Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
No, it has a veneer of Christianity, but it's not based on it. It is taught as such, but our morality has a much stronger evolutionnary part than religious.

I'd argue that possibly religion is part of our evolution, we have always tried to explain the unexplainable with supernatural undertones or outright superstition, as we have evolved our understanding has too and sadly it seems old ideas have a habit of sticking around long after they are no longer applicable, it's a very difficult thing to look at I feel as we have no other species like ourselves to study and compare to.

Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.

It is still very useful. It helps fight overpopulation. Well, except for that whole “Do not use birth-control” thing. But it sures motivate people to regulate our numbers by killing a few extra people here and there.

 Fafnir wrote:
Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.

Bingo, religion is no longer needed.

 sebster wrote:
But religions haven't merely been disrespected. Their followers really have been persecuted. Read about what happened to people who tried to maintain their Orthodox faith in Soviet Russia.

I do not disagree that religious people have been persecuted- mostly at the hands of other unquestionable dogmas- but that was never at any point what I suggested. I said disrespecting an idea hurt no one and you're trying to forge some link between criticising the doctrines and the adherents, as if there were no way to attack one without injuring the other.

 sebster wrote:
To extend your 40K analogy, consider that people were discussing an incident where a bunch of, say, Bolt Action fans got together and beat the crap out of a 40K player, and you stop by to post 'oh sure, but as long as the Bolt Action players are just talking about how bad the game system is there's no oppression'. It's technically true but really irrelevant.

Well for a start- again- I'd say violence crosses the line from disrespect to something worse. Such actions would be intolerable. But yeah so long as they are just talking- even if they're ripping on 40k with the most caustic and biting criticism, no harm is done to any person.

Can you really not see a difference between criticising an idea and violence upon a holder of the idea?

 Fafnir wrote:
Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.

I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.

Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.

Relapse wrote:
I see my error here. Apologies.

Cool

Formosa wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
No, it has a veneer of Christianity, but it's not based on it. It is taught as such, but our morality has a much stronger evolutionnary part than religious.

I'd argue that possibly religion is part of our evolution, we have always tried to explain the unexplainable with supernatural undertones or outright superstition, as we have evolved our understanding has too and sadly it seems old ideas have a habit of sticking around long after they are no longer applicable, it's a very difficult thing to look at I feel as we have no other species like ourselves to study and compare to.

I can agree with that. Much better put than my simplistic statement.

Bullockist wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.

I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.

Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.

The only thing I would ask is this: why does it have to be religion? I'm convinced we can find a Big Idea that doesn't require dogmatism that can help us move forward. There can a be a sense of community on a humanist scale. Nope, I have no basis for that statement, except that it feels right. Which is why I won't impose it on anyone. Of course, if secularism becomes dogmatic, and it can, as it is becoming here in Quebec at the moment, then it can be just as bad.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Did you know that muslim Uyghur in China are forbidden to fast during Ramadan. Strangely enough, muslim Han in China are not. I guess there is something totally unrelated to religion actually at work here, which is about suppressing ethnic minorities .

And did you know that Han chinese in Tibet still have the number of children they are allowed restricted, while ethnic Tibetans are allowed to have as many as they please. Welcome to the complexity of modern day China, where simplistic narratives just don't fething help.

Oh. Then I guess apart from a few pieces of dead trees, quantum mechanics are just people who believe in quantum mechanics. And I thought it was an elaborate set of ideas ! Silly me.
If it is not material, let us pretend it is not relevant.

Of course there are ideas... which are, of course, believed by people. The former requires the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:
I do not disagree that religious people have been persecuted- mostly at the hands of other unquestionable dogmas- but that was never at any point what I suggested. I said disrespecting an idea hurt no one and you're trying to forge some link between criticising the doctrines and the adherents, as if there were no way to attack one without injuring the other.

Which is, as I already explained, technically correct and completely pointless given the context of the conversation.

Can you really not see a difference between criticising an idea and violence upon a holder of the idea?

Of course I can. Can you not the irrelevance of pointing out that criticism is okay, when people are talking about actual persecution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Bingo, religion is no longer needed.

It is no longer needed as a way of explaining the origins of the universe and life. But as a way to help people understand and cope with their lives... well a lot of people still seem to find a need for it.

It's an interesting thing that has been noted, that in spite of horrendous persecutions in various countries through the ages up to and including death, religion survives.
This, in my mind anyway, shows that religion is still needed if people are willing to cling to it though all of the attempts to destroy their belief system.

Relapse wrote:
It's an interesting thing that has been noted, that in spite of horrendous persecutions in various countries through the ages up to and including death, religion survives.
This, in my mind anyway, shows that religion is still needed if people are willing to cling to it though all of the attempts to destroy their belief system.

How do you feel about the persecution of scientists?

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's an interesting thing that has been noted, that in spite of horrendous persecutions in various countries through the ages up to and including death, religion survives.
This, in my mind anyway, shows that religion is still needed if people are willing to cling to it though all of the attempts to destroy their belief system.

How do you feel about the persecution of scientists?

Same thing. I don't believe anyone with an honest idea they want to share in a respectful way should be suppressed. I know it happens in all forms and manner, though.

 sebster wrote:
Which is, as I already explained, technically correct and completely pointless given the context of the conversation.

Concession accepted. Thanks!

 sebster wrote:
Of course I can. Can you not the irrelevance of pointing out that criticism is okay, when people are talking about actual persecution.

That's good! Because a little ways back you said:

 sebster wrote:
Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it. Trying to draw some distinction between persecuting a religion, and persecuting people who follow that religion is pretty silly.

Which kinda makes it seem like you think there is no difference. I mean if you know the difference almost makes me wonder what you issue was with my post initially that caused you to reply? That is a nice bike you got there!

But I'm glad we agree that:

 Kojiro wrote:
Disrespecting religion- an idea- harms no one. Enforcing religion however often harms individuals.

Otherwise we might have to have a lengthy exchange that ends us up right where it started.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Just because he explains how things are doesn't mean he thinks it's "ok".

"Excuses are like donkey-caves. Everybody got one. "
- Sgt. Barnes.

Bullockist wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.

I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.

Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.

Well, first off, how much of said alienation is caused by different religious beliefs? Secondly, I don't need anything to believe in, I have reality for that, the idea of belief, faith, is inherently illogical and opens the door to bad things IMO. Also, I can assure you that turning to a trained professional for your mental care is infinitely preferable to turning to a guy who knows lots about a book.

 Soladrin wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.

I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.

Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.

Well, first off, how much of said alienation is caused by different religious beliefs? Secondly, I don't need anything to believe in, I have reality for that, the idea of belief, faith, is inherently illogical and opens the door to bad things IMO. Also, I can assure you that turning to a trained professional for your mental care is infinitely preferable to turning to a guy who knows lots about a book.

If the people alienating each other truly practiced their belief, and I am talking Christianity here, then they would not be alienating each other, but be acting in quite the opposite fashion. The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution.

" The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution. "

What a load of old tosh, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc in my experience only care about there religion when it suits them, I have seen first hand in Afghanistan what happens when religion takes the place of reason, and don't think for a second I'm talking about just the Muslims in Afghan, I saw plenty of "christian's" doing awful things too.

My brother in law is a Muslim and is always sprouting some old nonsense on how people should behave etc. So I read the Koran and came back at him like he preached at others and showed him he is a bad Muslim with his own book that he claimed he followed to the dot, it's the same with all religions, they happily tell you that you are a bad person and will go to hell but fail to follow even the basic tenets set down by there own doctrine.

I'm a good person not because of some code of ethics created to entertain or control people 2000 years ago, but because I will help my fellows when. They need it, religion is not needed in this day and age, humanism is.

 Formosa wrote:
" The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution. "

What a load of old tosh, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc in my experience only care about there religion when it suits them, I have seen first hand in Afghanistan what happens when religion takes the place of reason, and don't think for a second I'm talking about just the Muslims in Afghan, I saw plenty of "christian's" doing awful things too.

My brother in law is a Muslim and is always sprouting some old nonsense on how people should behave etc. So I read the Koran and came back at him like he preached at others and showed him he is a bad Muslim with his own book that he claimed he followed to the dot, it's the same with all religions, they happily tell you that you are a bad person and will go to hell but fail to follow even the basic tenets set down by there own doctrine.

I'm a good person not because of some code of ethics created to entertain or control people 2000 years ago, but because I will help my fellows when. They need it, religion is not needed in this day and age, humanism is.

Not old tosh at all. You have had bad experiences with people using religion as an excuse to mistreat others. If religion wasn't a factor it would be some other reason they would find.

 Kojiro wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Which is, as I already explained, technically correct and completely pointless given the context of the conversation.

Concession accepted. Thanks!

So you're admitting that the distinction you've attempted to make is completely pointless in the context of this thread?

 Formosa wrote:
" The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution. "

What a load of old tosh, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc in my experience only care about there religion when it suits them, I have seen first hand in Afghanistan what happens when religion takes the place of reason, and don't think for a second I'm talking about just the Muslims in Afghan, I saw plenty of "christian's" doing awful things too.

My brother in law is a Muslim and is always sprouting some old nonsense on how people should behave etc. So I read the Koran and came back at him like he preached at others and showed him he is a bad Muslim with his own book that he claimed he followed to the dot, it's the same with all religions, they happily tell you that you are a bad person and will go to hell but fail to follow even the basic tenets set down by there own doctrine.

I'm a good person not because of some code of ethics created to entertain or control people 2000 years ago, but because I will help my fellows when. They need it, religion is not needed in this day and age, humanism is.

What an amazing bigot you are. Its like your whole worldview violates Dakka Rule #1.

Relapse wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.

I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.

Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.

Well, first off, how much of said alienation is caused by different religious beliefs? Secondly, I don't need anything to believe in, I have reality for that, the idea of belief, faith, is inherently illogical and opens the door to bad things IMO. Also, I can assure you that turning to a trained professional for your mental care is infinitely preferable to turning to a guy who knows lots about a book.

If the people alienating each other truly practiced their belief, and I am talking Christianity here, then they would not be alienating each other, but be acting in quite the opposite fashion. The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution.

No true Scotsman?

No. He just means that Christians are prone to sin and don't always do what they are supposed to. It doesn't stop them being Christians.

 Frazzled wrote:
What an amazing bigot you are. Its like your whole worldview violates Dakka Rule #1.

Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to... Half the stuff in the Old Testament is either illegal, borderline sociopathic, and/or just ridiculous. Things like "If you cut off your wife's sister's hand for sowing two types of grain in the same field, then you're not allowed to rape her for two years, unless it happened on a Wednesday".

If you are cherry-picking, and creatively "interpreting" only the parts that you agree with from the scriptures (which is everyone). Then essentially: all you are doing is following your own agenda and ideas, and using the Bible when it suits to add weight to them.

I personally think ideas should be backed up by something a bit more substantial... At very least: a Wikipedia article.

 Formosa wrote:
"

I'm a good person not because of some code of ethics created to entertain or control people 2000 years ago, but because I will help my fellows when. They need it, religion is not needed in this day and age, humanism is.

You are a good person, in as much as you have constructed your own set of rules you feel comfortable with. So you have a completely independently "home grown" belief system that makes you feel good about yourself.

Also FYI...humanism is a religion, even the supreme court of the USA(and the original humanist manifesto no less) say so.

"The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath "invades appellant's freedom of belief and religion."

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What an amazing bigot you are. Its like your whole worldview violates Dakka Rule #1.

Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to... Half the stuff in the Old Testament is either illegal, borderline sociopathic, and/or just ridiculous. Things like "If you cut off your wife's sister's hand for sowing two types of grain in the same field, then you're not allowed to rape her for two years, unless it happened on a Wednesday".

If you are cherry-picking, and creatively "interpreting" only the parts that you agree with from the scriptures (which is everyone). Then essentially: all you are doing is following your own agenda and ideas, and using the Bible when it suits to add weight to them.

I personally think ideas should be backed up by something a bit more substantial... At very least: a Wikipedia article.

I do agree that there are Christians that do exactly as you say(cherry pick). But I do challenge you to read up on why not all aspects of the levitical code of Moses no longer applies to Christians. Please don't just assume that because there were laws required of the Hebrews, that those same laws are required of Christians. This is the same error that Martin sheen made on "the west wing".

GG

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What an amazing bigot you are. Its like your whole worldview violates Dakka Rule #1.

Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to... Half the stuff in the Old Testament is either illegal, borderline sociopathic, and/or just ridiculous. Things like "If you cut off your wife's sister's hand for sowing two types of grain in the same field, then you're not allowed to rape her for two years, unless it happened on a Wednesday".

If you are cherry-picking, and creatively "interpreting" only the parts that you agree with from the scriptures (which is everyone). Then essentially: all you are doing is following your own agenda and ideas, and using the Bible when it suits to add weight to them.

I personally think ideas should be backed up by something a bit more substantial... At very least: a Wikipedia article.

NO. Its because Christians follow the New Testament.
Now please address his bigotry towards all other faiths as well.

 generalgrog wrote:
But I do challenge you to read up on why not all aspects of the levitical code of Moses no longer applies to Christians.

I'm way ahead of you. Leviticus does indeed have some doozies! and contains the often quoted "man and another man". Deuteronomy is also fun. But I'm sure it wouldn't take me long to find a Jesus one if I wanted, however this stuff has already been discussed ad-nauseam.

On the other hand... People arguing that Levitical code doesn't apply to them for [insert clever reasons], kind of falls under creative "interpretation".

 Smacks wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
But I do challenge you to read up on why not all aspects of the levitical code of Moses no longer applies to Christians.

I'm way ahead of you. Leviticus does indeed have some doozies! and contains the often quoted "man and another man". Deuteronomy is also fun. But I'm sure it wouldn't take me long to find a Jesus one if I wanted, however this stuff has already been discussed ad-nauseam.

On the other hand... People arguing that Levitical code doesn't apply to them for [insert clever reasons], kind of falls under creative "interpretation".

Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?

On the other hand... People arguing that Levitical code doesn't apply to them for [insert clever reasons], kind of falls under creative "interpretation".

You mean clever reasons like that whole Jesus thing right?
Again, please use your clever words against Islam etc. or is this just the semi weekly "Lets bash Christians because we suck" thread

Oh wait, of course it is.

 Frazzled wrote:

On the other hand... People arguing that Levitical code doesn't apply to them for [insert clever reasons], kind of falls under creative "interpretation".

You mean clever reasons like that whole Jesus thing right?
Again, please use your clever words against Islam etc. or is this just the semi weekly "Lets bash Christians because we suck" thread

Oh wait, of course it is.

Have you ever tires to bash Buddhists? It's no fun, they don't fight back .

Bash Muslims. I hear its a blast.

Bash Hindus. You'll get this deju vu feeling and then wake up as a bathroom fungus.

Bash Zen Buddhists, but you can only use one hand.

Bash Satanists. What could go wrong...