It would be impossible at this point to end globalisation... we're in an information age (even though the common sense era has passed) so whether it's good or bad doesn't matter because we're going to have to live with it.

I don't understand the concept of 'mis'using it. Does that mean outsourcing and sweatshops or does that mean cultural and idelogic melting pots or does it mean africans can access porn starring white bitches?

You're comparing organised crime with religion?

Isn't it time you stopped?

but what you have is a country divided along religious lines.

Have you been to India? Do you know how much of a shit the ordinary person gives and how much of a division religion is? If you want lessons in religious tolerance - go to this country. See it for yourself. Reading, watching in America is completely different to touching, smellling, feeling, hearing and looking in India. EXPERIENCE it... then you will actually know the truth. Yes there are a few idiots here and there who want to impose their religious beliefs onto others. But there are only a few idiots. This doesn't make ALL OF THE ENTIRE HISTORY AND PEOPLE OF RELIGION bad. Lol. And again it's muslims.

Religion makes a simple situation complicated

That's an immensly outrageous lie.

Think about it. Because it's you you'll have to think about it harder. Religion makes things complicated? REALLY?

Your arguments are mostly against Christianity and Islam. Don't point the finger at religion though.

I don't have to say anything. My last post still applies to this post.

Like how 1 pakistani muslim exploding a car bomb makes all pakistani muslims evil.

Right?

Please.....

This says it all. Your views on religion are not only inexperienced and ill-informed, but blinded and biased.

You base your assumptions of religion on the one bad apple out of the 9999 good apples. You continuously choose to base your mistrust of religion on the one paedophilic catholic priest rather than the devoted fundraising buddhist monk.

It can be observed even now that strongly religious communities do not benefit from their religion directly. That is to say, if the communities are fair in their morals and ethics it is because of the community's culture or history, with the religion not playing an active role.

Give me one example where religion doesn't play an active role in their culture and history.

I also know that they all operate on the same basic mechanisms: unprovable assumptions that must be taken on faith, rituals which are tied to the supernatural, trust in authority, and spreading the doctrine.

No they dont...

TBH I can't even bothered to go further with this. You can't even see the whole picture and instead continuously scrutinise a bad brushmark.

Start another debate. Base it entirely on dharmic religions. Then scrutinise them. Let's see how far they go from there.

Why shouldn't I trust those of the same religion?

Put people of all different races in the same room - but have a room where they're all the same race and see how religion plays the same role as race. It's the community effect - being more comfortable with people who you deem to be similar to you. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

The problem is that you haven't really seen real religion. The way western society follows religion is a fucking joke. Especially America, if not UK aswell. You go to place where religion is followed better. My experience with Christianity is limited out of UK, but I can garauntee you that the European countries probably follow the religion a lot differently.

End of the day I'm sure 90% of your answer is directed towards christianity and islam.

If people lived with the Hindu mentality and religion I can garauntee you - I bet everybody on this planet's life on it... the world would be a much much better place. The record speaks for itself.

This is principally what I'm arguing against. I get the impression that you were fed misinformation against the out-group to you, the irreligious, and so you make a spurious argument of the type I'm arguing against in the first place.

Religion is slowly being found to be more of a cancer to society than anything else. I don't expect it will ever die, but it is becoming more and more obsolete in its purpose.

I went through a phase where I claimed I was atheist. In general it was because I was brainwashed liberally and thought smart people had to be athiest, liberal, freedom loving etc. But my opinions have changed and I see the world clearer. Religion at the moment is critically needed much more than before.

Strongly religious communities and societies are far better off than those with weak community and religious values. However I would also say that a strong community (with morals and values) is more important than religion - although I don't think you can have a community without religion.

I just want to see if you agree with this -

My arguments are based on my experiences of eastern religions especially dharmic religions - and so out opinions of the benefits and realities of religion are completely different from one another and until we can actually share our experiences or explain them it will nearly be impossible to argue against one another.

If you have a man who doesn't accept the supernatural

No. That is not the problem. The problem is with authority who abuse it. It's that simple. You are simply scapegoating religion. If there were no religions abusive authorities will find something else to use for their own deeds.

People's trust/faith in authority is what you are essentially arguing against. So the way to overcome that is to have no respect for authority - right? Then you get countries like America. No respect or care for anybody. It's not just authorities who are corrupt there - nearly everybody is corrupt. Atleast with religion the general public is good and some authorities are corrupt. In places like America - everybody is a little evil. And authorities still manage to abuse their powers even though it's constitution is against doing so. Think why.

Varna system did not encourage todays caste system. Todays caste system in many ways in contrary to the varna system.

It also instils dogma which can make cultures resistant to change for no good reason when their dogma is threatened.

This can be a bad thing. Looking at the muslim world for example, we can see how they're reacting to liberalism (the good sort, not the bad sort)

But right now I'm discussing Hinduism. Tell me something that was actually wrong with Hinduism? Before it was tainted by British Christians and even Muslims (though not as bad) Brits delibirately sought to destroy Indian culture, religion and education so it could conquer it. The flaws in hindu society you see today are as a direct result of British (and to the minor effect muslim) involvement. Find me flaws before Brits fucked India up - I can tell you there won't be many.

Secondly most examples you gave me was of how religion was used for other motives rather than religion doing evil itself. Guru's providing bonuses = conmen, where they're abusing people's trust. This happens all the time without religion, so putting religion in the blame is superficial. Fundamentalist movements tend to be politically, economically and culturally motivated alongside religion rather than due to religion.

You could argue that if there wasn't organised religion, then people's trust/fear/differences etc. could not be exploited. Think about Nazism.

99% of the evils people blame religion on tends to be usary and abuse of religion rather than religion itself.

My personal belief is that religion micromanages everything - especially in the way communities should be. When you have good communities you have a great country. That's my personal belief.

Firstly the current caste system is 'practised' by hindus, muslims, buddhists and christians.

Secondly the Varna system does not cause major social inequality.

So a caste system (which itself has been distorted into inequality, rigidity, divisive etc. by non-hindu influences) which is not followed simply by one religious group, isn't THAT MUCH different from social differences in other countries and could be applied to any society is a RELIGIOUS flaw?

hmmm....

I could go on forever but white people don't know shit on subjects such as this....

Like?

It's hard to explain because the benefits of religion - but I'd like you to tell me the bad things non-abrahimic religions have done. Preferably before the 16th century - but that choice is yours. =D

Endorsing the caste system in Hindu society for centuries which has caused major social inequality.

(Bells Chiming)

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Only point I have to argue. And the fact that it doesn't count as organised religion (I don't think)

Plus you missed out tons of good things, but I'm sure lawnman has a much better and detailed reply than I do.

Nope.

If it was a game of truth - then maybe.

But it's a game where the better con artist wins. And they spend enough money to erase the national debt.

There's better out there. Monarcys are just one. Feudal maybe. List goes on.