RE: thoughts on the power of religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

NorthernGent -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/3/2015 10:05:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

but on the plus side this is what makes us the innovative, flexible people we are.

And modest, too. [:)]

K.




Why not? We've achieved a lot over the years and still do.



MercTech -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/3/2015 2:17:00 PM)

Hmm, I seem to remember "Natural Religion" as one of the origin principles of secular humanism.

One thing to keep in mind when dealing with other religions is cultural memory. In the Middle East, a mention of the word "crusade" brings up an attempted genocide by European opportunists several times during the middle ages. Many of the people and most of the fanatics really do believe there is an agenda to take over and destroy their culture.



Lucylastic -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/3/2015 2:26:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

This ain't bloody cockades for cockneys. We aint the fuckin red cross here, we don't have no state religion you anglican anglos.




not for lack of want by some it seems



NorthernGent -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/3/2015 3:38:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Hmm, I seem to remember "Natural Religion" as one of the origin principles of secular humanism.

One thing to keep in mind when dealing with other religions is cultural memory. In the Middle East, a mention of the word "crusade" brings up an attempted genocide by European opportunists several times during the middle ages. Many of the people and most of the fanatics really do believe there is an agenda to take over and destroy their culture.


It's not that long ago that Europe was the poor relation, a comparatively backward continent in terms of wealth and ideas.

And, Britain had at least one war in Afghanistan during the 1800s, so that's at least 6 times we've thrown our weight about in that part of the world, and yet I'm struggling to recall a time when the shoe was on the other foot.

Any objective person hearing that would probably conclude that the muslim countries are not the aggressors in all of this and have a good right to he wary of Western intentions.



Kirata -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/3/2015 7:14:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

It's not that long ago that Europe was the poor relation, a comparatively backward continent in terms of wealth and ideas.

And, Britain had at least one war in Afghanistan during the 1800s, so that's at least 6 times we've thrown our weight about in that part of the world, and yet I'm struggling to recall a time when the shoe was on the other foot.

Any objective person hearing that would probably conclude that the muslim countries are not the aggressors in all of this and have a good right to he wary of Western intentions.

Granting that the Middle East has never posed much threat to Britain, the argument is less convincing when speaking of the West in general. The whining among Islamists about the Crusades neglects to mention that with few exceptions they were mounted in response to a period of Islamic conquest that at its height saw Muslim rule extend from Spain to India (see the interactive maps below).

The Birth of Islam
The Rise of Islam
Saracen Raids in the Mediterranean
The Crusades in the Holy Land

I am no fan of the British Empire or the more recent Western adventurism in the Middle East, but it is also true that the West has good reason to be wary of the spread of militant Islam.

K.




Nthrall -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 2:17:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nthrall

There is no value in being deluded.

If despite fully knowing that you cannot prove it to be true, you nevertheless choose to believe in something because of the positive effects of that belief on your conduct, relationships, health, well-being, and the joy you find in life, you are not deluded. You are neither misleading nor deceiving yourself. Come back when you learn English.

K.




Finally an argument of sorts. We can say that god is a delusion based on probability and desirability. It can't be all-powerful and all-knowing, its origins are unexplained, and there is no evidence for its existence. It's extremely unlikely that there is a god. Stories about god have it spying on us, murdering at whim and making us its slaves, so it is not desirable. But, as I said in my original post, people don't actually believe in this monster, but they do want to belong to tribes, and they cherry-pick their fantasies.

Having hopes or ambitions can have positive effects, but delusions cannot. Going to a job interview and saying "I believe I can get this job" can help, whereas saying "I believe I have got this job" won't help. Every positive effect attributed to a belief in god is attainable without the belief in god, and believing something as ridiculous as god is harmful. People who are brought up to believe the world was created in an instant, cannot grasp the time and processes that actually took place, they cannot grasp that meaning and purpose are man-made, and they think of morals as something external to themselves. You can defeat smallpox with cowpox innoculations, but god is a worse sickness than anything it is purported to cure.

The thread's op discussed the power of religion, and the discussion turned to which religion was least harmful. I indicated that I think the power of religion depends upon the size of its membership. After all, if just one person is hearing voices and being told what to do by an invisible being we think they're either lying or insane, but if thousands do... it's a religion. I also stated that all religions are harmful. I have given some reasons, but there are many, and some have been demonstrated by the rants and rudeness of the religious in this thread. Insults and noise are a defense of sorts, but they are not arguments.

I recommend Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. It is a scholarly work that does not try to prove that atheists are right and god is a delusion. Instead it examines the arguments with honesty, reason and great thoroughness. It concludes that atheists are right and god is a delusion, and I think you'll find (if you dare to look) that any work that reaches the opposite conclusion has fudged the arguments at some stage. Science tries to prove itself wrong (with logic and evidence), Religion tries to prove itself right (by any means).



Real0ne -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 9:00:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nthrall

I recommend Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. It is a scholarly work that does not try to prove that atheists are right and god is a delusion. Instead it examines the arguments with honesty, reason and great thoroughness. It concludes that atheists are right and god is a delusion, and I think you'll find (if you dare to look) that any work that reaches the opposite conclusion has fudged the arguments at some stage. Science tries to prove itself wrong (with logic and evidence), Religion tries to prove itself right (by any means).


You do not see the contradiction in that?




MercTech -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 9:03:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

It's not that long ago that Europe was the poor relation, a comparatively backward continent in terms of wealth and ideas.

And, Britain had at least one war in Afghanistan during the 1800s, so that's at least 6 times we've thrown our weight about in that part of the world, and yet I'm struggling to recall a time when the shoe was on the other foot.

Any objective person hearing that would probably conclude that the muslim countries are not the aggressors in all of this and have a good right to he wary of Western intentions.


A lot of my personal opinions of Middle Eastern peoples originates from some late night bull sessions in college. My freshman roommate was from Iran. He and several of his friends would hang out with me and some friends. Most of the fellows from Iran and Saudi Arabia were in a one year technical English school in preparation for university studies in the U.S. They got a chance to practice colloquial conversational English. We got a look at another culture that you don't get from history books. And learning to curse in Farsi.
It was interesting seeing history through a different lens. And, the resentment of European cultural intrusion was seen as a dangerous precursor for another crusade even in the 70s. This was before the mullahs took over Iran.
In a lot of ways, the Middle Eastern students I know remind me of some of the Southern Rednecks I know that "never forget, never forgive" the occupation of the southern states by federal troops. I have this sneaky suspicion that is the mentality driving ISS.



Kirata -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 9:07:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nthrall

I recommend Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. It is a scholarly work that does not try to prove that atheists are right and god is a delusion. Instead it examines the arguments with honesty, reason and great thoroughness. It concludes that atheists are right and god is a delusion, and I think you'll find (if you dare to look) that any work that reaches the opposite conclusion has fudged the arguments at some stage. Science tries to prove itself wrong (with logic and evidence), Religion tries to prove itself right (by any means).

It seems to me that a reasonable prerequisite to a discussion of religion is knowing something about the subject. If you only know something about one religion, that limits things considerably. You can't get very far trying to generalize from one religion to religion as a whole. If you don't even know much of anything about one religion, then you're Richard Dawkins.

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology... ~London Review of Books

The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking... ~New York Review of Books

K.



Real0ne -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 9:08:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Hmm, I seem to remember "Natural Religion" as one of the origin principles of secular humanism.




Sounds about right, would include atheists, which I believe the supreme court also takes notice of as well. (but does not directly spell it out necessarily.)



Real0ne -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 9:15:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

It's not that long ago that Europe was the poor relation, a comparatively backward continent in terms of wealth and ideas.

And, Britain had at least one war in Afghanistan during the 1800s, so that's at least 6 times we've thrown our weight about in that part of the world, and yet I'm struggling to recall a time when the shoe was on the other foot.

Any objective person hearing that would probably conclude that the muslim countries are not the aggressors in all of this and have a good right to he wary of Western intentions.


A lot of my personal opinions of Middle Eastern peoples originates from some late night bull sessions in college. My freshman roommate was from Iran. He and several of his friends would hang out with me and some friends. Most of the fellows from Iran and Saudi Arabia were in a one year technical English school in preparation for university studies in the U.S. They got a chance to practice colloquial conversational English. We got a look at another culture that you don't get from history books. And learning to curse in Farsi.
It was interesting seeing history through a different lens. And, the resentment of European cultural intrusion was seen as a dangerous precursor for another crusade even in the 70s. This was before the mullahs took over Iran.
In a lot of ways, the Middle Eastern students I know remind me of some of the Southern Rednecks I know that "never forget, never forgive" the occupation of the southern states by federal troops. I have this sneaky suspicion that is the mentality driving ISS.



Few enjoy having their culture destroyed by british now US and being governed by the "Rule of Commerce". Under the guise of the British "Right of Conquest" superseding civil proceedings and disposal of preexisting long established rights. (of the conquered) American Indians come to mind. While abolished on paper, stealthily thrives within the realm of forced contracts. Iraq and lets impose a democracy in our image comes to mind......for their own good.






Real0ne -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 11:34:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

Well, yes. They can. But they are not their primary elements. Water is not hydrogen or oxygen. It is water. A square is indeed a parallelogram, but a parallelogram is not a square, necessarily.



Thats a horrible analogy imo but I understand what you are driving at ;)

and I agree with this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

Religion is a thought process.



and disagree with this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

Not all thought processes are religion, as you are trying to suggest.



because I did not suggest that all thought processes are religion, but rather than to argue the gray areas limited it to the thought process respecting 'morals' that extended to self governance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

I'm not claiming to be connecting dots. I'm saying that yours are not connected.



You didnt express what points you believe are not connected so that remains undertermined.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

Ah, but we are not living in the 17th century. You DO know that English is a living language, yes?



Well...yes and no. Not in that people can legitimately change the use of preexisting words. Especially words that are very clear in their original meaning and intent.

I have no disagreement with the creation of new words, or use in different senses, in that respect I agree, to the living part of your statement.

However what has been and is being done as a matter of course is the use or more correctly the 'misuse' of words and destruction of the language for the support political and other agendas by changing preexisting definitions through the same misuse rather than any legitimate forms of syntactic or linguistic process. Worse is the abuse used by courts and attorneys that willfully defraud by misrepresenting the 'sense' a word is used by their opposition. You see this in brief all the time.

For instance lets tell the Crown of England prior to their ceding that they are taxpayers because nevada changed the word allodial to mean taxpayer despite its centuries long meaning is nontaxpayer. Anyone want to bet there would be a war? How about the word holocaust, which means complete burnt offering to to 'genocide'. This is trash language. Last one, how about your great grandfather had land and the language used proving it was his in 1700, changed to mean it really belonged to the state and converted it and your inheritance from tax free owner to a taxpaying rentor. That is exactly what happened to all lands in America btw, and its all in black ink on white paper, but I digress.

I believe this makes a very clear point that words have meaning and changing the meaning under the theory of 'living language' is inequitable on literally all levels.

So....that said it is impossible to know the meaning and 'intent' of the constitution for instance, which was written in the late 1700's without knowing the definitions of the words used at that same time. People in that time cannot predict how society will abuse words 100 years after they are written.

So applying todays abortion of the language to yesterdays (abortion) of the language will not result in understanding what was actually being conveyed without examining the meaning of the words as used in the same time period as the document or created theory etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

What matters for constitutional translation does not apply to contemporary conversation.



Your choice of the word 'conversation' which I believe you wish to use to signify informal communication and 'contemporary' which I believe you used to establish the boundaries within your lifetime or the present is fine and works as long as you are among people who are in agreement with you.

However as soon as someone disputes what is said the conversation legitimately imo turns to philosophy, metaphysics and theology etc which at that point would become a 'requirement' to sort out the disputed issues as opposed to the alternative route leaving everything hanging with no chance of resolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

Your point is a wonderful tidbit and insight, but it is not an open door to bring the meaning of the 18th century word into today's discussion. It has no current bearing.



Oh but as I have pointed out it would apply, the reason it would apply is (as shown above) the result of the meanings of the words used hundreds of years ago that by tradition or covenant or contract in the case of the constitution the word 'freedom which really means franchise' has a direct effect on our lives today as does the meaning of the word 'religion' and will continue to affect our lives into the future based on words constructed, written or contrived in the 18th century.

using the dictionary, most of them outside of 'ball-parking' do not provide any 'real' source to argue from without the need to fully research the etymology of each and every word used. You posted a dictionary definition:

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

re·li·gion
noun: religion
1b. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.



for religion as shown in your definition above 1b respects the definition of natural religion as I have posted from 1700's.


So just for giggles I googed 'Natural Religion" which ties every living conscious person into religion in which the contemporary dictionaries rather than being a service become a disservice promoting argument through their omission rather than peace and understanding, well here is the first thing that came up;

nat·u·ral re·li·gion
noun: natural religion
religion, especially deism, based on reason rather than divine revelation.

So its there if you already researched it and know the magic words to look for. The old dictionaries list all the variant word usages which is why I go back to the days before people had to pay college extortion racketeers to do it for us and issue sheep skins as receipts proving we paid our mob dues. Oops digressing again lol

My point being how useless the dictionaries are today. Had I not already knew the topic and the magic words they are not saying in the dictionaries of today through personal research I would have not known how to connect that dot, nor would I be able to discover it through the use of a contemporary dictionary without the need to actually research it.

so aside from method, it appears we may agree on the general premise and greater core constituent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

"Religion is a thought process. "



your turn






GotSteel -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 12:31:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Hmm, I seem to remember "Natural Religion" as one of the origin principles of secular humanism.


Do tell?



GotSteel -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 12:32:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nthrall
Finally an argument of sorts.


I don't believe you.



NorthernGent -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 1:00:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nthrall

I recommend Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. It is a scholarly work that does not try to prove that atheists are right and god is a delusion. Instead it examines the arguments with honesty, reason and great thoroughness. It concludes that atheists are right and god is a delusion, and I think you'll find (if you dare to look) that any work that reaches the opposite conclusion has fudged the arguments at some stage. Science tries to prove itself wrong (with logic and evidence), Religion tries to prove itself right (by any means).


Dawkins is a biologist by trade and so he is hardly an authority on religious matters any more than you or I.

Also, you may not be aware that Dawkins has paid to have slogans put on buses denouncing the belief in a God, and he appears on our television pleading with schoolchildren to not believe in 'a fantasy'. Hardly the actions of a reasonable human being.

Oh, and your interpretation of science doesn't tally with mine. Science, in my view, aims to understand the world and our place in it within the constraints of what we know, think we know and accept we don't know; meaning that not unlike religion it is open to being proven wide of the mark farther down the line.



PeonForHer -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 1:37:47 PM)

quote:


It seems to me that a reasonable prerequisite to a discussion of religion is knowing something about the subject. If you only know something about one religion, that limits things considerably. You can't get very far trying to generalize from one religion to religion as a whole.


To be fair, K, there isn't much to know about religions, given many atheistic or even agnostic standpoints of what constitutes 'knowledge'. To many of the aforementioned standpoints religions are just a lot of rationalisations that are like majestic-looking edifices built on swamps - or indeed edifices built on nothing at all.

I mean, personally, if I were to hear of a newly-discovered tribe in the Amazon, say, that worshipped leopards ... I'd be intrigued for reasons to do with psychology and culture - but in a major sense I wouldn't at bottom give a toss, because I'd take it for granted that said tribe has no plausible access to the 'truth' of anything more than the Christians or any other group of religionists. I'd just add it to the list of religions - for which read: widely-accepted and long-term-popular myths, that's all.



Kirata -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 3:24:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


It seems to me that a reasonable prerequisite to a discussion of religion is knowing something about the subject. If you only know something about one religion, that limits things considerably. You can't get very far trying to generalize from one religion to religion as a whole.

To be fair, K, there isn't much to know about religions, given many atheistic or even agnostic standpoints of what constitutes 'knowledge'. To many of the aforementioned standpoints religions are just a lot of rationalisations that are like majestic-looking edifices built on swamps - or indeed edifices built on nothing at all.

Well if you're going to start with the premise that your epistemology is the only correct one (thump!) then there is little to distinguish you from any $300 haircut on Sunday morning television.

K.



PeonForHer -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 3:35:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well if you're going to start with the premise that your epistemology is the only correct one (thump!) then there is little to distinguish you from any $300 haircut on Sunday morning television.



I think it's a case of 'there are lots of possibly correct epistemologies but religion can't be one of them - it doesn't even make the necessary effort to qualify', K.



Kirata -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 4:21:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well if you're going to start with the premise that your epistemology is the only correct one (thump!) then there is little to distinguish you from any $300 haircut on Sunday morning television.

I think it's a case of 'there are lots of possibly correct epistemologies but religion can't be one of them - it doesn't even make the necessary effort to qualify', K.

"It doesn't even make the necessary effort to qualify" (thump!) ...is that supposed to be an improvement over your previous response?

K.



PeonForHer -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/4/2015 4:23:27 PM)

I don't care, K. Whatever.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625