Scoobes said:
Slimebeast said:
Scoobes said:
Slimebeast said:
No dogmas? Freethinking? I don't know really.
Look at how many dogmas have replaced religous dogma and how much freethinking have been restricted in the short time since religion lost it's grip of Western society.
- Everyone must love immigration or else you're labeled racist.
Not neccessarily. Depends on your motivations and the current problems in the country you're in. For instance, in the UK immigration is a hot topic of debate and many are for stricter immigration control.
- You have to love the environment and care about nature.
You do? I find it varies person to person. Take the guys on Top Gear for instance, absolutely hate anything about supporting the environment.
- You have to not only believe in global warming but also be concerned about it and actively support measures taken against it.
Again, not neccessarily. Plenty out there argue against global warming (at least humans causing it). Also, see above.
- You must accept evolution theory or you're labeled a nutcase.
Well, this one's kinda true, mainly due to the level of evidence for evolution, but that's already been discussed in other threads so I'll leave it be here.
- You have to be against drugs or be labeled someone who doesn't take responsibility of himself.
Errr... depends who you talk to. Obviously the conservative groups will always say so, but about half the people I know have used recreational drugs. And what about places like Amsterdam or even Camden Town? It's pretty much socially acceptable to take drugs at certain places such as music festivals.
- You shouldn't be religious or people will label you ignorant.
I thought freedom to practice religion was kinda important in the Western world?
- You should accept abortions or you're barbaric.
Again, a debate that rages and is hardly black and white. That viewpoint is hardly the norm, even in the Western world.
- You should not support the concept of revenge because that's considered primitive.
Yet revenge stories do incredibly well in cinema, literature etc. I think there are plenty out there who support the idea of vengeance up to a point.
Without religion I think we still live in mental slavery.
|
I think the major difference is that those dogmas are more likely to change if and when new evidence/circumstances presents itself. With Religious dogmas there is a whole lot of confusion if we're presented with new evidence contrary to past dogmas and many just won't accept it until the majority of society does (which takes a long time if the religion is dominant). Without religion I don't think this would occur.
A lot of what you put up there as well varies from country to country and I don't neccessarily agree with. Just because large groups have reached similar conclusions doesn't equate to mental slavery. See comments above.
|
1. There were opposing opinions towards religious dogma too, historically.
2. Modern dogma varies from country to country? No kidding. Religion varies from country to country too.
You bring me freaking Amsterdam to prove that there is actually people in this world who are pro-drugs. I think that speaks for itself.
|
My point was religious views are less open to change than all the examples you gave. These views can change over a generation or two. For instance, if a study gives strong evidence that global warming is false then in a short space of time others will look into it, and if their results agree the viewpoint will change. Alternatively, social viewpoints can change over time. It may effect 2-3 generations of people.
In religion, the dogmas and views will remain for hundreds, potentially thousands of years, even with evidence to the contrary. Whilst some religious teaching truly are timeless, some have hindered progress.
And what's wrong with Amsterdam (everyone tells me the 'tulips' are lovely)?! :D It stands as an example of a place where your view of having to be against drugs is false. Whilst the government and media may shove the viewpoint down your throat, my own experience is around 80% of my friends have at least once tried an illegal substance.
Look, I don't know what your personal situation is, but I'm a little suprised the people you know are that black and white about the issues you've raised. My experience is that my friends have a range of mixed views about the issues above. The only issue from your post where we all agree is evolution (which isn't suprising considerring my field).
|
It's troublesome to argue with you. You twist the message.
Did I say anything was wrong with Amsterdam? Do I have to spell it out for you again? U had to bring out Amsterdam as a place with liberal views on drugs, which only shows how dogmatic the general view against drugs in the world is.
Like Highwaystar you bring change and fluctuation of opinions into this. It's irreleveant. There is dogmatic views and it's spelled being politically correct.
If you won't acknowledge that there's mental rape and oppression of alternative opinions in our modern society, be my guest.
