Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67

Thread: The replacement of religion with dogmatic worldviews

  1. #1
    Member Mxx's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,745

    The replacement of religion with dogmatic worldviews

    Anyone else finding that the more people rid themselves of the delusion of religion, the more dogmatic worldviews (just as dangerous) are spreading? Whereby everything is filtered through a particular lense. Take the social justice zealot, or the redpilled male, the feminazi. All of these have nuggets of truth exaggerated to such a degree that it overshadows reason.

    I'm starting to wonder if rationals were better off only having to deal with monotheistic nuts, rather than a whole conglomerate of quasi-religious ideologies.

  2. #2
    Anti-Classic Horatio's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    494
    INTPx Award Winner
    One might find it felicitous that all of these belief systems have split into so many subgroups in this age. At least nobody can seriously use the historically frequently false consensus gentium as an argument now.

  3. #3
    Member Mxx's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Horatio View Post
    One might find it felicitous that all of these belief systems have split into so many subgroups in this age.
    Tell that to Hercules.

    (I am fond of the Greek mythological worldview).

  4. #4
    Merry Christmas Blorg's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    near a castle
    Posts
    3,476
    The aims of these "topical" movements, misguided as they often are, tend to be more descriptive than prescriptive - at least far more so than the aims of many popular religions - and for that reason they strike me as somewhat less likely to cause violence. They also seem far less likely to develop into any ecclesiastical/totalitarian form; I consider angry factions an improvement over that. So yes, I think they're a slight improvement.

    (also, I don't think religions are inherently more "delusional" than what most people would proudly call rationality. Use of the adjective "rational" often comes across to me more as an advertisement than a truthful statement. It's one of those show-don't-tell things. edit: I'm not talking about this thread, just in general.)
    "Better not to feel too much until the crisis ends—and if it never ends, at least we’ll have suffered a little less, developed a useful dullness...The constant—and very real—fear of being hurt, the fear of death, of intolerable loss, or even of “mere” humiliation, leads each of us, the citizens and prisoners of the conflict, to dampen our own vitality, our emotional and intellectual range, and to cloak ourselves in more and more protective layers until we suffocate." - Toni Morrison

  5. #5
    Member Mxx's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Dot View Post
    The aims of these "topical" movements, misguided as they often are, tend to be more descriptive than prescriptive
    I don't find that to be the case - they seem to dictate what constitutes acceptable forms of speech, behavior, attitude, etc. And they are openly hostile to and attempt to silence those who in anyway disagree with them, or challenge their ideas. They seem to create bubbles around themselves (safe spaces) to avoid even being challenged.

    I have to ignore the comment on the use of the term rational, because one thing I can't stand is arguing over semantics. I'm assuming readers here are smart enough to get the gist of the dichotomy.

  6. #6
    Merry Christmas Blorg's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    near a castle
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Mxx View Post
    I don't find that to be the case - they seem to dictate what constitutes acceptable forms of speech, behavior, attitude, etc. And they are openly hostile to and attempt to silence those who in anyway disagree with them, or challenge their ideas. They seem to create bubbles around themselves (safe spaces) to avoid even being challenged.
    Yeah, but as far as I'm aware, these "safe spaces" are almost by definition made up of words rather than real walls, and afaik their open hostility mostly consists of saying mean things in angry voices. These people aren't legally, politically, or tangibly attempting to claim any space. Nor are they taking space away from anyone. They're just setting boundaries on their discussions. I mean, most of these groups exist on the internet, and the IRL ones probably just have little clubs in which they discuss things and/or protest sometimes. Compare that to the Catholic Church with its elaborate dress codes, rituals, accepted forms of behavior, periodic institutionalization of violence, and immense claims to physical space. I can't exactly imagine a social justice club or some redpillars aspiring to those heights because they're more interested in speech than actions (I guess the speech/action thing is what I was trying to get at with the prescriptive/descriptive dichotomy). So that's why I can't foresee them becoming nearly as violent or threatening.
    "Better not to feel too much until the crisis ends—and if it never ends, at least we’ll have suffered a little less, developed a useful dullness...The constant—and very real—fear of being hurt, the fear of death, of intolerable loss, or even of “mere” humiliation, leads each of us, the citizens and prisoners of the conflict, to dampen our own vitality, our emotional and intellectual range, and to cloak ourselves in more and more protective layers until we suffocate." - Toni Morrison

  7. #7
    Merry Christmas Blorg's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    near a castle
    Posts
    3,476
    I guess I see their threat as indirect - for example, they probably contribute to political polarization, which in turn leads to things like screwed up elections.
    "Better not to feel too much until the crisis ends—and if it never ends, at least we’ll have suffered a little less, developed a useful dullness...The constant—and very real—fear of being hurt, the fear of death, of intolerable loss, or even of “mere” humiliation, leads each of us, the citizens and prisoners of the conflict, to dampen our own vitality, our emotional and intellectual range, and to cloak ourselves in more and more protective layers until we suffocate." - Toni Morrison

  8. #8
    Member Mxx's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Dot View Post
    Yeah, but as far as I'm aware, these "safe spaces" are almost by definition made up of words rather than real walls, and afaik their open hostility mostly consists of saying mean things in angry voices. These people aren't legally, politically, or tangibly attempting to claim any space. Nor are they taking space away from anyone. They're just setting boundaries on their discussions. I mean, most of these groups exist on the internet, and the IRL ones probably just have little clubs in which they discuss things and/or protest sometimes. Compare that to the Catholic Church with its elaborate dress codes, rituals, accepted forms of behavior, periodic institutionalization of violence, and immense claims to physical space. I can't exactly imagine a social justice club or some redpillars aspiring to those heights because they're more interested in speech than actions (I guess the speech/action thing is what I was trying to get at with the prescriptive/descriptive dichotomy). So that's why I can't foresee them becoming nearly as violent or threatening.
    I'm referring to the complete disregard for free speech and freedom of assembly.

    Wiki copy/paste laziness: The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty.

    I don't care what people want to say or not say in the sanctuary of their groups, but to impose their beliefs on others, and attempt to silence others is abhorrent.
    Last edited by Mxx; 07-14-2017 at 02:47 PM.

  9. #9
    malarkey oxyjen's Avatar
    Type
    INtP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Mxx View Post
    I'm referring to the complete disregard for free speech and freedom of assembly.

    Wiki copy/paste laziness: The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty.

    I don't care what people want to say or not say in the sanctuary of their groups, but to impose their beliefs on others, and attempt to silence others is abhorrent.
    I backed up the video to watch his beginning remarks and rolled my eyes about thirty seconds after he began to talk. If you begin by lobbing insults to the people you're addressing, don't expect to have the entire floor to yourself free of interruption.

    The level of discourse you give is going to be the level of discourse you get.

    I'm not excusing the behavior of people who interrupted the speaker, but human right to give a lecture? Pssh

  10. #10
    Member Mxx's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by oxyjen View Post
    I'm not excusing the behavior of people who interrupted the speaker, but human right to give a lecture? Pssh
    I guess this really gets under my skin, but it's a value I hold dearly, and perhaps the only one I'd be willing to risk my life for in order to live in a society where freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are considered to be human rights. The concept of a human right exists entirely in our heads (like the concept of money), but it's a belief I want to see made reality, and have been to fortunate enough to be born in an era of history where it's the general consensus in many countries (like the legal equality of genders). To see the tide turning like this scares me. Perhaps that's overly dramatic, but this might finally be where I make my political stand both conceptually and in everyday practice (a silly example being simply voicing that belief in this thread).

    The level of discourse you give is going to be the level of discourse you get.
    I guess I place more value on the conceptual right to say something over the prescriptive stance of how to say something.

Similar Threads

  1. Free will: The new religion?
    By Lurker in forum Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-14-2017, 03:11 AM
  2. Your Religion
    By Perdix in forum Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 03-01-2015, 10:58 PM
  3. Does Religion Poison Everything?
    By Mike in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 02-07-2015, 08:26 PM
  4. Philosophy vs. Religion
    By kitsune in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-02-2014, 05:20 PM
  5. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 05-13-2014, 01:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •