How do you rank religion?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: How do you rank religion?

#61  Postby Fallible » Feb 04, 2017 12:48 pm

...
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49842
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How do you rank religion?

#62  Postby Sendraks » Feb 04, 2017 1:28 pm

Mazille wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:I rank religion as probably the leading cause of human conflict and suffering.

*one of the leading excuses for


In the end it's because we're monkeys in shoes and like to fling shit and take what others have.


Ah but monkeys are chiefly co-operative and collaborative.
It is religion that preaches division.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15149
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#63  Postby Pebble » Feb 04, 2017 2:10 pm

solazy wrote:[Why don't Christians just repent and kill themselves.
The only truth ever needed will still be there in the Bible.
It suggests that the only true Christians were those who repented then engaged in suicide.


Got that wrong, first you kill yourself, then you repent - otherwise you die 'in sin'. So all you need is s slow acting, irreversible poison, so that you have time to repent.
Pebble
 
Posts: 2812

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#64  Postby Stein » Feb 08, 2017 9:11 am

solazy wrote:Eliminating the idea that we are biased towards one religion or another because we are all indoctrinated before we reach the age of reason, then how would you rank religion from the most to least toxic?
I am getting increasing irritated by the JW's.
Recently, two of them approached me while walking and minding my own business in the park. Last week on a visit to Leamington Spa they even had a tent up outside the library and art gallery and opposite the gardens. They sure know where to attract most attention and had a prominent sign inviting a visit to JW.com.
Next I would put Muslims of any sect. Least, probably the Catholics, despite their bloody history.

I single out Enmetena (Enlil), Moses (Yahweh), Gotama (Brahma), Socrates (Nous) and Jesus (Yahweh) as the ones who seem most plausibly to have been impacted by a genuine deitic encounter (GDE) of some kind for various reasons summarised below. One thing to keep in mind through all this is that it is still possible that the uniform historical symbiosis of counter-cultural brands of empathy alongside counter-cultural brands of theism is due to mechanisms lodged wholly in the frontal cortex without any engagement in external factors. But there are some problems with that involving both the documented way in which the frontal cortex appears to respond to demonstrably external stimuli in other respects, as well as the demonstrable fact that a lifestyle of empathy really does seem to interact with the realities of the outside world much more efficiently. In other words, there does appear to be a productive negotiation of some sort being transacted here with external facts on the ground in the empathy end of the spectrum, making it awkward -- though still not impossible -- to suppose that the identical processes connecting counter-cultural brands of theism are somehow purely internal to the human organism instead. It's simply more logical, considering the consistency of this pattern, that counter-cultural theisms also interact with something external.

Of course, only proper scientists can really unravel this knot. And while I'm happy that biology researchers like Wilson & Wilson, both atheists, are finally giving proper scrutiny of group selection a start (long story), I'm unhappy at the very real probability that I'll be long dead before the fruits of this research percolate to the general public. You see, there are already ways -- authentic peer-reviewed scientific ways -- in which the line of inquiry found in today's Wilson & Wilson studies can readily coordinate with much in the standard evolutionary model as found in basic works of today like Kuschner's and so on. It may result in showing that these anthropological patterns I've been banging on about for years are interacting strictly with internal processes in the human organism only. Or it may show precisely the opposite. But the thing is, I'm simply not equipped to articulate all these issues cogently, issues already fully recognized by some of today's professional scientists as I write this, and I never will be.

All I can do is study historical chronicles. My father was a professional historian, and although I took one of his classes, I would not begin to term myself a professional historian at all. Still, I picked up a few good habits (I hope), and I'm better equipped at that than science. (If it comes to that, I'm probably better equipped at some rudimentary form of anthropology as well.)

The 13 candidates

In weighing the 13 different founders and whether or not they may have had GDEs (genuine deitic encounters), I pose five basic questions:

A) Do we have relatively early accounts that the most skeptical scholars would place no later than three centuries or so, if that, from the time they actually lived?

B) Did these founders introduce brand new ethics paradigms that exerted a maximum culture-changing effect on entire cultures thousands of years later?

C) Did they introduce brand new ethics paradigms that seemed wholly taken up with some basic empathy/compassion for others?

D) Does the account of their personal lives suggest they really did _walk_ their elevated and pioneering empathy-in-ethics talk 24/7, once they had their GDE?

E) Is it possible to pinpoint both the moment of and also the chief triggering revelation in their GDE?

1. Getting down to cases, The Rigveda is the earliest Hindu religious text -- the bulk of it from the mid-second-millennium b.c.e. It's a series of devotional poems. Author unknown, but a certain Lord Krishna of the late fourth millennium b.c.e. is sometimes reckoned the immediate inspirer of the traditions reflected in the poems. One highly symbolic account of Krishna's life can be found in a much later text, the tenth Canto of the S'rimad Bhagavatam, from the early Mediaeval period, although his story first appears in much sketchier form in the Mahabharata, ca. the middle centuries of the 1st millennium b.c.e. Like many a founder in many a belief tradition stretching back ages, there are countless questions concerning how much of what we read of this figure can be taken at face value. While I don't take all the stories as being history -- since it's clear that highly symbolic myth is also involved -- the actual names of those human players who impact on an entire community might still be partly historical. So I'm ready to accept the possibility that someone like Krishna really played some kind of foundational role ca. 3100 B.C.E., even though the events that swirled around his assuming that role were very likely different from those described in the first-millennium-b.c.e Mahabharata (where the Bhagavad-gita is also found) and elsewhere. Essentially, the Hindu tradition, the oldest tradition still practiced by millions around the world, appears to have been partly inspired by Krishna, and one important detail may possibly be historical: The love Krishna inspired may have been partly due to his having reportedly replaced a vicious tyrant (called Kamsa in Indian tradition). In other words, read this way, Krishna brought freedom to his people. Ironically, in the tenth and last book of the Rigveda, the Purusha Sukta became a Scriptural justification for the noxious caste system! So we see right here a clear example in which an early scriptural text has adversely impacted a creed to its ethical detriment. In addition, the earliest direct description of this creed's founder is a couple of thousand years later than the time he lived, so we may not be on very solid ground in establishing the status of his ethical probity. Given all this, the integrity of this creed, with all its textual imponderables, could be somewhat nebulous, while the stance of its founder is only preserved thousands of years later. This creed, then, falls short on parameters A, D and E.

2. The earliest extant example of caring for the vulnerable among us comes from the third millennium B.C.E. in ancient Sumeria. Enmetena, the pioneering lawgiver and first (known) social and religious reformer in our modern sense, is the first to couple a concern with those unjustly (and/or inadvertently) prey to the powerful and better-off with a solemn claim that his own god, Enlil, mandates that he care for the vulnerable and free the enslaved before all else. In fact, the impact of his god, Enlil, appears to have been so profound that he was the first in history to build an Enlil temple. His understanding of Enlil as standing with the vulnerable marks a distinct break with the prior understanding of deity as a safeguard for the mighty instead. It is probably the first instance of someone making any such connection at all. Some scholars today view Enmetena as the precursor for the 2nd-millennium-B.C.E. laws of Hammurrabi and Moses. Not only is Enmetena the first known human being to introduce the concept of "freedom" ("Amagi"), his reforms also include radical measures aimed at relieving families of crushing debts. A text preserving his reforms is found on a Sumerian clay tablet of the third millennium b.c.e. It would appear that the textual record for Enmetena is somewhat more reliable than that for Krishna. Given all this, we're probably on solid ground in viewing Enmetena as checking off on all five parameters.

3. The Ten Commandments remains of incalculable importance to the history of jurisprudence. Whether assembled in its final form by Judaic writers in the first millennium B.C.E. or by Moses himself in c.1200 b.c.e., the achievement itself is significant enough for its author to be included in a survey like this. The only human name associated with this code is Moses, and although the Pentateuch or Torah describes Moses's death, much of the rest of its narrative is traditionally ascribed to Moses. Be that as it may, and however we take the Torah, it remains a superb literary achievement. If Moses was indeed the author of most of it, that is yet another reason to include Moses in this survey of human giants. Finally, of course, he is a foundational figure in Judaism, so his contribution is as much bound in with the spiritual as with the judicial. The earliest stratum of text in both Exodus and the Torah as a whole is generally taken to be the so-called J passages, distinguished chiefly by the term(s) applied to deity. The J passages in Exodus deal with certain aspects of Moses' story, but not all. The E passages -- the next-oldest layer -- provide the full text of the Ten Commandments, for instance. What emerges from these passages, preserved in a collection of books roughly three hundred years after the best "guesstimate" of Moses' dates, is a man who does understand what injustice is, but who, as a youth, is not above killing someone: Horrified by an Egyptian slave-driver's wanton cruelty, he kills him in hot blood out of a sheer sense of outrage. Since this episode is right there in a J passage, we can only infer that this episode was associated with him from the earliest days of the Judaic tradition. What's striking, though, is just how ethically rigorous he is with himself, once he has his revelation. That revelation folds in a personal declaration to Moses from Yahweh, and in a J passage, that the cries of the afflicted are heard by the divine. The written record seems to show that once Moses has his revelation, everything about him checks off on all five parameters.

4. Wen Wang is generally assumed to be the writer of the I Ching, of the 12th century b.c.e., a set of Chinese aphorisms, primarily significant for having introduced the concept of yin and yang and for having helped cement the usage of the term Tian for both heaven and deity interchangeably. There are some vague indications that the I Ching may have been written in prison, although a few scholars have doubted that. Beyond that, the I Ching continued to shape Chinese sensibilities some thousands of years after it was written. Of Wen Wang himself, not much is known beyond his authorship of the I Ching. Thus, this creed falls short on parameters D and E.

5. It's Hesiod, from the eighth century b.c.e., who presents the classic "picture" of the early cosmos as conceived in ancient Greek tradition, his Theogony. In addition to the centrality of his Theogony, Hesiod, according to one account, directly influences the Constitution of Orchomenus, whose designers view him as "hearth-founder". He may thus be the earliest extant designer of a government Constitution who is known by name. But another account places the Constitution of Orchomenus as post-Hesiod, the term "hearth-founder" referencing the place for his ashes instead. Beyond that, his biography is shrouded in uncertainty. This creed falls short on D and E.

6. Zarathustra is an even more shadowy figure. We know he was probably responsible for composing the Gathas central to his creed. But beyond that, scholars are not even sure of his dates, which could range anywhere from the 6th century b.c.e. back to the 12th b.c.e.! Thus, this creed falls short on A, D and E.

7. Matters are practically as murky for Daoism, in which the chief text, the Tao-te-king, is sometimes ascribed to a certain Lao-tze and sometimes not. Here, then, we have a case in which even if there were detailed information on a "founder" (and in Lao-tze's case there isn't), we can't even be sure that that's where the creed is really "coming from". The dates for this figure range widely, from the 6th century b.c.e. to the fourth or possibly even later. So this creed falls short on A, D and E.

8. Prince Siddhartha Gautama was called Buddha by his followers -- ca. 560 - 480 b.c.e. -- and is the founder of Buddhism, which partly inherits from Brahma worship. The number of Buddhist texts are endless. The earliest collection is the Tripitaka in the Pali language. In that collection is a book of sermons, the Digha-Nikaya, that is usually viewed as the earliest and directest record we have of Buddha's own "voice". What sets Buddha apart from his contemporaries is his utter repudiation of any violence, plus the apparent complexity of some of his thoughts. He rejects the caste system altogether. He also is the introducer (for his culture) of the idea that "(from time to time) a Tath¤gata is born into the world, an Arahat, a fully awakened one ... with knowledge of the worlds ... a Buddha. He, by himself, thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this universe -- including the worlds above with the gods, the M¤ras, and the Brahm¤s". "[A fully awakened one] lets his mind pervade one quarter of the world with thoughts of Love, and so the second, and so the third, and so the fourth. And thus the whole wide world, above, below, around, and everywhere, does he continue to pervade with heart of Love, far-reaching, grown great, and beyond measure". Even the most non-apologetic accounts appear to validate his personal probity and genuinely peaceful ways 24/7. The earliest accounts of this man's reflections (in the Digha-Nikaya) seem no later than a couple of centuries, if that, from Buddha's lifetime. So he also checks off on all five parameters.

9. Confucius's world was politics. He came up in a particularly violent time -- c. 551-479 B.C.E. -- and there may have been moments, especially toward the end of his life, when he may have thought his lifelong efforts at reining in the arrogance and violence of those in power whom he met were pointless. But after his death, there was a remarkable resurgence of interest in the reciprocal and considerate way of public life that he had espoused. Confucianism thus arose despite the attempts of some to destroy Confucian texts after his death. The earliest text reflecting his thoughts is now taken to be Chapters 4 through 8 of the Analects, emerging two centuries at most from the time he lived. Considered China's greatest philosopher, as well as a rallying point for political reform, his example may have partly helped foster one of the most stable cultures that humanity has yet seen, starting with the Han dynasty. As with Moses, Confucius's stature as effectively the founder of Confucianism ties him in with a tradition that is as much involved with the spiritual as with the secular, although, unlike Moses, the secular component in Confucius involves the political more than the judicial. No accounts ever question his rigorous consistency and integrity in walking his talk at all times. However, he himself is careful to distinguish between a "worthy" and a "sage". For him, a "worthy" is one who is almost perfect, who will "listen widely, select the good and follow their ways". But a "sage" is divinely inspired. Confucius is rigorous in describing himself: "I observe broadly and contemplate. This is the second level of knowledge." So he does not check off on parameters D and E.

10. Philosophy itself has sometimes been described (hyperbolically, of course) as "footnotes to Plato". But there would probably have been no Plato at all without Socrates -- 470 - 399 b.c.e. If we're talking of ethics, if we're talking of self-knowledge, if we're talking of right and wrong, if we're talking of the very nature of reality itself, it seems impossible to discuss any of these things without either Socrates or Plato eventually coming up. Socrates is the godfather of the Peripatetic school, and Plato and Aristotle's influence, huge as it has been, owes its (sometimes "Puck-ish") spirit of inquiry to the endless teasing, sometimes in jest and sometimes in deadly earnest, that Socrates initiated 2,500 years ago. That is a loooooooooong time, and for a solitary eccentric to remain a household word for all that time may be a unique accomplishment in and of itself. Most scholars assume that the texts that come closest to Socrates' "voice" are probably Plato's earliest dialogues, when Plato was not yet using Socrates routinely as a mouthpiece for his own ideas. Among those earliest dialogues are the Apology and the Crito, written scarcely a generation after Socrates' death (very possibly sooner), which are usually taken as about the closest we can hope to get at grasping what happened during and immediately after Socrates's trial. The Apology purports to be a direct representation of Socrates's own defense on the very day he was condemned. Another possible source, and one that differs from the Apology and the Crito in various ways, is the account of the trial from Xenophon. No serious account of this man seems to throw doubt on his having had tremendous personal integrity at all times, however irritating he may have sometimes been to others. And his experience of the divine, the voice that he habitually heard from childhood on, indicates an experience of the divine that is extremely intense and close. Some scholars relate that to a Greek philosophical concept of the divine Nous, others to the god Zeus. Like Figures #s 2, 3 and 8, Socrates too checks off on all five parameters.

11. Service/living for others was spotlighted by Jesus -- 4 b.c.e. - 30 c.e. -- more than by anyone else -- even one's enemies were to be loved. Called Christ by followers, his impact led to the founding of Christianity. He also changed the way years are reckoned. Scholars take the three Synoptic Gospels, Mark, Matthew and Luke, as the earliest texts relating to his life, coming approximately a generation after he died. Written from a strongly devotional point of view, they contrast with the somewhat more noncommittal Josephus, whose recollections include two references to a Christ: one that may reflect later tampering -- the form we have it in and a quote of it in Arabic diverge -- and another that refers to Jesus's brother James, and that one seems better confirmed by a less divergent and much earlier quote elsewhere. In the three Synoptics, while Mark seems the earliest, there appear to be fragments of an even earlier sayings tradition, sometimes termed "Q", embedded in Matthew and Luke. Jesus's Sermon on the Mount/Plain seems largely drawn from the earliest "Q" material. This earliest material also appears to confirm that Jesus Christ personally claims the god Yahweh as "my father" (though in what way is unspecified), definitely offering others a direct inheritance from him as he claims direct inheritance from Yahweh. Since this personal claim of his appears in the very earliest textual strata, one must conclude that his experiential claim for closeness with the divine is as intense and close as Buddha's or Socrates'. Like those others, then, this one too appears to check off on all five parameters.

12. Mohammed -- 570 - 632 -- prophet and founder of Islam, the most recent faith tradition to be adopted by millions, was an extremely influential political and military leader. Reckoned the author of the Koran, he, like Buddha, advances the idea of recurrent sages with special wisdom, although Islamic tradition characterizes them specifically as "prophets of God". Mohammed starts as a simple believer and propounder of a new creed, claiming divine revelation as the source of the Koran. But when family members are threatened, he withdraws to Medina, where he becomes a military chieftain. He establishes the unprecedented Constitution of Medina, the first explicitly pluralist statutes for universal religious freedom. But rough raids by his followers immediately outside Medina offset both the Medina Constitution and a number of uncommon acts of kindness on his part. His is a checkered odyssey, ethically, until he becomes the chief peacemaker of his time. Before then, he even agrees, at one point, to one lowly soldier's request that all the defeated prisoners in a victorious battle at Qurayza(sp.?) be summarily executed! He also partakes in the prevailing tradition of taking child brides. At the same time, his followers bridle at his welcoming women in his official Cabinet. He eventually journeys back to Mecca to talk with his biggest enemies, journeying there with no weapons, successfully starting a peace process involving all the area's feuding tribes. But soon after his death, strife resumes, even though the pluralist idea of many "prophets of God" does bear fruit in tolerant places like Andalusian Spain in the Middle Ages. This man certainly makes himself some enemies in his lifetime, although it is surprising just how many of them later become friends once he initiates his peace-making odyssey. Accounts of him in the Hadith, compiled within our three-century mark, present a man of some complexity, ready to be amazingly generous and forgiving, but also the stern military chieftain on occasion. This creed falls somewhat short, then, on D and E.

13. Bahá’u’lláh -- 1817 - 1892 -- was the founder of the Bahai faith and an advocate for world peace. He conceived of the entire globe as a single village long before others took up the idea in the political realm. For this and his declaration that both men and women are equal in the sight of God and ought to be provided with the same education, he has to be reckoned one of the more far-sighted figures of the past two hundred years. But because of his relatively recent vintage, his impact so far has not matched the cultural impact of others in this retrospective. Check back in a thousand years or so............ The fundamentals of the Bahai faith are preserved in two written books written by Bahá’u’lláh himself and issued in his lifetime, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and the Kitáb-i-Íqán. There are contemporary accounts of him from a number of different perspectives, and they all seem to show a person of great forbearance and insight. But it remains unclear just what the nature of his GDE may have been. Thus, this creed falls short on B and E.

Summary

From this retrospective, Enmetena, Moses, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, Socrates and Jesus Christ emerge as possibly the nearest to God -- or whatever this "presence" is that slowly nudges/prods social conscience along. The others all have varying question-marks over them.

In the meantime, these five figures can only help in a limited way towards actually defining deity. Yes, they can help in testifying to certain uniform characteristics. But they are less helpful in refining what deity isn't, or may not be. Not all five testify to deity as a creator, nor to the metaphysical as a realm for an afterlife, and so on and so forth. However, what all five of these figures do seem to agree on is consciousness-raising -- or conscience-raising, if you will -- God purely as a mental prod to our social conscience, in other words. That makes God neither male nor female; it makes God neither spirit nor body. It does make God, though, an active presence in our more enlightened brains.

I think one of the reasons why, in my experience, this sort of methodical talk tends to gall people of all sorts is because I'm only trading in the probable and the possible here, whereas both the doctrinaire and the atheist trade in the certain. I would hardly be dismayed if something were to show me either that God exists beyond a shadow of a doubt or that the patterns I've observed here are not uniform after all, leaving God's existence less probable. I would not be dismayed if some historian should find but one antitheist and social observer who pioneers her/his antitheism in a culture that is wholly innocent of anything but theism and who is just as original in her/his pioneering social ethic as that ethic is wholly empathetic rather than self-centered. This deist construct could then be readily jettisoned and one would have to look for some other unifying characteristic behind altruistic social innovators instead. But so far, this pattern appears unbroken.

While I still don't believe that there is anything purposive to the process whereby altruistic counter-culturalists sometimes arrive at a vague -- or not so vague -- sense of deity, I do now guess that a tendency is innate in all of us, depending on random conditions, to grow more aware of an altruistic alternative through a higher awareness of some presence (deity?) as well, once certain dire environmental or social pressures are applied. That awareness does not happen through prior "design" but through a stumbling, random process whereby social and altruistic consciousness is sometimes raised barely in time to forestall social disaster or not at all, as seems likely to be the case in this century, possibly humanity's last century on Earth. I recognize that the notion that human beings come at the discovery of "deity" -- or whatever this "presence" really is -- through the individual initiative of pioneering path-breakers under random conditions that have nothing to do with a "design", or with any purposive plan from that deity at all, may offend both atheists and theists alike. But hey, I can't help that.

