Why Do People Insist...

[indra]

Because clearly someone is wrong around here.

Being wrong is not right.

 

[Sunflower_Moon]

But if there's no true way to prove who is right, why fight or have war over it? We can't prove beyond all doubt that there is even a God, but we can't completely disprove it either. How can we prove that any religion is the true one, and how can we prove that a higher power unattached to dogma isn't the right way, or even atheists? It seems if there was a way to prove that one religion is the one true religion, beyond all doubt, the other religions would cease to exist out of fear of eternal punishment.

A lot of great opinions have been mentioned, such as feeling threatened. It just makes me wonder how people can be driven to war over a difference in opinion that can't be proven, even genocide in some cases, which seems to go against most religions since they encourage peace and unity, forgiveness, etc.

 

[Coriolis]

I do believe that you can respectfully disagree with people about matters, I dont much mind if someone does say their religion is better than mine and that I should convert but they have to realise that their feeling that way, their saying that, has no baring at all upon my own seperate religious convictions, thinking and actions. I really dont believe in some sort of uniform thinking or universal muteness being labelled "respect" or "respectfulness", perhaps that's not what you were meaning, it is one of the logical consequences or at the very least possible conclusions.

Holding your tongue is not the only way to be respectful of other religious beliefs. You can say you disagree and that your beliefs are different, without insisting that your beliefs are better. You can ask questions and point out apparent contradictions. If the other person is willing to participate in such a discussion, you can have quite a give and take. The key is that you have to listen as much as you speak, and be willing to question your own beliefs as much as theirs. If your beliefs cannot stand up to this sort of scrutiny, they may not be on a very sound footing to begin with. Bottom line, though, respect implies you appoach the other person on an equal footing.

I really should leave things there but the reality is that the LGBT political community, which I'm beginning to decide should not be conflated with the community itself, has no claim to humanity or inclusion anymore than anyone else, particularly given that it is an exclusive group dealing in identity politics, in my experience its very fair to say that the LGBT political community is "accepting only in so far as others are accepting of it", which seems alright until you realise that this means it brooks no opposition or dissension internally or externally. Its at the place other traditions or movements were before their splintering, infighting and eventual dissolution or passage into history. Although like all those other traditions and movements, the remainders and legacies of which abound, they've failed to learn any lesson from the history of those that preceded them. In no small part because they dont believe history matters and its just possible to reinvent lasting change in and off this very minute. Again, like those others before them did too.

The highlighted sounds like many of the fundamentalist or evangelical Christian traditions. I am not going to say any more about the LGBT rights movement here since that is a political organization, and is off-topic for this thread.

Do you consider that this is the approach that the LGBT movement takes when it seeks to reform legal parameters and social institutions for others aswell as themselves? Do you think that needs to change?

I think the culture wars, of which LGBT is maybe just the most recognisable or prominent example, are very illustrative of the fact that earlier struggles between competiting normative communities to reach a state of co-existence havent taught many lessons. Or that no ones interested in learning from them.

A political movement that seeks to change laws and social institutions is not the same as an evangelist who wants to change what individuals believe. The first seeks to regulate our external actions, while the second seeks to regulate our internal thoughts and values. Laws and social institutions should limit themselves to the first. The struggles to equalize the rights of various groups over the last couple of centuries have followed a certain pattern. Early on when the idea of the subject group enjoying the same rights as others seems foreign and even dangerous, it is advocated mostly by people on the fringe. As the idea becomes more familiar, the supporters become more mainstream. When progress isn't forthcoming, extremism can result, doing more harm than good. Eventually the idea has been around long enough, and enough mainstream people view it favorably, if not outright support it, that even the more conservative elements are willing to go along. This is when it finally gains acceptance. A good if simplistic illustration is how it took Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican president, to appoint the first woman member of the US Supreme Court.

 

[sprinkles]

They have egos one way or another.

Because clearly someone is wrong around here.

Being wrong is not right.

Nothing to be wrong about if one avoids such proclamations in the first place.

 

[Luke O]

What I don't like about religion is irreconcilable differences, since nobody can prove whether some hallucinating shepherd said this or that, many hundreds of years ago. It'll be important whether said shepherd said this or that, because it'll be something to do with god stuff in some sort of way (e.g. Abraham and whether Isaac or Ishmael is his real heir crap). And the only way the argument can be settled is when all the "this" camp, or the "that" camp are dead, and all evidence of either side is burnt. With religion you can never have true peace; even if there was only one religion left on Earth, it would split, and people would fight over it again. We're so busy fighting amongst ourselves, we're using up the natural resources we could have used to go explore the universe together.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

I don't care what people believe, as long as they don't try to tell me that dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil.

I could tell you that ! In such a way... you would believe it

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

I am a buddhist (I need that spiritual connection) and I don't impose people my own religion or philosophy.

They are free to choose their own path with blindness or consciousness, for better or worse...


Believing is not putting people into boxes. It is viewing the world another way, and finding a new sense (end new hopes) to your life and to the universe in which one we are all connected.

 

[Opal]

People feel more comfortable with their world framed by something with a solid, absolute promise of justice, and they will burn reality to the ground to protect that frame.

 

[Coriolis]

What I don't like about religion is irreconcilable differences, since nobody can prove whether some hallucinating shepherd said this or that, many hundreds of years ago. It'll be important whether said shepherd said this or that, because it'll be something to do with god stuff in some sort of way (e.g. Abraham and whether Isaac or Ishmael is his real heir crap). And the only way the argument can be settled is when all the "this" camp, or the "that" camp are dead, and all evidence of either side is burnt. With religion you can never have true peace; even if there was only one religion left on Earth, it would split, and people would fight over it again. We're so busy fighting amongst ourselves, we're using up the natural resources we could have used to go explore the universe together.

The differences are irreconcilable only when we cling to a mythos as objective or historical reality. The moment we realize that the real truth of these stories is in what they tell us about life, humanity, and the world around us, we can accept them as not mutually exclusive. The others don't have to be wrong for the one to be right. Following different religions then becomes more like preferring different literary genres, or fitness regimens. All serve the same purpose, while being suited to different individuals.

 

[grey_beard]

Probably because they feel it is their duty to spread their religion. If someone knew the truth and that truth was that I would go to Hell if I didn't believe in a certain deity, then I would sure hope they cared about everyone else enough to share that truth, or else that would put such a follower in bad light for holding back the knowledge to his own religion's form of enlightenment.

Though I completely empathize with you regarding how annoying people can be about boasting how their religion is the best one, even though it's purely based off of their egotism... most of my family does it. And I think people get upset when someone they hold dear to themselves carry completely different beliefs, because then they themselves will feel less doubtful about their own religion when they have more support, because that's the way organized religion works. Though that's just a hypothesis really. All I know is that, without community, organized religion is a failure.

 

[SiegfriedSchtauffen]

Evertyhing in this world (plants, animals, bacterias, viruses, etc) including religions and ideologies have to transmit themselves from generation to generation to survive. This can be done with codes/rules/instructions/.. or a mixture of these. Religions and ideologies that survived up to this date have some traits that provide a mechanism for the survival of the given religion/ideology. The mechanism of transmission can be more or less agressive: some religions are transferred only to children within a family (along with the value system of the parents), some other religions have codes/rules that directly/indirectly force the individuals to spread it.

A religion or ideology without a transfer mechanism would die out within a few generations.

But if there's no true way to prove who is right, why fight or have war over it? We can't prove beyond all doubt that there is even a God, but we can't completely disprove it either. How can we prove that any religion is the true one, and how can we prove that a higher power unattached to dogma isn't the right way, or even atheists? It seems if there was a way to prove that one religion is the one true religion, beyond all doubt, the other religions would cease to exist out of fear of eternal punishment.

Don't try to prove or disprove anything and you are not obliged to accept any claims that aren't proven. As it was pointed out yesterday on another thread: If a claim (like god exists) is coming from someone else then it isn't your responsibility to disprove it. The other guy has to prove the claim. (see: burden of proof)

A lot of great opinions have been mentioned, such as feeling threatened. It just makes me wonder how people can be driven to war over a difference in opinion that can't be proven, even genocide in some cases, which seems to go against most religions since they encourage peace and unity, forgiveness, etc.

Religions and ideologies can be embedded deeply into the value system of people. A given religion can be heavyweight and it can form a great part of someone's core values, thus it can greatly affect who you are. If you attack the religion then at least partly (depending on how large part of the individuals value system is affected by the religion), you are attacking the members too. In the past a lot of scientists were burnt as witches just because their inventions/findings were not a good fit with the beliefs and core values of most people at the time. Or just imagine the Hitlerjugend: by manipulating the core values, belief systems of those children: they could raise very effective and controllable soldiers ("war machines").

If you want to change someone significantly then you have to manipulate his/her value system. The core values of the individual should consist of well proved, reliable things. The quality of the core values will attract other values of similar quality. For this reason I think most religions are a big hole punched into the self integrity of the individuals carrying them. From my point of view religions are often cheap and easy/quick replacement for something better but more expensive. In worst case the easy/quick replacement pulls in some harmful things too.

 

[Blank]

Kinda just perused the first page, so forgiveness if it's been said this way already:

Rhetorically speaking, if Bob doesn't believe what Sue believes, then Sue feels as though her beliefs have been invalidated. Sue has devoted so much time and energy into her beliefs system that it's obvious Bob must be mistaken, otherwise he would have come to the same conclusions as she has. It's Painful watching the Ignorant continuing on ignorantly, so Sue feels like she must inform Bob that he's Ignorant and must amend his ways. If Bob doesn't accept her Obviously Correct Ways(tm), he is then a heathen, unwilling to learn. And then (if it was the good ol' days) she kills him, so he may learn in the afterlife.



I really think just the idea of someone not believing the same thing as a person is enough to rile some people up. They don't want to be challenged and the mere possibility of a differing lifestyle is a perceived challenge to them/their authority.

 

[Blank]

Update:
"Though the number of people who identify as atheists has risen in recent years, atheists still are viewed as untrustworthy or frightening by many Americans. Now, new research might offer an explanation, writes LiveScience’s Stephanie Pappas — atheists can trigger death-related thoughts, which can cause people to cling even more tightly to their religious values."
Atheists Remind People of Death | Smart News | Smithsonian

If this is accurate, it may explain a lot in regard to this thread.