Religions are cults

Religion and Secularism
41
"...I am a far better person for having served."
How do you know?

Sure, military life might prepare you for lots of things, but what about the things you missed or ways of looking and thinking about stuff that might be better if you never entered the military. It’s human nature to assume we’re the best we could be because we think we’re great. But life’s a one-way street, so we don’t get a do-over to see how things might have been different had we made significantly different choices.

I am honestly as happy as I can imagine that I have the family I do, but would my life have led me to an even better place had I met and married someone else? It’s impossible to say, and since it sounds kinda crappy to ponder such things out loud, no one does (it might be a different story in their heads though.)

That’s why I never do that sort of thing- it’s nice on birthday and anniversary cards, but it’s really a useless concept.

On the flip side, I’m sure without the military to mould you, you could have been a much worse version of yourself. (That’s not false, unless the person being talked about is a mass murdering priest who sells fruitcake, which I highly doubt you are.)

42

Player, you’ve got a real problem. I just looked through your post history. About all you seem to do is criticize, and, with the possible exception of a few posts, you offer squat in the way of backup. You say in one post you’re a climate scientist . . . no wonder we’ve such a hard time convincing folks of the truth of it. You’re all sail and no ballast.

And I’m still waiting on your solution to global warming.

43

3point14rat, a valid point, of course . . . no control to test against . . . ;~)

Nevertheless, I stand by my comment. Part of it, perhaps a large part, is the self confidence and introspection that comes with that sort of career. It can be, at times, an intensely stressful experience, even without combat, and you learn a lot about people and yourself, both strengths and weaknesses. Having earned a MSEE on the cusp of the computer revolution, I suspect I could have made a lot more money outside the Marines, and am certainly a bit more battered than if I’d gone civilian, but I’m doing okay, and have no regrets.

44

Don’t worry about Player. No one else does.

Since you’ve looked at that person’s post history, you are aware that they contribute nothing and seem happiest when polluting the forum with posts that have no value at all. Your first post here had more value in it than their hundreds of posts, combined.

45

Gene i said i was a climate scientist?? You got some real issues

46

<p style=“padding-left: 40px;”>3point - your weakness shines through. Cant address the points being put forward so attack the man instead.</p>
<p style=“padding-left: 40px;”></p>
Loser argument

47

Player, how else is this to be interpreted? Perhaps I’m not the one with an honesty problem. Too bad, too. It was one of your few posts with actual content.

"Player replied to the topic Mushrooms in the forum Politics and Social Issues a month ago
DAVID KAROLY

I AM a climate scientist, and Alan Jones is wrong. . . . "

48

3point14rat, got it. Yeah, I know the type. I once had a professor who, addressing someone of the same ilk, said in his think accent: “All you do is sit there rubbing your britches on the seat and polluting the air!”

49

I was quoting david karoly you goof!!

50

Player, your “quote” was not so noted in your post, almost as though you wanted to claim it for yourself. No matter, like I said, it just reduces by one the few content posts you’ve made. Pretty bad, you’re having to disavow one of the few such posts you’ve apparently ever made.

Continue to rant all you want on this topic, Player, I’m done with you.

 

51

Gene doing a Paul Bremmer - cut and run!!

52
"One senior CSI member baldly stating to me that all wars were/are caused by religion – an easily proven falsehood..."
With the vast definition of cults and religion you and many others use, I would have thought you'd agree. Maybe not Christianity, Islam, Scientology, or some other religion with a history, but religious-like thinking is what usually does it.

Even rabid capitalists who engage in wars for money and resources are doing so because they have elevated their love of and beliefs around money to the level of ‘religion’. So I can see how some would classify practically all wars as religious.

It’s easier to think of it this way- religious adherence to beliefs causes war . You or I might not start a war because of mindless adherence to a belief, but if we defend ourselves from someone who does, the war can broadly be considered to have been started by religion.

53

Just to be clear, my definition of religion and cult require a supernatural component and not all wars are started by religion. My post above is merely pointing out how you (Gene) might actually agree with the statement you say you disagree with, because you define religion to encompass almost any very strongly held set of beliefs, which is ultimately the basis of all wars.

 

54

3point14rat, I think we need to turn your “religious-like thinking” around, rather, and say religion often portrays “cult-like thinking.” To be sure, religion has often been used as a tool by effective leaders to motivate and manipulate their followers to fight a war, as have a wide variety of “cultic” approaches. But the causes of war are as varied as human motivations can make them. Most US wars have seldom been about religion. Even the racial overtones present in wars were more tools for leaders to use to motivate the fighting forces - the “yellow peril,” originating in the 1800s against Asian immigrants was readily adopted for World War II. Similarly, “kraut” and “hun” were adopted as derogatory terms in fighting the Germans in both World Wars. The Banana Wars, on the other hand, of the early 20th century were largely motivated by corporate greed and government connivance. The World Wars were fought for political reasons, not religious. Ancient wars, the various invasions of the Mongols, for example, or Alexander’s conquests, were to build and maintain empires for power and wealth.

Have there been wars for apparently purely religious reasons? The Muslim wars of expansion, or the European conquests of the Americas? Perhaps, but its unlikely that they would have gone for as long as they did without more fundamental reasons of greed and the wealth of empire, vice the desire to defeat infidels or convert heathens.

My point here is that, while religion has often been employed as a tool by leaders to motivate and manipulate their followers, they have seldom been the actual cause of war, and even as regards their use as a tool, religion hasn’t been the only such tool - racism, promised wealth, real or perceived threats, economic stress, etc., have all played their roles.

One of the problems people have in seeing this (and this applies in other areas as well) is that they fail to take a wide enough view and/or only seek out examples that tend to support their already set perceptions. Its certainly possible to hand pick wars that seem to have been about religion, but, if war is studied over history and around the world, it becomes clear that, even for apparently religious wars, its usually really about something else, and religion was just one of several often handy tools used by the war leaders.

For more on this subject, I recommend Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence by Karen Armstrong.

55

Sorry. I went back and reread some of your posts and think I understand you a bit more.

My posts have been written as though you equated religion with all strongly held beliefs, but I now see that you label those type of beliefs as ‘cults’, and see religion as merely one form of cult (on par with any other group with dogmatic ideas.)

If I’m still wrong, please straighten me out. Strawman arguments are sometimes accidental, and this might be one of those times.

56

3point14rat, you’ve got it right. Its always a challenge on a forum, given the desire to read/respond quickly, to write . . . and read as clearly as you’d like.

Also, just to spice it up a bit, I’m not saying all cults are bad, but, rather, that they share certain characteristics that seem to make them vulnerable for use as tools by effective leaders, even if those leaders don’t always share the goals of the cult.

57

Thought I’d stay out this tired old trope, but gotta throw my 2 cents in. The problem with the question is defining religion. When we were just tribes, there was no distinction between your religion and your government or your daily routines. The war might start due to some need for food or water, but you were defending your cousins and the people who thought and acted like you. This got somewhat codified with the agricultural revolution and the king and the priest might be two different people, but the same forces of tribal loyalism remained.

Even into Roman times, a soldier could rise to the ranks of emperor, but they still would claim they were a god once they had the power. The Pope who offered salvation for anyone who would pick up a pitchfork and go kill some Muslims stumbled upon the modern form of motivating people using religion. Japan was more overt about it but you can find documentation of chaplains being directed to tell soldiers they are fighting for the Christian way of life.

In all of this, I just don’t see how religion has been disentangled from nation. We might teach that it was done with the stroke of a pen in 1776, but it’s human nature.

58

Lausten, I agree, and my point is essentially the same - the problem isn’t religion, its human nature. Those who attack religion as the cause of the world’s ills are simply missing this point. Its like attacking the hammer because someone used it to kill another. We need to focus on why one person killed another, how the killing could have been prevented, and, perhaps, why the hammer was used. We could outlaw hammers, but the killing could still happen again because we really haven’t addressed the real problem.

59

“In all of this, I just don’t see how religion has been disentangled from nation.”

Depends on the nation. It’s largely disentangled in the best countries, partially in others, and not at all in the worst.

The USA is in a struggle between the sides, and unfortunately human nature is beating human intellect at the moment.

60
Those who attack religion as the cause of the world’s ills are simply missing this point.
I can't get on board with your "tools" analogy. It's too compartmentalized for me. I don't think humans work that way. I can't completely agree with "religion is the cause" either because that means you have to separate out religion as a something that can be traced through to causing other things. You can do that to some extent, so I see why people say it, but you can bring in other aspects and make a case that it isn't religion. I would say religion has caused a lot of wars, but you'd have to understand my definition of religion first. I'm not sure I understand it myself.