Religion is evil
I think that until society can live as free thinkers, we will never know peace and true freedom. All labels need to be shot down, be they religious, political, sociological, musical, national, racial, or whatever they are, they all need to be shot down. Now there is a signifigant difference between the following 2 categories of labels
cat 1:
christianity, islam, atheism, judaism, paganism, liberalism, conservatism, socialism,
cat 2:
black, white, brown, asian, native american, islander, arabian, gay, straight, bisexual, Irish, German, Japanese, Chinese, AS, NT, male, female
The difference is that category 1 were things that are chosen, usually handed down by culture. As where category 2 are labels that cannot totally be ignored, because they are biological. I believe it is ok to defend these when one is being wrongly discriminated, as is with the current case in aspie rights, or gay/bi rights, or arab rights, or even in the past women's rights and black rights, because how would we stop this discrimination that makes our lives that much more difficult if we can't even acknowledge the base-line problem?
But once equality is reached I see no further point in even acknowledging that difference, except maybe in the case that autism is prooven to be evolution, and this would only be because we're the future of the ENTIRE human race. But if I gained my equality tommarrow I would make little if no effort to distinguish myself from NTs beyond that basic fact in evolution.
People will always hold collective belief. It's our greatest strength, and our greatest weakness. After all, it is collective perception that builds the reality we live in to begin with. As for the new group, it will increase, hit a peak, become accepted/tolerated-- and then the next shall emerge. It may even be recycled.
One thing is gained, though, and that is willingness to not judge immediately - this can be learned by anyone - its open minded. We live in a society of closed minds.
Independent thinking isnt bad - I'm thinking that you are assuming that everyone will think differently - not true. If they are very logical, then they will all come to the same logical conclusion - independently arriving at the same spot or relatively close to it. "Great minds think alike." (done through mindful exercises)
Well, i hate religion too (in school when having religion, I draw before i fall asleep from that teachers voice!) and as extra i don't believe in Jesus or God. Strange however, I believe more into Goddess, makes more sence to me. Besides, eventought Bible says God as Father, it doesn't actually mean that it can't be Goddess. Who says anyways if even nature itself is God/Goddess or something else? No one, it usually is what people believe. And trust me, Finns don't talk much about their religions.
Independent thinking isnt bad - I'm thinking that you are assuming that everyone will think differently - not true. If they are very logical, then they will all come to the same logical conclusion - independently arriving at the same spot or relatively close to it. "Great minds think alike." (done through mindful exercises)
I enjoy independent thinking, but logic is something a large gathering of humans will always destroy. If you think of humans as cells, then our noted and perceived differences are what make us like different cells-- same DNA, just different in application.
Also, since people will not be able to come to the same conclusion(merely similar), things will be spun to create an outcast group soon enough.
_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."- Bob Marley
Independent thinking isnt bad - I'm thinking that you are assuming that everyone will think differently - not true. If they are very logical, then they will all come to the same logical conclusion - independently arriving at the same spot or relatively close to it. "Great minds think alike." (done through mindful exercises)
I enjoy independent thinking, but logic is something a large gathering of humans will always destroy. If you think of humans as cells, then our noted and perceived differences are what make us like different cells-- same DNA, just different in application.
Also, since people will not be able to come to the same conclusion(merely similar), things will be spun to create an outcast group soon enough.
Very good.
_________________
"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat." - Terry Bisson
I just thought that we, as a society, are becoming more tolerant and understanding. I image its mere education that's doing it. Restrict that (education) and I agree with you.
Both sides are capable of creating the outcast. Either people will split off, or be split off. It's happened in evolutionary paths as well as societally ones.
_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."- Bob Marley
Are you convinced this trend will always continue and, if so, is there not a way to prevent it?
I see a solution but don't see this much as a problem.
Take humour, for example. When you don't understand something, say, a persons weird 'defect,' you may find it funny. However, if you understood that defect and talked to the person and fully understood what was going on with it and them, you wouldn't laugh anymore. In fact, if others laughed at it, you may end up explaining everything you know about it.
Generally, these splits occur due to misunderstanding. Really, as you said, its a "split" off. Neither side is truely listening but one side DOES have an advantage (if they are truely "right") since they have known BOTH sides.
Its easy for us to joke and mock people who live in the middle East and judge them for everything and everyway they live, but we do not live there, we have not grown up there, we do not understand the religion. Going to the middle east is like going back to England in 1234 A.D. and trying to tell everyone there "Look, open your minds!" You'd be a witch and killed. They don't understand.
This is the hardest part to arguing and, after I study my Uncle who is highly successful at talking to people and getting them to see "his side" through their own eyes, I hope to incorporate it to my repitoire (spelling?). One trick is for one side of an argument to repeat the words of the other side - this forces that side to "think" about it. How often to do you see that in political debates? I never do, I just see a bunch of division, name calling, etc. Lets face it, someone IS right and the best answer SHOULD be the goto answer for that time being but its not. Now, of course, if you ARE wrong, its going to take a lot more then fancy words and repeating to get your point across.
You are definately right that both sides cause the split, but I just think its because neither of them want to listen anymore. Depending on the actual "issue," though, as the issue may be a governmental one, religious one, possession one, hell, it could be anything.
I see it as important that we split off at a certain point. Otherwise, we'd stagnate and die off. Just like how the body induces a fever to fight off sickness-- we ourselves want to cool down, but the fever's chaotic heating is what's best.
_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."- Bob Marley
All religions start out as cults. Cults have been known to kill, therefore religion can sometimes be evil.
_________________
Currently Reading: Survival by Juliet E. Czerneda
http://dazed-girl.livejournal.com/
Vote Kalister 2008
i sometimes like to take the gnostic view, in which case all religions, at least those of the abrahamic class, actually are evil, worshipping the demiurge, a flawed deity who is responsible for creating material reality and trapping the divine spark in gross matter.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
