This service looks immensely useful, especially for smaller businesses without the capabilities required to manage their data-storage and back-up needs.
But still, I feel uneasy about the idea of having my data out of my immediate control in the long term, which is my primary qualm about the whole cloud-computing concept.
If you were to meet a stranger about the town in the morning, felt pity for him and so invited him into your home for breakfast, offering freely to him both welcome and refreshment. If you did these things, and he responded to your kindness by groping your wife and insulting your father, do you then invite him back into your home for dinner?
I think your definition of religion is more broad than mine is, and that is causing some problems. Based on your last paragraph, your second point seems to indicate that you would group something like the unitarians under the heading "religion." I exclude those, and only include those memetic organisms that are replicating (they spread from host to host through some sort of infection vector), include dogmatic constructs that are based on fiction, and assert (either implicity or explicitly) that those fictions are true.
Oh, certainly. I would class any interaction with or discussion of the divine (real or imagined, who can say?) to be religion, and any discussion of our origins to be religious speculation. The latter directly leads to the former, if not discarded as a negative discussion.
The only issue that I can see with your definition is that it is no bigger than your disapproval. If you define religion as (just) an infection, or any other archetypical negative thing, you're throwing away any claim to objective observation. You're already decided the morality of the issue.
As I have mentioned before, this is unfortunately the problem with simplistic religious beliefs; the unhealthy kind. Those people have already "decided" the morality of everything, and this makes them absolutely unbearable company. (I'm not saying that you have done this)
Without this supernatural aspect, you have something that is less a religion and more of a discussion club. I don't consider the local book of the month club a religion, but they have many of the trappings of one, including scheduled meetings and shared beliefs. If you would include them in your definition of religion, then yes I would concede that "religion" (by your definition) can do some good in the world. From my reading and experience, something like the unitarians is a lot closer to the book club and incredibly far from, say, a catholic mass.
Note that I don't remove the possibility of the supernatural from this example of healthy religion. Part of its purpose must be to collectively (or individually) understand how the discussion of origins/divinity can or does relate to the world as it is, with reference to personal experience. People sometimes have experiences which are beyond the scope of empiricism (i.e. something that happens only once, despite whatever attempts to the contrary). There needs to be some place to work them out without necessarily jumping to any conclusions. (Not that jumping to conclusions can realisticly be avoided in any setting)
Once this kind of discussion gets some history behind it and traditions, you can easily end up in a place that looks like catholic mass. But the place where it can go terribly wrong is when it begins to define Truth, which is something that no finite being is capable of achieving. (The idea of Truth as a short way of refering to an omniscient perspective.) That way leads to death and oppression and crusades and corruption.
Amusingly, Christianity has a clause which is very similar to this idea somewhere in the epistles. It works like this: before anything else, honour God and humanity as the most important things. Then there are two things that are wrong, the first is doing something that you believe to be wrong, the second is acting in a way that encourages someone else to do something that they believe to be wrong.
Now, to get back to the definition of religion I'm using, it is my belief that any time you have a replicating memetic organism that is based partially in fiction and asserts that fiction as fact (usually "Truth" with the capital T), misery becomes a naturally emergent property of that system.
While I question our ability to discern fiction from fact, as most things are factual to some extent, I agree with this.
The Assertion of Truth is the biggest problem with our society as a whole. The scientific method of "we did this n times and got this result, see if you can repeat it", is a lot safer, although it doesn't apply to everything.
While I disagree that religion itself (as per my definition) is the problem, I'm very interested in your model.
Nether atheists or theists are justified in being superior or smug. Neither are justified in their own superiority, so both are equally painful to listen to.
Theists are often louder and therefore worse, as you say in your texas example, but it does not justify a similar attitude in atheists.
A/theism is dealing with issues that cannot be observed, so neither party can claim righteousness.
While the problem isn't restricted only to religion, religion is the purest expression of the problem. Religious claims, examined objectively, are all based on supernaturalism. While the practical mechanical aspects of some religious beliefs (not eating shellfish for example) have obvious historical roots, the problem is that taking these actions for religious reasons takes the adaptability out of the system. By making the argument based on "Do this or God will fuck your shit up," religon creates memetic structures that end up doing a lot of harm in the long term.
I understand the problems that you have here. Again I agree with you. The "Do this or God will fuck your shit up," mentality is one of the issues associated with the progressive nature of religious understanding, and the potentially insane idea that everything in a religious text is directly applicable to life today (1). Therefore we have power-hungry people attracted to positions of power within religion, and people who don't want to think avoiding shellfish and pork for reasons that aren't even cultural. I suspect that we can agree that these things are unhealthy.
There is no truly healthy religion, because the entire idea behind it is to give up trying to figure things out and just do what you're told, persuaded not by any kind of logic, but by a supernatural explanation. This gives all the power to people who are simply making shit up as they go along, and who get it wrong more often than they get it right.
I suspect that your idea of religion is slightly misinformed. The statement that expresses the non-existance of healthy religion is premature, scientifically speaking.
Logic usually applies to supernatural events and explanations. It is slightly different to your logic, for example, because given belief in any kind of deity, the deity's actions need to be factored into consequent logic. It makes sense, really, although Occam's Razor usually applies.
However, I agree with you when you imply that religious heirarchy usually is more trouble than it's worth. Contempory "religion" could solve many of its problems if it moved away from that structure. It might also lose many of it's more nominal followers, and that might not be a bad thing.
I don't believe that religion has any place for people who refuse to think critically, because without this ability, we come into exactly the situation that you describe.
When I say that I have with your attitude, I mean this: your disdain doesn't promote critical thinking, it discourages it. That you're discouraging an idea that you disagree with at the same time is mostly irrelevant.
Maybe you're right, but there is only so much patience in the world. Watching people tell the same lies over and over again despite those lies having been debunked is incredibly tiresome. That people have set up this reinforcing feedback loop in order to perpetuate a bunch of bullshit myths, for no good reason other than to perpetuate a bunch of bullshit myths, is a tragedy. Especially when you start to understand that the people spreading the bullshit know they are liars, but can't face up to it and stop lying because everyone around them is also invested in the same set of lies.
Aside from the last sentence, I agree with you totally, and share your frustration. I don't think that it is always lies, or that all of the people who tell them know it; some people genuinely believe and are decent people despite the unwillingness to question themselves, some do not believe and are just attracted to power associated with being in a situation where people want you to think for them. It's usually a combination of the two.
There's unfortunately more to it than you stated: this negative feedback loop is not just internally reenforced, but externally, too. It creates a similar opposing structure outside of religion. It convinces some people that all
But that is the foundation of religion. No answers are forthcoming. There is no empirical reason to choose Christianity over Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism or any other belief system.
Healthy religion invites you into the discussion of what the answers might be. There is no empirical reason why to choose one discussion over another, and if your sense of wonder for existance fits with a particular discussion, you join in.
The parts of religion which involve telling people what to do are almost never anything to do with religion, but thinly disguised power-grabs. The problem is that it's easy to give answers to unsuspecting people, and modern religion provides too many opportunities for this.
Therefore, people typically accept the religion they were exposed to at home.
I have issues with this practice, for the reasons you stated. Modern implementations of religion, especially western religion is often on the whole, quite screwed up.
If there's no thinking involved, there's a good case to argue for an exploitative situation.
I'm not defending that, I would just like it recognised that your modern fundamentalist christianity, aside from mostly not being Christianity at all, is not a healthy example of religion.
However, despite their failings, mindless acceptance is not the way that all religion works, and not the way religion should work. Also note, that religion is not the only system where this bad habit takes place despite loftier goals.
People are unfortunately prone to this kind of disassociation and corruption. When you don't want to think anymore, you don't think anymore; other people are usually around to think for you, no matter the setting.
Today our problem is that we've seen enormous negative examples in the Catholic Church, and other less prevalent religions (especially in the light of history), and were incredibly embarrased to have been a part of it, post enlightenment. Now we collectively have an over-reactive aversion to religion as a whole, because of the mistakes of a few organisations.
I think this is excessive. An idea is not worthless because of someone's failed implementation.
This kind of attitude bothers me. Not because you call my belief in a deity into question; I'm okay with questioning myself.
Instead, your attitude towards religion reminds me strongly of the very same attitude that you are protesting. It's the smug superiority that irks me, whether in a theistic person or an atheistic one.
Despite the reactions of many misguided people, the ideal fields of religion and science do not really overlap. The problem is that these things have been made to appear in opposition of one another, regardless of reason. It's like we're all living out of a mindset brought on by the power-play by some (or some series of) religious (or irreligious) nut, and are entirelly unable to see past it.
I have no problem living out of a scientific world-view while retaining a belief in the divine. The first concerns itself with the observation of what is and the consequences of that, while the second concerns itself with how it ultimately came to be, and the consequences of that. The latter cannot be attacked with the scientific method, because we have no way to observe the origins of existence.
Religion is experiential speculation. It's not an inherently bad thing. The highest aspects of human culture can also be described in a similar manner. I mostly agree that it shouldn't be the only thing taught to children, or even that it's appropriate for religion to be institutionalised. We should teach our children in a manner that is balanced and reasonable: not one topic to the exclusion of another.
Religion isn't a mind cancer. The cancer is something in humanity which leads it to accept what it is told without question. Something that makes us hate on demand. It's something like the idea that curiosity is a bad thing, or that questioning ourselves is bad.
It's a bad thing when religion puts people in a position to be manipulated by others, sure, and that happens all too often. However, this isn't a problem restricted to religion; few of the problems people cite with reference to religion are limited to it, or even present in healthy examples of religious expression.
When I say that I have with your attitude, I mean this: your disdain doesn't promote critical thinking, it discourages it. That you're discouraging an idea that you disagree with at the same time is mostly irrelevant.
"Plants have been grown in essentially zero gravity and of course in Earth gravity, but never in fractions of gravity," said Dr. Volker Kern, Paragon's Director of NASA Human Spaceflight Programs who conducted plant growth experiments in space on the US Space Shuttle. "Scientifically it will be very interesting to understand the effects of the Moon and one sixth gravity on plant growth."
I'd be curious to see what kind of different plant structures emerge.
If Capitalism's purpose is Materialism, it does its job very well.
Ideally, Socialism and Communism have different goals. However, the problem is that we've rarely seen examples of these where the capitalistic mindset wasn't brought into play.
As a man who spends more time reading and other non-visual activities than any of the above, I question the validity of your stereotypes. (And I wish I knew girls who read; my female friends are all into television and other kinds of emotional porn)
It's easy to divide people into male and female, but personality doesn't necessarily divide down the convenient line.
H. neanderthalensis is not incompatible with any religion that I've had direct experience with.
Pseudo-religion and Science or pseudo-science and religion clash because of inappropriate applications, but I don't know any genuine, mindful (i.e. non-social) religious people who are unable to reconcile with these issues.
In factâ"the Falcon 9 burns a higher grade of kerosene (more environmentally friendly) than a 747 and burns only about half of what a single 747 flight does.
There's a reason why the religious community will never provide anything other than philosophical arguments; I'll attempt to explain it:
The problem is that "religion" and "science" deal with different matters. The first attempts to explain the origins of "what is", the second attempts to observe "what is". Their fields of scope never cross unless someone applies one or the other to an unsuited situation (re: X is impossible, therefore god).
Scientific data never actually interferes with theories about the origins of our universe because being unable to observe this, it is unable to comment. The scientific process works entirely in the now. We can make projections based on what we've observed, but we certainly cannot disprove or prove anything.
Interconnections aside, religion can be understood much like we understand history. There's annecdotal evidence to support it; plenty of people believe it; there's even bits and pieces that readily submit to experimental observation. However, if you want to pull out any conclusions, you need to act on faith.
And if your annecdotal evidence is first-hand, and survives the various tests of reason, why should you not believe?
Note: I am not suggesting that the theology of your average social Christian (the horror story) is sound or reasonable, just that rejecting the ideas that the Christian has improperly digested on the basis that they are unsound or unreasonable is a little premature.
Closed-mindedness is an ugly thing when coming from both theists and atheists.
The origin of our universe cannot be observed and therefore cannot be explained from any perspective, especially a scientific one, but we're a long way from not needing attempts to explain it.
I'm yet to see an example of working governmental democracy beyond the tribal scale.
No, more than that: I've never seen an example of this.
The weight of public opinion is a terrible thing, especially when it grows beyond names: it smothers the one while upholding another, and is always led by emotion.
The set of people in our society who are child-molestors includes people who are Priests. To imply that the profession has anything to do with it is logically unsound.
Note that religion wasn't a new thing when Christianity came into play; blaming any kind of cultural problem on the fact that people believe can be more absurd than the belief itself.
Belief concerns the things we cannot observe, and therefore supports the scientific world-view, although the issues that are subject to each are quite different.
Some people don't think, and make stupid choices, especially under the influence of aggressive cultures: this is not a result of religion (although religion is often present), but a direct result of certain kinds* of people coming into any form of power.
*Maybe all of us would be capable of the incredibly destructive uses of society-systems that we have observed in the past; it is impossible to say, because we do not have enough examples.
I don't think it's a matter of saying something is okay or not here. By refusing to make moral judgement upon people, I am doing neither. I make no statement about whether I approve or not.
Further, I am not suggesting that criticism is a problem. Moral judgement has other connotations: some of them appear to be primal (or some such); some of them are just simplistic. You can see similar on the 6:30 news, invited into the minds of our respective populations.
I'm not talking about ignoring destructive behaviour. Personally, I intend to do whatever I am able to do in order to prevent some of the things that go on in this world, but I am unable to reconcile with social manipulation, no matter the cause.
A couple of reasons:
There doesn't appear to be any rational reason to attribute evil to anyone, it's just a way to bind your emotion to your argument. The problem with this is that emotion doesn't even pretend to be objective. It is not a place from which to stand when offering "justice".
Maniacs are not less than human; if you want to, you can disassociate by labelling them as evil, or bad, or some other less-than, but you're contributing as much of a problem as you are trying to avoid.
Unfortunately, Americans are so spoiled and our memories are so short, that we think there are no bad guys in the world.
This is a fairly common mindset, but it seriously contradicts the nominally scientific, objective and reasonable worldview that we idealise.
There can be no such thing as a bad guy: value-judgements are almost always out of place in conventional language, and this kind of (unconscious) hate-mongering seriously contributes to war and other cultual conflict.
You disagree with them? Sure. They're bad? Unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently the leaked film, Wolverine was news. Looks like Fox and Murdoch just aren't into that these days.
I recall a time when the impartiality of the press was something to be admired, at least idealistically. I guess not so much anymore.
This service looks immensely useful, especially for smaller businesses without the capabilities required to manage their data-storage and back-up needs.
But still, I feel uneasy about the idea of having my data out of my immediate control in the long term, which is my primary qualm about the whole cloud-computing concept.
If you were to meet a stranger about the town in the morning, felt pity for him and so invited him into your home for breakfast, offering freely to him both welcome and refreshment. If you did these things, and he responded to your kindness by groping your wife and insulting your father, do you then invite him back into your home for dinner?
Oh, certainly. I would class any interaction with or discussion of the divine (real or imagined, who can say?) to be religion, and any discussion of our origins to be religious speculation. The latter directly leads to the former, if not discarded as a negative discussion.
The only issue that I can see with your definition is that it is no bigger than your disapproval. If you define religion as (just) an infection, or any other archetypical negative thing, you're throwing away any claim to objective observation. You're already decided the morality of the issue.
As I have mentioned before, this is unfortunately the problem with simplistic religious beliefs; the unhealthy kind. Those people have already "decided" the morality of everything, and this makes them absolutely unbearable company. (I'm not saying that you have done this)
Note that I don't remove the possibility of the supernatural from this example of healthy religion. Part of its purpose must be to collectively (or individually) understand how the discussion of origins/divinity can or does relate to the world as it is, with reference to personal experience. People sometimes have experiences which are beyond the scope of empiricism (i.e. something that happens only once, despite whatever attempts to the contrary). There needs to be some place to work them out without necessarily jumping to any conclusions. (Not that jumping to conclusions can realisticly be avoided in any setting)
Once this kind of discussion gets some history behind it and traditions, you can easily end up in a place that looks like catholic mass. But the place where it can go terribly wrong is when it begins to define Truth, which is something that no finite being is capable of achieving. (The idea of Truth as a short way of refering to an omniscient perspective.) That way leads to death and oppression and crusades and corruption.
Amusingly, Christianity has a clause which is very similar to this idea somewhere in the epistles. It works like this: before anything else, honour God and humanity as the most important things. Then there are two things that are wrong, the first is doing something that you believe to be wrong, the second is acting in a way that encourages someone else to do something that they believe to be wrong.
While I question our ability to discern fiction from fact, as most things are factual to some extent, I agree with this.
The Assertion of Truth is the biggest problem with our society as a whole. The scientific method of "we did this n times and got this result, see if you can repeat it", is a lot safer, although it doesn't apply to everything.
While I disagree that religion itself (as per my definition) is the problem, I'm very interested in your model.
I can explain a little of what he was getting at:
Nether atheists or theists are justified in being superior or smug. Neither are justified in their own superiority, so both are equally painful to listen to.
Theists are often louder and therefore worse, as you say in your texas example, but it does not justify a similar attitude in atheists.
A/theism is dealing with issues that cannot be observed, so neither party can claim righteousness.
I understand the problems that you have here. Again I agree with you. The "Do this or God will fuck your shit up," mentality is one of the issues associated with the progressive nature of religious understanding, and the potentially insane idea that everything in a religious text is directly applicable to life today (1). Therefore we have power-hungry people attracted to positions of power within religion, and people who don't want to think avoiding shellfish and pork for reasons that aren't even cultural. I suspect that we can agree that these things are unhealthy.
I suspect that your idea of religion is slightly misinformed. The statement that expresses the non-existance of healthy religion is premature, scientifically speaking.
Logic usually applies to supernatural events and explanations. It is slightly different to your logic, for example, because given belief in any kind of deity, the deity's actions need to be factored into consequent logic. It makes sense, really, although Occam's Razor usually applies.
However, I agree with you when you imply that religious heirarchy usually is more trouble than it's worth. Contempory "religion" could solve many of its problems if it moved away from that structure. It might also lose many of it's more nominal followers, and that might not be a bad thing.
I don't believe that religion has any place for people who refuse to think critically, because without this ability, we come into exactly the situation that you describe.
Aside from the last sentence, I agree with you totally, and share your frustration. I don't think that it is always lies, or that all of the people who tell them know it; some people genuinely believe and are decent people despite the unwillingness to question themselves, some do not believe and are just attracted to power associated with being in a situation where people want you to think for them. It's usually a combination of the two.
There's unfortunately more to it than you stated: this negative feedback loop is not just internally reenforced, but externally, too. It creates a similar opposing structure outside of religion. It convinces some people that all
Healthy religion invites you into the discussion of what the answers might be. There is no empirical reason why to choose one discussion over another, and if your sense of wonder for existance fits with a particular discussion, you join in.
The parts of religion which involve telling people what to do are almost never anything to do with religion, but thinly disguised power-grabs. The problem is that it's easy to give answers to unsuspecting people, and modern religion provides too many opportunities for this.
I have issues with this practice, for the reasons you stated. Modern implementations of religion, especially western religion is often on the whole, quite screwed up.
If there's no thinking involved, there's a good case to argue for an exploitative situation.
I'm not defending that, I would just like it recognised that your modern fundamentalist christianity, aside from mostly not being Christianity at all, is not a healthy example of religion.
However, despite their failings, mindless acceptance is not the way that all religion works, and not the way religion should work. Also note, that religion is not the only system where this bad habit takes place despite loftier goals.
People are unfortunately prone to this kind of disassociation and corruption. When you don't want to think anymore, you don't think anymore; other people are usually around to think for you, no matter the setting.
Today our problem is that we've seen enormous negative examples in the Catholic Church, and other less prevalent religions (especially in the light of history), and were incredibly embarrased to have been a part of it, post enlightenment. Now we collectively have an over-reactive aversion to religion as a whole, because of the mistakes of a few organisations.
I think this is excessive. An idea is not worthless because of someone's failed implementation.
This kind of attitude bothers me. Not because you call my belief in a deity into question; I'm okay with questioning myself.
Instead, your attitude towards religion reminds me strongly of the very same attitude that you are protesting. It's the smug superiority that irks me, whether in a theistic person or an atheistic one.
Despite the reactions of many misguided people, the ideal fields of religion and science do not really overlap. The problem is that these things have been made to appear in opposition of one another, regardless of reason. It's like we're all living out of a mindset brought on by the power-play by some (or some series of) religious (or irreligious) nut, and are entirelly unable to see past it.
I have no problem living out of a scientific world-view while retaining a belief in the divine. The first concerns itself with the observation of what is and the consequences of that, while the second concerns itself with how it ultimately came to be, and the consequences of that. The latter cannot be attacked with the scientific method, because we have no way to observe the origins of existence.
Religion is experiential speculation. It's not an inherently bad thing. The highest aspects of human culture can also be described in a similar manner. I mostly agree that it shouldn't be the only thing taught to children, or even that it's appropriate for religion to be institutionalised. We should teach our children in a manner that is balanced and reasonable: not one topic to the exclusion of another.
Religion isn't a mind cancer. The cancer is something in humanity which leads it to accept what it is told without question. Something that makes us hate on demand. It's something like the idea that curiosity is a bad thing, or that questioning ourselves is bad.
It's a bad thing when religion puts people in a position to be manipulated by others, sure, and that happens all too often. However, this isn't a problem restricted to religion; few of the problems people cite with reference to religion are limited to it, or even present in healthy examples of religious expression.
When I say that I have with your attitude, I mean this: your disdain doesn't promote critical thinking, it discourages it. That you're discouraging an idea that you disagree with at the same time is mostly irrelevant.
From TFA:
I'd be curious to see what kind of different plant structures emerge.
Sounds like an evil cat to me. And do you really want an evil cat playing with your children?
The question is that of an end.
If Capitalism's purpose is Materialism, it does its job very well.
Ideally, Socialism and Communism have different goals. However, the problem is that we've rarely seen examples of these where the capitalistic mindset wasn't brought into play.
The OP is not stealing, or being a pirate or whatnot. It's certainly copyright infringement, and possibly plagiarism.
A handy guide:
http://www.filesavr.com/i/piracy.png
As a man who spends more time reading and other non-visual activities than any of the above, I question the validity of your stereotypes. (And I wish I knew girls who read; my female friends are all into television and other kinds of emotional porn)
It's easy to divide people into male and female, but personality doesn't necessarily divide down the convenient line.
I suspect that A, B and C are true of the media themselves.
The power of mass communication is an incredibly dangerous thing that we have treated far too lightly. Television scares me.
H. neanderthalensis is not incompatible with any religion that I've had direct experience with.
Pseudo-religion and Science or pseudo-science and religion clash because of inappropriate applications, but I don't know any genuine, mindful (i.e. non-social) religious people who are unable to reconcile with these issues.
All at once?
I agree. Autralia is a much cooler name.
Exactly. Try not to confuse words of observation with words of moral judgement.
The broken glass will probably cut you.
There's a reason why the religious community will never provide anything other than philosophical arguments; I'll attempt to explain it:
The problem is that "religion" and "science" deal with different matters. The first attempts to explain the origins of "what is", the second attempts to observe "what is". Their fields of scope never cross unless someone applies one or the other to an unsuited situation (re: X is impossible, therefore god).
Scientific data never actually interferes with theories about the origins of our universe because being unable to observe this, it is unable to comment. The scientific process works entirely in the now. We can make projections based on what we've observed, but we certainly cannot disprove or prove anything.
Interconnections aside, religion can be understood much like we understand history. There's annecdotal evidence to support it; plenty of people believe it; there's even bits and pieces that readily submit to experimental observation. However, if you want to pull out any conclusions, you need to act on faith.
And if your annecdotal evidence is first-hand, and survives the various tests of reason, why should you not believe?
Note: I am not suggesting that the theology of your average social Christian (the horror story) is sound or reasonable, just that rejecting the ideas that the Christian has improperly digested on the basis that they are unsound or unreasonable is a little premature.
Closed-mindedness is an ugly thing when coming from both theists and atheists.
The origin of our universe cannot be observed and therefore cannot be explained from any perspective, especially a scientific one, but we're a long way from not needing attempts to explain it.
Name something. Chances are that you're wrong.
Outside of the laws of physics & their consequences, most things are up for grabs.
I'm yet to see an example of working governmental democracy beyond the tribal scale.
No, more than that: I've never seen an example of this.
The weight of public opinion is a terrible thing, especially when it grows beyond names: it smothers the one while upholding another, and is always led by emotion.
The set of people in our society who are child-molestors includes people who are Priests. To imply that the profession has anything to do with it is logically unsound.
Note that religion wasn't a new thing when Christianity came into play; blaming any kind of cultural problem on the fact that people believe can be more absurd than the belief itself.
Belief concerns the things we cannot observe, and therefore supports the scientific world-view, although the issues that are subject to each are quite different.
Some people don't think, and make stupid choices, especially under the influence of aggressive cultures: this is not a result of religion (although religion is often present), but a direct result of certain kinds* of people coming into any form of power.
*Maybe all of us would be capable of the incredibly destructive uses of society-systems that we have observed in the past; it is impossible to say, because we do not have enough examples.
I don't think it's a matter of saying something is okay or not here. By refusing to make moral judgement upon people, I am doing neither. I make no statement about whether I approve or not.
Further, I am not suggesting that criticism is a problem. Moral judgement has other connotations: some of them appear to be primal (or some such); some of them are just simplistic. You can see similar on the 6:30 news, invited into the minds of our respective populations.
I'm not talking about ignoring destructive behaviour. Personally, I intend to do whatever I am able to do in order to prevent some of the things that go on in this world, but I am unable to reconcile with social manipulation, no matter the cause.
A couple of reasons:
There doesn't appear to be any rational reason to attribute evil to anyone, it's just a way to bind your emotion to your argument. The problem with this is that emotion doesn't even pretend to be objective. It is not a place from which to stand when offering "justice".
Maniacs are not less than human; if you want to, you can disassociate by labelling them as evil, or bad, or some other less-than, but you're contributing as much of a problem as you are trying to avoid.
Note: Probably just nit-picking.
This is a fairly common mindset, but it seriously contradicts the nominally scientific, objective and reasonable worldview that we idealise.
There can be no such thing as a bad guy: value-judgements are almost always out of place in conventional language, and this kind of (unconscious) hate-mongering seriously contributes to war and other cultual conflict.
You disagree with them? Sure. They're bad? Unlikely.