Some would say that conditions in the world right now are worse than they have ever been, and that may be true for some things: climate change, modern war, public political scandals, etc. Those, however, did not prompt me to think about my ideal world; playing Pandemic 2 did.
The game involves you creating a disease that is supposed to eradicate the human population while the human population eventually attempts to fight back by creating a vaccine to your virus/bacteria/parasite. The disease starts in a randomly assigned country, whether it is the United States or Madagascar. At a certain level, the disease becomes noticed (though the game is flawed in that it takes a long time for a country to notice an outbreak, whereas in real life 200,000 people exhibiting unique symptoms with the same disease would be very public) and countries begin to close their borders, their ports, and their air travel. While it is a game that takes a scenario to an extreme, it is worth thinking about.
For example, would countries cut off all communication with each other upon discovery of the disease within the affected country, or would medical aid flow into the affected country? Most likely, the latter would happen. The game makes no mention of this contingency. (Eventually, everyone in all affected countries become infected unless a vaccine is developed.)
How does this lead into my grandiose portrait of an ideal world? Two simple words: International cooperation, my friend.
In my ideal world (and political conservatives will likely vilify me for this), the world has a unified government. This unified government is all-encompassing, including all countries under one united Earth umbrella. Countries reserve a degree of autonomy, much like states do within the United States. The united world government, however, remains predominant in all cases dealing with law. Having all countries under one government would improve the world by:
-Expediting international cooperation in times of duress, such as during natural disasters.
-Ensuring universal human rights for all people.
-Bolstering the economies of traditionally weaker countries.
Before I begin talking about this world's economic system, it is necessary to state that countries dedicate more money towards education and scientific research than military spending, religious spending, etc. Health is paramount, so proven carcinogens such as tobacco are gone, as well as manufactured food additives, such as high fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oils.
At first, the economy would be based on traditional trade between countries, i.e. food, transportation, etc. Eventually, as technology develops, food and products will be commonly synthesized by advanced technology, thus rendering the trade of items for profit superfluous. (Research into this is being carried out in Japan already, though not as directly as I would hope.)
Thus, the economy would no longer be based in money due to an abundance of necessary goods.
This would entail a new fundamental philosophy of all human existence: Instead of each individual doggedly pursuing an accumulation of material capital in order to live well, the value of education and pursuit of knowledge would have to replace money as the driving force of mankind.
Knowledge can be progressed by the exploration of space. Humans have yet to break the seal on the vast scores of knowledge the galaxy, let alone the universe, holds. We reside as a veritable dust particle in a mansion. There is so much to explore and learn that only generations from now will humans truly understand their place in the universe. (That is, if this future comes to fruition.)
Being an Atheist, I can only hope that my imagined future is full of Atheists; however, that's unlikely, so tolerance for all beliefs will be a key concept in this overly idealistic future. Even more fundamental concepts that should be taught are logic, rationality, and empathy. A combination of the three, with each assuming an equal role in human relations and interaction, can assure equal understanding both between humans and the world in which we live.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. I may have neglected to mention some things, so just leave any concerns/questions in the comments section and I'll respond forthwith.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Technological Progress
15 years ago, no one imagined that wireless networks would be everywhere and available for every laptop to connect to. Tablet computers such as the iPad were only seen on TV shows such as Star Trek. Hybrid cars were unheard of. Some say that technological progress is inevitable, but what about technological regression?
If I were to ask you to imagine what surgery would look like in the Roman Empire, you would likely think of it as a dirty process, often involving an eventual infection and possibly even amputation. This, however, was not the case.
Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen, is known to have performed surgeries that are commonplace even today, and he performed them successfully. He created sutures, repaired broken bones, and even attempted to replace a missing part of a child's skull (he was initially successful, though the child died a few years later). He knew to sterilize wounds, and contrary to whatever you may believe, he did not simply leave a person's healing to the whims of Asclepius. His knowledge was lost after the empire fell, though it was rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Running water and working sewage systems are thought of as a discovery of the industrial age, though this is grossly incorrect. Rome had running water available for the masses, and even garrisons as far as England set up irrigation systems and plumbing systems that rival those of today. After the empire fell, the middle ages was full of, well, let's say dirty water.
Among other examples, ancient Greeks and Romans used flamethrowers (though without the extreme long range of modern ones), advanced catapults (moreso than the ones built in the Middle Ages), heliocentric models of the solar system (Aristarchus), tank-like vehicles, accurate calendars and star charts, and even batteries. What happened to all of this?
The most understandable explanation is that the Library of Alexandria, the repository for knowledge during the ancient times, was destroyed and much of the literature was burned after the advent of Christianity and Islam. Thus, technological progress stopped and regressed approximately 500 years to the point where plumbing was unheard of and amulets and magic spells were used to treat sicknesses.
You might be asking yourself "so what's the point of this lecture?" I suppose my point is to demonstrate that, no matter how much you want to believe that humans have always striven for great progress, we haven't. We've followed avaricious desires to the precipice and over the edge, and we've lost so much. Who knows, if the technology and innovation created in ancient times had not been lost, there may have been colonies on the moon and Mars, and maybe we would even be exploring extrasolar planets.
Sad to think about.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
If I were to ask you to imagine what surgery would look like in the Roman Empire, you would likely think of it as a dirty process, often involving an eventual infection and possibly even amputation. This, however, was not the case.
Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen, is known to have performed surgeries that are commonplace even today, and he performed them successfully. He created sutures, repaired broken bones, and even attempted to replace a missing part of a child's skull (he was initially successful, though the child died a few years later). He knew to sterilize wounds, and contrary to whatever you may believe, he did not simply leave a person's healing to the whims of Asclepius. His knowledge was lost after the empire fell, though it was rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Running water and working sewage systems are thought of as a discovery of the industrial age, though this is grossly incorrect. Rome had running water available for the masses, and even garrisons as far as England set up irrigation systems and plumbing systems that rival those of today. After the empire fell, the middle ages was full of, well, let's say dirty water.
Among other examples, ancient Greeks and Romans used flamethrowers (though without the extreme long range of modern ones), advanced catapults (moreso than the ones built in the Middle Ages), heliocentric models of the solar system (Aristarchus), tank-like vehicles, accurate calendars and star charts, and even batteries. What happened to all of this?
The most understandable explanation is that the Library of Alexandria, the repository for knowledge during the ancient times, was destroyed and much of the literature was burned after the advent of Christianity and Islam. Thus, technological progress stopped and regressed approximately 500 years to the point where plumbing was unheard of and amulets and magic spells were used to treat sicknesses.
You might be asking yourself "so what's the point of this lecture?" I suppose my point is to demonstrate that, no matter how much you want to believe that humans have always striven for great progress, we haven't. We've followed avaricious desires to the precipice and over the edge, and we've lost so much. Who knows, if the technology and innovation created in ancient times had not been lost, there may have been colonies on the moon and Mars, and maybe we would even be exploring extrasolar planets.
Sad to think about.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Kill it with Fire
If you're a hermit and have not been listening to the news, then you haven't heard of fringe religious pastor Terry Jones who threatened to burn Qu'rans this past September 11th. His reason for burning the holy book of the Muslim people was because he "wanted to send radical Islam a message." What I find funny is that he probably didn't realize the irony if his statement; he should have just replaced "Islam" with the name of his church.
You see, Pastor Jones is a radical in his own right; he calls Islam the "devil's religion" and that Islam is trying to dominate the United States and the world. Now, I won't challenge the legality of his right to protest the religion by burning a piece of symbolism (as established in Texas v. Johnson), but I will call him irrational. Why? Well, you'll see.
Firstly, the US' image overseas, to many Muslims, is that the country is at war with Islam itself instead of with al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. Those groups, in turn, utilize that rhetoric to recruit young men into their ranks. Pastor Jones, with his widespread media coverage and his handlebar mustache now played all over the world, is now becoming a rallying point for radical Muslims.
(Pictured: 19th-century sex.)
With his anti-Islam message, the radical Islamic groups can now say "Look! Americans allow for the burning of the holy book without chastising him for it! Join us and defend our beliefs!" (Hope that doesn't sound too campy) A battle based on beliefs, especially personal beliefs, is the most difficult and time-consuming battle, and is almost always impossible to win.
Aside from that, Pastor Jones has revealed a flaw in our portrayal of Muslims in the country: they are all radical. The Pastor has conflated all Muslims into essentially one entity, which, as we all know, is illogical. Like I've said before, not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, not all black people are criminals, and not all Chinese people know Kung-Fu.
If this post seems a little errant, that's because I had too much damned reading to do. Hell, I'm barely even doing it.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
You see, Pastor Jones is a radical in his own right; he calls Islam the "devil's religion" and that Islam is trying to dominate the United States and the world. Now, I won't challenge the legality of his right to protest the religion by burning a piece of symbolism (as established in Texas v. Johnson), but I will call him irrational. Why? Well, you'll see.
Firstly, the US' image overseas, to many Muslims, is that the country is at war with Islam itself instead of with al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. Those groups, in turn, utilize that rhetoric to recruit young men into their ranks. Pastor Jones, with his widespread media coverage and his handlebar mustache now played all over the world, is now becoming a rallying point for radical Muslims.
(Pictured: 19th-century sex.)
With his anti-Islam message, the radical Islamic groups can now say "Look! Americans allow for the burning of the holy book without chastising him for it! Join us and defend our beliefs!" (Hope that doesn't sound too campy) A battle based on beliefs, especially personal beliefs, is the most difficult and time-consuming battle, and is almost always impossible to win.
Aside from that, Pastor Jones has revealed a flaw in our portrayal of Muslims in the country: they are all radical. The Pastor has conflated all Muslims into essentially one entity, which, as we all know, is illogical. Like I've said before, not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, not all black people are criminals, and not all Chinese people know Kung-Fu.
If this post seems a little errant, that's because I had too much damned reading to do. Hell, I'm barely even doing it.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Point of Ire
A group of Muslim radicals are attempting to rubs America's face in the tragedy of 9-11 by building a mosque in Ground Zero.
--EDIT--
Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."
This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?
"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.
Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.
I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?
Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
--EDIT--
Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."
This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?
"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.
Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.
I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?
Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thought Experiment
Imagine this: an Atheist runs for president and has a viable chance of being elected. Assume that he or she is a Democrat, as an Atheist in the Republican party is about as likely as Glenn Beck passing a math test. (An Atheist being nominated for president for the Democratic party is unlikely as well, since the party as a whole hopes to gain votes from moderates.) What would happen?
Firstly, the morals of the Atheist nominee would be challenged; the common belief is that morals are grounded in religion, and those without religion are immoral, rabid sexual monsters (cough*catholicpriests*cough) who would destroy all civilization because of a preference for mass anarchy.
It's more than likely that religious groups would protest fervently, heckle, send death threats, etc.
Why should belief in a deity factor into politics, a seemingly non-theocratic institution, especially in the United States, which was built on religious tolerance? I suppose that's my question of the week to you, my single reader. Feel free to comment if you like.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Firstly, the morals of the Atheist nominee would be challenged; the common belief is that morals are grounded in religion, and those without religion are immoral, rabid sexual monsters (cough*catholicpriests*cough) who would destroy all civilization because of a preference for mass anarchy.
It's more than likely that religious groups would protest fervently, heckle, send death threats, etc.
Why should belief in a deity factor into politics, a seemingly non-theocratic institution, especially in the United States, which was built on religious tolerance? I suppose that's my question of the week to you, my single reader. Feel free to comment if you like.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Saturday, November 7, 2009
To be or not to be
To tackle a subject as broad as "God," I would have to write my own novel. I will have to try to condense everything, unless someone actually wants me to write a novel. I wouldn't mind.
God: the ultimate power of the universe, the matter of all creation, the father of all being, or, simply an illusion. God is the factor that divides and paradoxically unites humans the most. For centuries, those believing that they are of righteous piety have struck down others with the claim that their god is superior. For what reason would humanity have so much devotion to a character neither seen nor heard?
This necessitates an understanding of the origins of the concept of god. The most well-known example of this would be the ancient Greek religion, whose mythology continues to strive in contemporary society. Greeks, unlike today's major religions, were polytheists. They deified rivers, oceans, mountains, and anything that seemed mystical or phantasmagorical. We can analyze their reasoning through a very simple idea: lack of scientific knowledge. While the Greeks were aware that the world was round and that the stars were (to some extent) heavenly bodies, most ancient peoples attributed all life to some creator. Many couldn't comprehend living on a planet, orbiting a sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy amongst billions upon billions of other galaxies. People were unaware of the structure of a living cell or natural selection. They believed what ego taught them to believe, and that is a subject all in itself.
Ego, the part of the self which creates personality, pride, and determination, one might say. It also allows us to be arrogant and obdurate. As Aristotle put it, man is different from animal because we have the ability to reason. That being said, it would then be logical to reason that because only man has the ability to reason that we are, by some standard, special. This raises the question of "why?" Why were humans chosen instead of deer, or platypus? This hearkens back to ego; the arrogant belief that nothing is chance. Thus, a higher being created us. Logical? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Skipping ahead a few millenia, past the cold-blooded killings of the crusades and the dank, unproductive time of the middle ages, we stop at a man called Nicolas Copernicus. Many (hopefully) would know that he was the literal beginning of the scientific revolution. While it may have been Galileo who was persecuted for believing in heliocentrism, it was Galileo who defended Copernicus' views on the solar system. As many know, it took the church approximately 500 years to issue an apology to Galileo.
Continue ahead to present day, past the discoveries of Newton, past the postulates of Da Vinci, past Kepler, past Einstein, to today, November 7th, 2009. Consider the great scientific strides made between the time of Copernicus and today: the invention of the telescope, the discovery of the animal cell, the invention of the microscope, the invention of the atomic bomb, planes, space shuttles, an international space station, and computers. One would think that with all those scientific innovations, religion would become less important as humans discover their place in the universe.
Pictured: Andromeda Galaxy
Instead, we see the persistence of theocracies and the denial of basic human rights based on someone's religion. We also see this (warning: not for those opposed to reason):
God is now the reason for everything. Some pray to him on daily basis, thanking him for bread. If that is the case, why not pray to the farmer who grows the wheat? Why not pray to the owner of the Stop & Shop, thanking him for importing this bread from Kansas? Hell, why not just pray to the cashier, thanking him/her for not telling you to go f*ck yourself? One can plead in court that one was "inhabited by the devil" when one commits a crime. Since when is NOT taking responsibility for one's actions the human action?
It is interesting to note that only one brain chemical separates the cognitive processes of apes from humans. One. Imagine if a different kind of ape had become the dominant species on the planet. Would they have worshiped the same gods we have? Would they have killed in their names? Would they have the same struggles that we do today? Possibly. One can only speculate how similar we are to our simian ancestors; however, one thing is certain: we may not consider ourselves animals, but at our core, we are not human either.
I could continue on this subject, but most people would not read it.
Das Flüg
God: the ultimate power of the universe, the matter of all creation, the father of all being, or, simply an illusion. God is the factor that divides and paradoxically unites humans the most. For centuries, those believing that they are of righteous piety have struck down others with the claim that their god is superior. For what reason would humanity have so much devotion to a character neither seen nor heard?
This necessitates an understanding of the origins of the concept of god. The most well-known example of this would be the ancient Greek religion, whose mythology continues to strive in contemporary society. Greeks, unlike today's major religions, were polytheists. They deified rivers, oceans, mountains, and anything that seemed mystical or phantasmagorical. We can analyze their reasoning through a very simple idea: lack of scientific knowledge. While the Greeks were aware that the world was round and that the stars were (to some extent) heavenly bodies, most ancient peoples attributed all life to some creator. Many couldn't comprehend living on a planet, orbiting a sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy amongst billions upon billions of other galaxies. People were unaware of the structure of a living cell or natural selection. They believed what ego taught them to believe, and that is a subject all in itself.
Ego, the part of the self which creates personality, pride, and determination, one might say. It also allows us to be arrogant and obdurate. As Aristotle put it, man is different from animal because we have the ability to reason. That being said, it would then be logical to reason that because only man has the ability to reason that we are, by some standard, special. This raises the question of "why?" Why were humans chosen instead of deer, or platypus? This hearkens back to ego; the arrogant belief that nothing is chance. Thus, a higher being created us. Logical? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Skipping ahead a few millenia, past the cold-blooded killings of the crusades and the dank, unproductive time of the middle ages, we stop at a man called Nicolas Copernicus. Many (hopefully) would know that he was the literal beginning of the scientific revolution. While it may have been Galileo who was persecuted for believing in heliocentrism, it was Galileo who defended Copernicus' views on the solar system. As many know, it took the church approximately 500 years to issue an apology to Galileo.
Continue ahead to present day, past the discoveries of Newton, past the postulates of Da Vinci, past Kepler, past Einstein, to today, November 7th, 2009. Consider the great scientific strides made between the time of Copernicus and today: the invention of the telescope, the discovery of the animal cell, the invention of the microscope, the invention of the atomic bomb, planes, space shuttles, an international space station, and computers. One would think that with all those scientific innovations, religion would become less important as humans discover their place in the universe.
Pictured: Andromeda Galaxy
Instead, we see the persistence of theocracies and the denial of basic human rights based on someone's religion. We also see this (warning: not for those opposed to reason):
God is now the reason for everything. Some pray to him on daily basis, thanking him for bread. If that is the case, why not pray to the farmer who grows the wheat? Why not pray to the owner of the Stop & Shop, thanking him for importing this bread from Kansas? Hell, why not just pray to the cashier, thanking him/her for not telling you to go f*ck yourself? One can plead in court that one was "inhabited by the devil" when one commits a crime. Since when is NOT taking responsibility for one's actions the human action?
It is interesting to note that only one brain chemical separates the cognitive processes of apes from humans. One. Imagine if a different kind of ape had become the dominant species on the planet. Would they have worshiped the same gods we have? Would they have killed in their names? Would they have the same struggles that we do today? Possibly. One can only speculate how similar we are to our simian ancestors; however, one thing is certain: we may not consider ourselves animals, but at our core, we are not human either.
I could continue on this subject, but most people would not read it.
Das Flüg
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What is God?
I hope that this turns out to be an interesting movie; I will give my two cents about what I think God is at another time. Right now, studying.
Das Flüg
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Das Religio!
Just a note:
I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:
Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.
Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.
There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?
Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.
There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.
One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.
addendum (after viewing several comments):
There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?
One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.
Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?
The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.
Das Flüg
I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:
Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.
Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.
There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?
Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.
There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.
One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.
addendum (after viewing several comments):
There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?
One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.
Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?
The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)