Religion is necessary

[Kuya]

There are some humans who lack, compared to others, empathy for anyone outside their social groups. They tend to believe might makes right and follow authoritarian leaders. With these sorts of people, kindness and reason are less effective. And for their love of authoritarianism, they are rarely capable of developing an individualistic moral code based on rationality and empathy for the situation of others. These sorts of people more properly respond to violence and punishment. They, being people who understand that might makes right, will have a tendency to avoid inmoral and destructive things when they believe they will be punished for it, in fact, they may even come to love the idea that someone or something has such authority over them, and they may worship it.

However, the system of law is not always able to observe these sorts of people, therefore an ambigous, ephemereal strategy is required to keep them in line. If the State cannot always observe them to punish even their minor trangressions (and they know this) it is necessary to make them believe that they are constantly being judged and if they fail, they will be punished. Hence, the idea of a supreme authority figure that observes their every move for moral failing will replace the State when it cannot police their behaviour. In this way, their selfish and violent nature is kept in check by an idea. An idea they may come to praise given that it represents the very same authority they idolize. A cruel and violent authority.

Therefore, religion is an effective tool of controlling violent and primarily self-interested human beings. Naturally, they must be relatively lacking in critical thinking in order for the tool that is religion to be effective. Indeed, without these idiosyncratic chains, they'd be no different than sociopaths.

[Meat]

not islam

[JigglyJam]

just haven't evolved out of it yet

[Callisto]

At first I thought this was in general and I was going to ask what the question/point of debate is, but then I realized what section it was in so I'm just going to call you a faggot.

[Callisto]

faggot

[Kuya]

I think it is vital to control the most violent sectors of our society. Much like prison controls a certain part of the population, religion also serves a role as an ideological prison.

[Conrad]

Can't it be argued that violence is a consequence of religion, considering how many wars, conflicts, and deaths have occured in the name of one religion's deity over another?

[Kuya]

Can't it be argued that violence is a consequence of religion, considering how many wars, conflicts, and deaths have occured in the name of one religion's deity over another?

That would be absurd.

Perhaps you meant religion causes some violence, but since we can't properly quantify that, our statements remain ambiguous.

From the perspective of theory, religion creates an additional social class, and since religion is presumably populated by those who are most tribal, one can see how it might lead to violence. However, this is why it's important to not let the people in question control the religion itself. Remember, it is a tool to control the most anti-social elements of our society, so naturally, it must strictly be used as a tool of propaganda.

Besides, the violence may be to our benefit, as long as it's relatively under our control.

[Callisto]

I think it is vital to control the most violent sectors of our society. Much like prison controls a certain part of the population, religion also serves a role as an ideological prison.

Why don't we just kill the ones who show violent tendencies before they can cause more trouble?

[Kuya]

Who's to say, for example, that it was not to the benefit of Western Europe to control land in the Middle East? In this instance, using religion to control the plebes may have been the best choice. Not to mention a lot of of the plebes died, which might have been a benefit.

[Kuya]

Why don't we just kill the ones who show violent tendencies before they can cause more trouble?

This is acceptable, but since we're under the assumption that those who are inmune to religion have a tendency of being rational and more empathetic, they might prefer less direct methods.

[Callisto]

This is acceptable, but since we're under the assumption that those who are inmune to religion have a tendency of being rational and more empathetic, they might prefer less direct methods.

That's ok, we can glass them too.

[Conrad]

That would be absurd.

Perhaps you meant religion causes some violence, but since we can't properly quantify that, our statements remain ambiguous.

From the perspective of theory, religion creates an additional social class, and since religion is presumably populated by those who are most tribal, one can see how it might lead to violence. However, this is why it's important to not let the people in question control the religion itself. Remember, it is a tool to control the most anti-social elements of our society, so naturally, it must strictly be used as a tool of propaganda.

Besides, the violence may be to our benefit, as long as it's relatively under our control.

How do you properly "let" one person not come to prominence within a social group over another? If we follow realist theory, the entity with the most power is the most successful in a system; extrapolating that theory to an individual level, the most powerful may very well be the one most prone to violent tendencies. In fact, if we look at human history, we see that peaceful discourse usually fails once a violent agitator disrupts the system.

I believe that humans are naturally prone to violence for one reason or another, and religion provides yet another reason to commit violence. There are those who espouse the wholesome, pacifistic rhetoric that the major religions advocate (and as an aside, what of the religions that promote war, such as the Greeks, Romans, Norse, or any number of individual tribes in Africa?), but more often than not, those who promote violence are the most successful within their group.

[Kuya]

So you're saying that these violent and primitive individuals are prone to dominating religion?

[Conrad]

Yes, if only because they are willing to use means that less violent members of the social group would not in order to gain power and become prominent.

[Chun Liroy]

Hitler was highly christian and create a war that cost millions of lives in addition to the holocaust. By being religious you support hitler.

[Kuya]

I disagree. The way we defined the people that are best controlled by religion are not only violent by nature, but also intellectually deficient. I also mentioned that these people have a tendency to love authority, so they prefer to defer to a stronger individual than actually take independent action. It is highly unlikely that any of these primitives have the social know-how to be able to control others. I think what you're proposing, as a problem to religion, is violent individuals who are intelligent.

They have less empathy, but they have more intelligence than their peers. Comparable or greater than the empathetic ones. They can be as rational as the empathetic ones, but they are willing to use violent means since they are so cynical.

If this is what you mean, then yes, these sorts of people are the ones who can control the rubes. But if this is the issue, then perhaps the answer is not to get rid of religion (which we still need for the stupid, violent ones), but devising a means to controlling or eliminating the intelligent/violent ones.

[Kuya]

In fact, these intelligent and violent individuals probably detest any authority other than themselves, given that they are likely highly egotistical.

[Callisto]

Exactly, glass 'em all.

[Conrad]

In fact, these intelligent and violent individuals probably detest any authority other than themselves, given that they are likely highly egotistical.

That means that those people will seek, by any means necessary, more power to hoard for themselves so that they do not have to defer to any higher authority. I also think that intelligence is relative. You and I are assuredly above the average IQ of, say, the US Army. However, imagine the generals of the Army. They must have the skills necessary to plan both offensive and defensive measures, to predict and counter the enemy, and deploy troops in the most efficient and effective manner. He may very well be less intelligent, but he has the intelligence necessary to perform his duties at a high level. In his field, he is a genius, yet also intelligent. I am quite certain that I could not perform his duties as well as him.

Generals and field commanders of the past were the same: masters of their profession, yet willing to do what is necessary to gain power, retain power, and complete the tasks they feel are necessary to support their cause. You mentioned the Crusades earlier. The European commanders were certainly violent to invade and murder those in the Middle East, yet intelligent enough to plan an effective strategy. My point is that you are saying that violent tendencies = low intelligence. In the conventional sense that may be true, but within their own field they are not as dumb as you think.