Exactly. So it's like asking if one can be actively a-theist. We can. When one observes the negative effects of religion / political affiliations / group-think, one actively tries to engage with others in an effort to show these negative effect to others.Almost every political affiliation is, at best, a cult. — thewonder
What inescapable isolation? That doesn't seem to follow? You're not implyng that even atheism is a religion, or that a-political is a political affiliation, are you? We can be social without being political/religious can't we? Is there a difference between being social and being political?Even should one succeed, how are they to cope with the inescapable isolation to follow? — thewonder
It hasn't always been this way. Within the past couple of decades politics has been infiltrating every aspect of our lives, such as late-night TV, Oscar awards, and sports.Most people, it seems are not only engaged in Politics but quite so. Becoming a-political in the sense that you are actually in opposition to politics as such and not merely in so far that you have kind of personal aversion to being engaged within them, which may be more reasonable, would leave you both without friends and allies. — thewonder
I should add that my client and I don't avoid talking about politics because we think differently. We actively seek each others opinion on issues in an effort to understand the other's positions, not in an effort to beat each other over the head with our own positions. The characteristic of an intelligent person is one that actively seeks opposing views, rather than avoid them or automatically characterize them as "racist" or "sexist", in order to better understand and to be intellectually honest with the facts. — Harry Hindu
This is wrong. The two parties often adopt the positions of the other party when they are in power precisely because they want the win for their party and not for the other party. Just look at the fight over the Supreme Court.Even within organized debates at the university level, we are taught that there are two parties who engage in debate upon a single issue, which has only two sides, and that one of them will come out as the victor. — thewonder
Exactly. This is how I became an atheist, too. Only after really learning what religion/politics is (group-think), do you come to abhor them.There's a certain irony to being relatively a-political, to me, in that I came to be so after being very politically engaged, aside from that what people often say of it seems like a more genuine Politics. — thewonder
This is wrong. The two parties often adopt the positions of the other party when they are in power precisely because they want the win for their party and not for the other party. Just look at the fight over the Supreme Court. — Harry Hindu
Exactly. This is how I became an atheist, too. Only after really learning what religion/politics is (group-think), do you come to abhor them. — Harry Hindu
Ok, so it seems that, at the university level, people are taught that every issue is black and white. That is the problem. In a sense,, that is a form if group-think - that there are only two sides to every issue. It limits our possibilities for finding solutions. We need to think out-of-the-box.I was referring to the basic structure of an organized debate at the university level. I wasn't actually talking about the Democratic or Republican party. — thewonder
Exactly. This is how I became an atheist, too. Only after really learning what religion/politics is (group-think), do you come to abhor them. — Harry Hindu
I became an atheist after considering that it was just completely insane that God told Abraham to kill his only son Isaac, he decided to go through with it, and what we are supposed to take away from this is a lesson about Abraham's devotion. — thewonder
My apologies for deviating from the political aspects of this interesting conversation but to look at religion in the above light misses the point. — synthesis
Politics reveals the all the nastiness that social man can conger, with his lying, cheating, and stealing on full display. Despite these inconveniences, the purpose of modern politics (the debate itself) can not be under-estimated in its importance to facilitating prudent social policy, something better (in most cases) than allowing the lunatic fringe to have their way. — synthesis
Agreed. But what i'm also saying is that this is an example of how the system of higher education is failing us and exacerbates the division and prevents compromise. Indoctrinatingg young adults to see the world as only black and white is part of the problem.Right, that's what I'm saying. You don't consider the concept of marriage whatsoever or the state's role in defining it in that case, you are just given two sides to choose created from two separate political platforms and taught that one person within the debate will come out as the victor. — thewonder
That isn't true. I see plenty of religious people doing immoral things. The reason is because Big Brother as a god's punishment or consequences for actions are not immediate or exaclty knowable. The punishment and consequences from Big Brother as government is more substantive and knowable. Politics evolved from religion as a more efficient means of controlling the population for authoritarians ruling. So-called democracies that have popped up in more recent times are still controlled by an elite ruling class that divides it citizens against each other using a new type of religion - political parties.There is no reason to be a-religious any more than there is to be a-political. Religion is has been around as long as it has for good reason. The same goes for the political nature of social man.
The most important aspect of religion is that it can provide a moral beacon, as man, left to his own devices, will often choose the low road. — synthesis
That isn't true. I see plenty of religious people doing immoral things. The reason is because Big Brother as a god's punishment or consequences for actions are not immediate or exaclty knowable. The punishment and consequences from Big Brother as government is more substantive and knowable. Politics evolved from religion as a more efficient means of controlling the population for authoritarians ruling. So-called democracies that have popped up in more recent times are still controlled by an elite ruling class that divides it citizens against each other using a new type of religion - political parties. — Harry Hindu
As an Anarcho-Pacifist, because Pacifism is wildly unpopular within the Anarchist movement, and peace the peace movement has a general aversion to collaborating with people who formerly almost attempted to create their own ideological sect, effectively an Anarchist equivalent of Communization, so as to remain politically engaged, I could only convince the Anarchist movement to be more welcoming. This, however, is just simply impossible, as, in order to do so, I would ultimately have to convince the Black Panther Party to revise the variant of the diversity of tactics that they adopted. — thewonder
Communism didn't fail because there was a lack of religion. It failed because of an over-abundance of government control that inhibited individuality and incentive and progress - where there are a select few that think their intellect is superior and better suited to figure it out for everyone.i get all that, but look at what takes place (institutionally) in the absence of a higher moral structure. Communism (as predicted by many) ended-up being a massive catastrophe for many reasons, but perhaps the most important was the fact that the Communists believe that their own intellect was better suited to "figure it out" than would be a religious moral basis.
You don't have to be religious or political to understand the need to have such guidance in place, just as you do not have to have your own children to understand that the parents need to be in authority.
Religion and Politics simply give man a chance...what he does with the opportunity is another matter altogether. Without these foundations, we know the outcome is assuredly poor. — synthesis
Communism didn't fail because there was a lack of religion. It failed because of an over-abundance of government control that inhibited individuality and incentive and progress - where there are a select few that think their intellect is superior and better suited to figure it out for everyone. — Harry Hindu
The over-abundance of government control was necessary because you have to forcibly take property and rights from legitimate owners and individuals to disperse among the population and limit opposing ideas.But why was there an over-abundance of government control? What made Communists believe that they could design a system that could overcome the dysfunctionality that always manifests in group behavior? — synthesis
Which god are we talking about - the one who's punishment for thinking differently is to be cast into fire for eternity? Doesn't sound like a moral god to me.Religion usurps the political, the ultimate authority being God, not the government. The American Founding Fathers well-understood this necessity. God is used as an ideal giver of moral guidance because if you allow government (people) to assume the same role, then you are depending on the frailty of man-made morality (motivated by our unlimited desires). Gather more than two ambitious human beings in the same room and you will find only the creativity of their rationalizations outdoing the deviousness of the plots and plans to enslave the rest. — synthesis
In no other sphere other than religion does man think so highly of his intellect as if he knows the true nature of god and what it intends, much less whether one even exists or not.Man thinks way too highly of his limited intellect. Although his cognitive shortcomings are obvious in all spheres, nowhere is it more glaringly obvious then in the political where lying, cheating, and stealing are on full display. — synthesis
I don't know which men you are talking about other than the religious and political elite, which in those cases, yes, they need to be knocked off their poorly constructed pedestals.People should be begging for a higher power to knock man off his poorly constructed pedestal and rightly take his place back on the ground along with the rest of the species who seems to fair considerably better as they appear to not over-think it in the least. — synthesis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.