Could a world spread social revolution destroy most religion?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 11:51 PM
RE: Could a world spread social revolution destroy most religion?
(16-08-2015 01:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Can I ask a question, how old are you? If I were to judge by your optimism I’d peg you to be in your mid twenties or less? Am I right?

I am Thirty.

Also yes, I do have optimism for human beings to become something different, something better and I DO believe that through some sort of wide scale social revolution, even if the answers are far more complicated then what I mentioned, something like it could happen and could help spur a much less need for religion for many, or at least rid religions need for money in the same way that it "needs" it now.

Much of what makes religion so powerful is that it provides help or answers for why sick and poor people are they way they are and makes some attempts to help the problem by sucking money from even other poor people, but it has a never ending cease to complain about these things like many others since it first became organized.

Take away all of that and the religions become much more hollow with only a few primitive moral standards and the life after death thing. But charity and donations and ultimately the mega church would likely disappear or dwindle down to very little.

I believe we can evolve past tribalism completely one day. We see it little by little with each new generation.

In the 1800's, if someone heard about a massacure of hundreds of people from the other side of the planet or thousands of them being ethnically cleansed from the lower reaches of Africa or South America, very little people would likely genuinly feel concern, care, remorse or any human emotion that would be tied to the same events happening in their own country.

2000 years ago in the time of Jesus, people would REJOICE this having happens. NO ONE would care and in fact they would revel in the thoughts of the rape and force impregnation of the females and slaughter of the men and every death of those who did not believe in the same deity as they did and live in the same exact lands as they did while doing so!

In 1890, no one would care if they heard a story of a mother being murdered because she undercooked her husbands eggs if that person lived on the other side of their own country.

Do you notice a little something? A single story of any of these events, from the big to the very small now have a much greater emotional impact on the majority now.

It is largely due to the internet now making our international society far more connected. We could now have spoken too, written too live, seen face to face on a camera; people from these lands and gotten to know them. Now instead of a complete Cognitive dissonance concerting people who simply live far away, can now genuinly feel for the suffering of others when we hear about it no matter where they are in the world. Many people donate money or even feel so compelled that they give up their lives to go to these places to help those people and that is the next step.

Getting from point A where we could not be before, caring about individuals who are living far away - to point B which is the compel to do something to help them as if they lived in our own home.

True, tribalism is not going away.....and yes I said it was, but when I say it will disappear completely I mean it differently then what you might think.

To fully explain this, a simple question must be asked and answered.
What happens when your "tribe" that you live in, instead of it just being the home you live in, the state your from or your country, instead involves the world itself?


What happens if Tribalism evolves so that the "tribe" is the world instead of just one very specific part of the world?

THAT is the mindset, the social revolution and changing the ways of peoples thinking that we need to aim for. Once we do that, everything, regardless of how complicated will simply fall into place with time.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Shadow Fox's post
17-08-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: Could a world spread social revolution destroy most religion?
Well-written post, Shadow Fox.

Kudos. Extra Likes. Thumbs up.

Et cetera. Thumbsup

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 07:24 AM
RE: Could a world spread social revolution destroy most religion?
(16-08-2015 11:51 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
Quote:In the 1800's, if someone heard about a massacure of hundreds of people from the other side of the planet or thousands of them being ethnically cleansed from the lower reaches of Africa or South America, very little people would likely genuinly feel concern, care, remorse or any human emotion that would be tied to the same events happening in their own country.


In the 1800s, you didn’t have videos, and news feeds, bombarding you with those images either. But even now, how many people are actually effected by the massacres of hundreds of people on the other side of the planet? Iraqi casualties of the Iraq war were nearly half a million people, while about 5 thousand US Troops were killed. It’s apparent if you're an American the lives of your troops matter more than lives of the Iraqis.

What happens if you hear about some genocide on the other end of planet typically? Perhaps a bit of shock, some temporary sadness at the loss of life, then you get on with your day like your normally do, and forgot about it. What goes on the other side of the planet, unlike if the tragedy were close to home, loses it’s impact rather quickly. You go to work, enjoy your nights out, your leisure time, and the company of your friends just the same.

The thing about empathy is that it drys up very quickly, it’s more prone to provoke sentiments than actions. And people prefer the sentiments over any actual sacrifice.

[quote]2000 years ago in the time of Jesus, people would REJOICE this having happens. NO ONE would care and in fact they would revel in the thoughts of the rape and force impregnation of the females and slaughter of the men and every death of those who did not believe in the same deity as they did and live in the same exact lands as they did while doing so!

And now a days we incarcerate about 2.5 million to prevent any potential carnage. Now a days a man has two much too lose if he sides with personal violence, so we resort to words. Because violence means no more television, or luxuries I’ve become accustom to. While the results of less violence, less carnage assumes the reason for this is some increase in human empathy, it seems more so the result of external factors, unrelated to this, like the great wealth, technology we’re acquired over the years. It’s not a coincidence that the poor are more prone to violence than the rich.