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2410

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#65  Postby Fenrir » Feb 08, 2017 9:37 am

That is possibly the best gibberish I have read in years. Truly A-grade.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3436
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#66  Postby THWOTH » Feb 08, 2017 10:04 am

solazy wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
solazy wrote:I'm requesting you to tell me something that is true in religion.
I do not need to defend atheism. Even the Ancient Greeks were battling the gods.

Something true about religion is that religious people think that their religion is true.


If you are religious then how do you justify it?

Because it's the truth, silly. It just is, like Alma Cogan isn't. Religion plays the Fallacy Joker for the win.

solazy wrote:Can you justify the Apostles Creed which is required to be said by up to 2 billion worldwide...

I can't.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37101
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#67  Postby Fallible » Feb 08, 2017 10:05 am

Did Stein write Pale Fire?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49842
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How do you rank religion?

#68  Postby THWOTH » Feb 08, 2017 10:09 am

Stein wrote:
solazy wrote:Eliminating the idea that we are biased towards one religion or another because we are all indoctrinated before we reach the age of reason, then how would you rank religion from the most to least toxic?
I am getting increasing irritated by the JW's.
Recently, two of them approached me while walking and minding my own business in the park. Last week on a visit to Leamington Spa they even had a tent up outside the library and art gallery and opposite the gardens. They sure know where to attract most attention and had a prominent sign inviting a visit to JW.com.
Next I would put Muslims of any sect. Least, probably the Catholics, despite their bloody history.

I single out Enmetena (Enlil), Moses (Yahweh), Gotama (Brahma), Socrates (Nous) and Jesus (Yahweh) as the ones who seem most plausibly to have been impacted by a genuine deitic encounter (GDE) of some kind for various reasons summarised below.

I single you out (Stein) for presuming your conclusion in your premise.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37101
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#69  Postby Scot Dutchy » Feb 08, 2017 10:12 am

Just a load of words INMHO.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43030
Age: 70
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#70  Postby solazy » Feb 08, 2017 11:33 am

Stein wrote:One thing to keep in mind through all this is that it is still possible that the uniform historical symbiosis of counter-cultural brands of empathy alongside counter-cultural brands of theism is due to mechanisms lodged wholly in the frontal cortex without any engagement in external factors. But there are some problems with that involving both the documented way in which the frontal cortex appears to respond to demonstrably external stimuli in other respects, as well as the demonstrable fact that a lifestyle of empathy really does seem to interact with the realities of the outside world much more efficiently. In other words, there does appear to be a productive negotiation of some sort being transacted here with external facts on the ground in the empathy end of the spectrum, making it awkward -- though still not impossible -- to suppose that the identical processes connecting counter-cultural brands of theism are somehow purely internal to the human organism instead. It's simply more logical, considering the consistency of this pattern, that counter-cultural theisms also interact with something external.


Brain stimulation with the use of drugs found in the ancient world made people see all sorts of phenomena, and that would include close encounters with a perceived deity.
Interesting that the Chinese do not have gods, but they have philosophy and that should rule out a god gene.
I believe stories about Jesus, Moses, Buddha are all fake news based on drug inspired revelation.
solazy
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Steve Wilkes
Posts: 215

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#71  Postby Mazille » Feb 08, 2017 11:38 am

Sendraks wrote:
Mazille wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:I rank religion as probably the leading cause of human conflict and suffering.

*one of the leading excuses for


In the end it's because we're monkeys in shoes and like to fling shit and take what others have.


Ah but monkeys are chiefly co-operative and collaborative.
It is religion that preaches division.

Within in-groups, mostly. Have you seen what groups of chimpanzees do to other groups of the same species?
- Pam.
- Yes?
- Get off the Pope.
User avatar
Mazille
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19740
Age: 34
Male

Austria (at)
Print view this post

Re: How do you rank religion?

#72  Postby solazy » Feb 08, 2017 12:23 pm

Mazille wrote:Within in-groups, mostly. Have you seen what groups of chimpanzees do to other groups of the same species?


Not when they occasionally met those peaceful promiscuous bonobos.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/ ... genes-past
solazy
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Steve Wilkes
Posts: 215

Country: UK
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests