Religion is necessary

[Kuya]

My point is that you are saying that violent tendencies = low intelligence.

The way we defined the people that are best controlled by religion are not only violent by nature, but also intellectually deficient.

I think what you're proposing, as a problem to religion, is violent individuals who are intelligent.

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

Reiterating. It seems we should find a way to isolate individuals with lacking empathetic tendencies but with enough intelligence to manipulate others.

[Callisto]

Kuya I don't even know what you're saying, I'm not even sure most of those are words, and believe me I know a thing or two about making up words

[Conrad]

Perhaps, but your thesis is that religion is necessary because it promotes pacifism, not that violent, religious individuals are the key to religion being essential in society. I have stated that these individuals have not been regulated in practice, and is the reason that religion's importance in the world may be diminished.

[Chun Liroy]

Kuya can you take my biomedical ethics final. It's only 9 questions.

[isladar]

Reiterating. It seems we should find a way to isolate individuals with lacking empathetic tendencies but with enough intelligence to manipulate others.

What the fuck did I ever do to you?

[Kuya]

I think that saying whether or not religions work to control violent, authoritarian, and tribal individuals is a difficult task. For starters, it is silly to say that it does not work because it does not work perfectly. Especially if we assume that the cases where it did not work effectively is because of non-empathetic individuals who were also intelligent enough to use it (religion). Yet we also can't just assume that, when the plebes do not get out of control, it means religion has suceeded. Naturally, we need investigation.

But if the case is that we need investigation, then we can't yet say religion is without use out of pure rhetoric.

[Kuya]

For example, a problem that the rational and empathetic sort often bring up is gay rights.

They say that religious people oppress this minority, because of the effects religion has on the psyche. Specific religions say that homosexuality is immoral, thus the mindless masses obey without question (my is religion effective!). They thus say that, if religion is meant to force the primitives to behave properly, it is clearly not working since they mistreat homosexuals. Let us assume that the fault lies primarily with religion.

If that is the case, then i'd argue that is simply the nature of the tool. Even the empathetic and rational ones once believed homosexuality was abonimable, but their morals changed with the times. Evolved, they would prefer to say. But ideas do not change as easily, thus religion, a tool to control the masses, has not yet evolved to add homosexuality as a category not to be rejected. I am saying that acceptance of homosexuals by the religious is merely an issue of slowly modifying these useful tools until the plebes are under our control again.

There's no reason to eliminate such a useful tool when we can simply slowly evolve dogma to exclude rejection of homosexuals, since our bleeding hearts care for them so.

The elites have always ruled the masses. And they do so by proxy via the institutions they create. Religion is merely another leach on the animals.

[Kuya]

I think that our problem, as elites (those of us with enough empathetic ability that we care for others outside of our social class, and who pride reason) is that we don't like religion on its principles. Religion is dogmatic, uncritical, authoritarian, and historically, quite violent. No wonder we hate it!

Our concrete reasons for rejecting religion are often quite weak, such as Crusades this, homosexuals that, pedofilia thar. But i think we truthfully merely hate religion because it is anathema to reason. Our empathy can sometimes be our undoing as we seem to care for these wretches by pitifying them for being slaves to ideas. Yet we ignore the practical uses religion may have for us, because, once again, we hate it out of principle.

I think we need to compromise. Religion stands agaisnt everything we believe, and using it to manipulate others is not very empathetic, and it does not promote reason. But i think we have to have enough perspective to realize that we cannot let these primitives run wild thinking that their acts cannot be punished when they are outside the view of the law. They must always feel like they are being watched. They must be predictable enough for us to control. We need religion, because we are inmune to it, and they are not.

[Kuya]

Long live Brittania.

[Kuya]

Overall sphere of faith and spirituality, but having it institutionalized faciliates our control over it. We can't have people running around like the protestants do, forming miltias left and right over silly little paranoia.

[Kuya]

It's a minority, but they're SO annoying.

[Callisto]

Overall sphere of faith and spirituality, but having it institutionalized faciliates our control over it. We can't have people running around like the protestants do, forming miltias left and right over silly little paranoia.

So...you're...saying you hate Islam?

[MechaFemmeJesus]

what I got from this thread is that American Gladiators should be a religion

[Kuya]

So...you're...saying you hate Islam?

The House of Saud has clearly lost control over those mongrels, but Osama clearly falls under the category of those who lack empathy but are intelligent enough to make use of the tools they have at hand. If only he had been royalty, then we wouldn't have had this little problem.

[Callisto]

The House of Saud has clearly lost control over those mongrels, but Osama clearly falls under the category of those who lack empathy but are intelligent enough to make use of the tools they have at hand. If only he had been royalty, then we wouldn't have had this little problem.

So you're saying that terrorist acts committed by members of a royal family are less of a big deal?

[Kuya]

I don't think any royal family member has committed terrorist acts.

[Callisto]

None that have been widely reported, you mean.

[MechaFemmeJesus]

I dont think the word terrorist existed before George W Bush

[Kuya]

None that have been widely reported, you mean.

Oh you

[Kuya]

So, how do we deal with people who are intelligent, but lacking in empathy?