But the question should be if we’re assuming some sort of social revolution, what makes us more empathetic, we’d have to wonder what sort of factors actually do that? Is it a matter of watching the news more? Or a matter of how much we’re engaged with actual people, involved in actual communities in a meaningful way? Or can it be nourished by living in our parents basement? What nourishes misanthropy, a sort of disgust at a humanity so different than ourselves, of the deluded and ignorant, filthy, and barbaric?

Quote:It is largely due to the internet now making our international society far more connected. We could now have spoken too, written too live, seen face to face on a camera; people from these lands and gotten to know them. Now instead of a complete Cognitive dissonance concerting people who simply live far away, can now genuinly feel for the suffering of others when we hear about it no matter where they are in the world. Many people donate money or even feel so compelled that they give up their lives to go to these places to help those people and that is the next step.

Sure, the internet has made us far more aware of spaces other than our own, but it hasn’t seemed to made us better people. The internet has not made me anymore of a better person, than my mother or father, whose use of the internet is almost non-existent. Yet I consider folks like my mother to represent what it means to be empathetic, to love one’s neighbor, because neighbors are the one’s whose lives she’s involved in daily, whose concerns are one’s she hears personally, the one’s who share her shoulder. Fostered by real world interactions, rather than the distant ones we have with internet strangers.

Quote:To fully explain this, a simple question must be asked and answered.
What happens when your "tribe" that you live in, instead of it just being the home you live in, the state your from or your country, instead involves the world itself?

It doesn’t, nor will it. Our relationship to the world itself is hardly the extension of the tribe, at best it’s a distrusting business partnership. If people had to choose between self-interest or empathy, they’d choose self-interest nearly every time. It’s easier for a man to say let’s do something about world hunger, but much harder to convince him of donating $200 a month for the cause.

Quote:THAT is the mindset, the social revolution and changing the ways of peoples thinking that we need to aim for.

I can admire your optimism. It’s exist quite easily when you're young, but as you grow older you become more cynical. Because cynicism is the one most faithful to reality, that one least likely to disappoint you. The trend in our western-world is likely not to be any growth in empathy, but a sort of resignation, a sort of immovability, an indifference. That’s the sign of our cynical age. We’ll see monsters everywhere, but we’ll just grow to accept them as basic features of human life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 09:05 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Could a world spread social revolution destroy most religion?
We incarcerate roughly 2.3 million persons, almost half of whom are there for nonviolent reasons. And between 4 and 12 percent (depending on who's doing the math) are innocent. Further, many of the crimes tagged as "violent" are not necessarily violent in the "attack someone" definition you imagine (an example would be burglary, where the guy breaks into the house and harms no one, but the crime is still considered "violent"). It is also easy for a person who is very poor to get incarcerated for things that do not necessarily require the criminal intent that a plain reading of the law would suggest, for instance for "check fraud" that actually consists of having written checks that bounced when a sudden and unexpected debit to their account causes them to overdraw or when their identity is hacked and their info is used in fraudulent ways but they lack the legal resources to prove it was not them. And so on... I filed post-conviction relief suits on behalf of hundreds of such cases, working as a "jailhouse lawyer" inside the system.

But I watched more television in my 9 years in prison (before being exonerated) than in the rest of my life combined. Free cable is the only thing that keeps our astoundingly-overcrowded prisons from rioting instantly. When the occasional self-righteous governor tells DOC chiefs to take the TVs out of the prisons, they refuse, because they know it would mean the almost-immediate death of many of the guards and a lot of (nonviolent) inmates.

The rest of your points are well-taken, regarding violence as a no-longer-viable solution to daily life. I would point out though that we're talking about the idea of a social revolution, not necessarily a violent one, and that the USA's "Founding Fathers" created this country through both violent (rebellious warfare) and nonviolent (better ideas) means. I would also point out that one of the FF's principle objections to the government that came before was the "divine right of kings", to which they objected in favor of the better idea that men should rule themselves by "consent of the governed". Radical, at the time.

We are facing an era where there is more information than ever (not necessarily good information, but it's out there), and where we can see horrors exposed that we would have remained ignorant to, before, for the most part. Ready comparisons and criticism of religious texts are also becoming more-available, so we're seeing a rise of non-belief and anti-theism, where before we were able to be successfully isolated by the dominant religions of our regions. I think that in the long term, if we don't manage to vaporize ourselves in a nuclear exchange or collapse our ecosystem in a way that sets the survivors back to the stone age, this trend will result in a more freethinking world than it has ever seen before. I don't think it requires revolution, necessarily... just that our children are not kept ignorant by people who are better-served by their ignorance and servility. Hard to accomplish in the Age of Google.

P.S. - Just a fun little graphic I found, on my point at the top about mass incarceration statistics, which is too large not to post as hidden-for-viewing:
[Image: massincarceration_20110617_0.jpg]

(Edited to Add a commentary on the Founding Fathers' ideas.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 05:33 PM
RE: Could a world spread social revolution destroy most religion?
(16-08-2015 11:51 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  What happens if Tribalism evolves so that the "tribe" is the world instead of just one very specific part of the world?
It will happen only when Jesus comes back. Oh, wait, Jesus does not exist.Big Grin

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: