Thanks Boss
Dear
Boss and
RWS:
1. How are you defining "religion" where it is necessarily corrupt and abused?
2. Isn't it better to target RELIGIOUS ABUSE as the problem and not religion?
3. for comparison
RWS I use the term "religion" to mean the LANGUAGE and cultural tradition
of people of a like belief system. There is as much good if not better that comes from Buddhism,
Christianity, Constitutionalism and "religions" or "belief systems" INTENDED for good; although
ABUSE comes from ANY collective system due to flaws in humanity including our own selfish interests
that multiple when you are dealing with LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE
4. If you are going to get rid of religion because of "collective abuse'should we
also get rid of
Government which is abused collectively though it is intended for good
Corporations which are abused
Any collective entity or organization where the numbers alone lead to abuse
So my question to you is what are you having the problem with
* the collective numbers of people all blindly following a religious authority?
is that what you are against?
* and how is that different from people abused by
govt or other corporate institutions that oppress people en masse
where collective authority resources or influece are ABUSED
Why would you target religion more than any other type of collective group?
Isn't it the ABUSE you are against
whether this is religious abuse of church authority
or political abuse of govt authority?
COMPARE: political parties are based on political BELIEFS
RWS are you equally saying to get rid of POLITICAL PARTIES
because they become abusive like religious ideologies?
Aren't political parties WORSE because they manipulate govt and laws that are MANDATORY.
why would you go after RELIGIONS unless you also include POLITICAL PARTIES and Corporate abuse of govt?
Aren't legal and govt abuses WORSE because the courts can MANDATE AND FORCE people by law
into compliance while religions don't have this LEGAL authority to FORCE AND COERCE people
even where their power gets abusive. With religions you can choose to leave, but you can't get out
from legal or corporate abuse of govt once it leads to decisions that become LEGALLY BINDING.\
Boss can you help me with this?
Do you see what I am asking: why target religion and what about political and corporate abuse of govt.
Shouldn't that mean we get rid of parties if they abuse people by POLITICAL beliefs if we are going to target religious abuses?
Religion and Ethics....
You can have one, but not both.
You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...
Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...
It's an oxymoron... Which is why we're pitted here in endless arguments.
But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god. And you don't need people to tell you how to follow your ethics or morals either. They are part of you. Anybody trying to tell you they're not, is selling something.
If you still need someone to tell you how to follow your morals in this day and age of knowledge and enlightenment, then you are ripe to be taken advantage of, and part of the problem in this world.
Hi
RWS
Doesn't it depend on what your religion or beliefs are?
Look at your own ethics.
You are saying you would put ethics first before religion.
If they contradict then ethics trumps what your religion says to do.
So that is your belief, and it shows it is compatible with ethics!
The problem I think you are pointing out is: where is the collective religion based on these ethics?
The answer has been that people use different means of expressing the secular ethics: some use Buddhism some use Constitutional ethics. Others use psychology or social sciences or common sense
So what your grievance is: there isn't one religion like Christianity or Islam that people can collectively identify with who share the same common ethics you would enforce.
He is making an argument that religion is unnecessary and ethics are natural. I disagree that ethics are natural and religion might not be necessary but all true human ethics stem from human spirituality. I refuted his argument on Page 1 and made my case as well. He has avoided the challenge posed and chosen to attack me instead. I surmise this is because he can't counter my refutation or my argument to the contrary.
Breeze has recently chimed in with his usual cryptic rhetoric, trying to make an argument out of a point already conceded, that man often exploits religion for his own selfish purposes.
