based on reason and other faith.

"There is a very intimate connection between hypnotic phenomena and religion".—Havelock Ellis​

That sentiment is part of why I wretch at prompts like that of the OP. Why should I broadly condemn some particular people's way of weaving meaningfulness into their lives? To me, it makes about as much sense to do that as to condemn people for liking the color blue or something.

To me that is a quality (or beauty) of human life - diversity. What concerns me is that when some religions threatens that.

Are you suggesting that magical thinking is somehow undesirable? I don't understand. What's wrong with seeing enchantment in the world, and weaving layers of meaning into one's life, as acausal "magical" thinking does? What's wrong with seeing a crow flying north, and seeing it as a positive sign filled with meaning that enriches one's life?

But that is not always the case -what if he/she see it as a negative sign filled with meaning that impoverish his or her life? oh! i am a bit pessimistic here.

Usually there is no problem there, but the problem is it shuts the eye of reason.

The Way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. —Benjamin Franklin​

and in the most extreme case "Hell is a place where there is no reason".

 

[JoStories]

Actually I would love my country full of Hindu's and Buddhist, yes, nice.

I would love to move down there with you Psycho. And being Buddhist, I would fit right in with your desires. Not to mention I love your country. Its lovely.

 

[Flankerl]

Scientology, oh wait its not a Religion.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, for i haven't seen a religion that doesn't have a fable or a mythical story associated with it which the believers take it as truth.

If by "true" you mean "tells stories or lessons about life and living that are valuable, moving, and meaningful," then yes, mythos is a central part of (probably) all religions, if not human culture on the whole (you do like movies and such, right?). If by "true" you mean "is taken literally like a piece of data or a science textbook," then I'm afraid you've had a very limited exposure to religions or been mislead by someone about their nature.

The best way is to educate people that there is no truth in their religion, that our morals are better in guiding us. (My original comment " to ban every" religion was a lighthearted answer to the lighthearted OP "what 2 religions would u ban...."). Since this has taken us this far - my apologies .

Oh, no worries, but I get really confused about comments like this because it makes no sense to me at all. There are truths - lessons to be had - in all things. I have a very hard time understanding people who are blind to that notion. It doesn't help that comments like this make no sense whatsoever when applied to my own religion. Basically what you're saying to me there is that since there's allegedly no truth in my religion, planet earth does not exist and neither do the stations of the sun and the resultant seasons (among countless other similar absurdities).

Am i right in saying this - Nonorthodoxic religions are just orthodoxic a generation or two later.

I'm not seeing that. What I see is that in any cultural movement, there are those who establish something as a set tradition - who we can call "traditionalists" - and those who continue to let the movement change and adapt - who we can call "progressivists." Nothing in human culture ever fossilizes; there are always people who are changing and transforming a set of beliefs and/or practices. If this was not the case, we would not have the tens of thousands of religions on this planet that we do. People are ever seeking new ways of doing things, even as there are those who are keepers of tradition. That's a good thing. Traditionalism coupled with progressivism is vital to endeavors such as the sciences, to our modes of governance, as well as to religions.

Unless a religion interferes with others or it can tolerate others, it is OK for me. Almost all religions has done some kind of harm to human society in the past (or are still harming).

Possibly true, from a certain point of view, but in honesty? If I'm going to start picking out the bad in everything, I can't find any rational justification for picking on religions, specifically, instead of just pointing a finger at the human species on the whole. But, on the whole, I'm not one to fixate on the trivial ounce of what I label as "bad" in something when there is typically a solid metric ton of "neutral" or "good."

What questions did they ask ? and how did they address it? Rationally?

Questions are best answered with science, and religion and science never go together, for one is based on reason and other faith.

One can't really generalize about how religions address the great questions... it depends on the religion, and more importantly, on the individual person, because that meaningfulness is always made on the level of the individual regardless of identification with a group. Some things to consider, though:

Are you of the belief that all questions can be answered "rationally," whatever that means to you? Or that all questions should be answered in that matter?

What value do you place on emotions, whether its happiness and joy or jealousy and fear? Do you value the arts, whether its poetry or painting, movie or graphic novel? Do you like to have fun and to play? Have you considered that these things are non-rational? Why put "rational" on a pedestal?

At any rate, you've got some very strange notions here to me. This notion of all religions being based on "faith" is very strange to me, and seems quite incorrect with what I've studied of the subject (in addition to failing to apply to my own religion). Further, given I'm both a scientist as well as strongly religious (and know others like this as well), I have to just scratch my head whenever someone insists that they somehow can't go together.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Which religions would I ban? Islam and Christianity; because both are one god, one world theologies which don't like the presence of competing ideas, both have stood in the way of social progression and both are breeding grounds for virulent sectarian violence.

 

[fantome profane]

I would really like to hear from anyone who said that they would ban any religion a description of exactly what they would do to implement that ban. Censorship? Imprisonment? Execution? It is fun to say you would "get rid" of some religion you don't like, but what we are really talking about is people. What would you do to these people?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Islam and Christianity.

 

[fantome profane]

Islam and Christianity.

And what would you do to the Muslims and Christians? Would you kill them?

 

[psychoslice]

I would love to move down there with you Psycho. And being Buddhist, I would fit right in with your desires. Not to mention I love your country. Its lovely.

Ah that's so sweet of you, I wish we had more like you here.

 

[psychoslice]

Islam and Christianity.

Ah, that sounds like a nice mixture.

 

[JoStories]

Ah that's so sweet of you, I wish we had more like you here.

Oh that was very nice. Kiss kiss darling.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

And what would you do to the Muslims and Christians? Would you kill them?

My guess is, in said imaginary country, they'd be banned from entering the country, practising their religion, getting together to worship, establishing religious institutions, and the worst part, yes, killing.

Kind of like what the Romans first did to the Christians and then what the Christians did to the Pagans.

 

[Erebus]

I'd ban Pastafarianism.

It's not that I have anything against it, I just think it'd be hilarious to see the fallout from banning a joke religion

Ok in all seriousness I don't see the point in banning any religion ... but just imagine how confused the Pastafarians would be!