Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on November 15, 2015, 07:28:14 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Just after the Paris attacks by Islamic terrorists this may seem a tad ironic...but it is true that religions have succeeded. After the 'meek shall inherit the earth' thread... I thought how true it was.
What I mean is that... humans have become more civilized, tolerant, patient, non-violent, humanistic, compassionate and selfless today as compared to earlier centuries. This is precisely what religion and spirituality have been promoting all these millennia.
But for the controls and discipline insisted on by religions, humans today would not have been as humanistic and as civilized (spiritually evolved IMO) as we are today. Religions have made it possible for us to move out of our tribal mentality and accept others.
Without religious motivations the degree of uniformity and worldwide unity would not have been possible.
Ok...there are still many who are not as civilized as we would wish...but that is the reality of gradation and differences in spiritual growth. All humans will never be the same at any one time. Maybe some people still need religious motivations and religious controls but since many people don't, it shows that religions have worked.
The ladder may not be useful after we have climbed to the top.....but its role in our ascent cannot be denied.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Just after the Paris attacks by Islamic terrorists this may seem a tad ironic...but it is true that religions have succeeded. After the 'meek shall inherit the earth' thread... I thought how true it was.
What I mean is that... humans have become more civilized, tolerant, patient, non-violent, humanistic, compassionate and selfless today as compared to earlier centuries. This is precisely what religion and spirituality have been promoting all these millennia.
But for the controls and discipline insisted on by religions, humans today would not have been as humanistic and as civilized (spiritually evolved IMO) as we are today. Religions have made it possible for us to move out of our tribal mentality and accept others.
Without religious motivations the degree of uniformity and worldwide unity would not have been possible.
Ok...there are still many who are not as civilized as we would wish...but that is the reality of gradation and differences in spiritual growth. All humans will never be the same at any one time. Maybe some people still need religious motivations and religious controls but since many people don't, it shows that religions have worked.
The ladder may not be useful after we have climbed to the top.....but its role in our ascent cannot be denied.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
What a stupid way of looking at life.
ippy
-
What a stupid way of looking at life.
ippy
Why is it stupid? Be specific.
-
I think the thought that religion might 'succeed' is giving many of us sleepless nights right now.
-
I think the thought that religion might 'succeed' is giving many of us sleepless nights right now.
Depends what each understands by "succeed," in this instance.
-
Came across this.
THE WHITE HOUSE & DOWNING STREET JUST CAN'T PINPOINT THE PROBLEM!
The French train guy is a Muslim
The Chattanooga guy is a Muslim
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
The Charlie Hebdo attackers were Muslims
The latest Paris attackers were Muslims
Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
But then,...
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
SO THIS LEADS TO
They're not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
So, where are they happy?
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam.....Not their leadership.....
Not themselves,THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!!
And they want to change the countries they're happy in,....to be like the countries they came from,....where they were unhappy,....and had they stayed there,....they would’ve been tortured, and killed, or both!
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
And The White House or Downing Street just cannot figure out who is causing the problem?????? Hello.......
It's certainly not Rocket Science!
All the best to you all.
~TW~
-
Came across this.
THE WHITE HOUSE & DOWNING STREET JUST CAN'T PINPOINT THE PROBLEM!
The French train guy is a Muslim
The Chattanooga guy is a Muslim
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
etc etc
Certain radical Muslims have a problem with Western society - and obviously the White House and Downing Street know that. Many Muslims don't have a problem with it though.
-
I grew up planning my forays into the West End around whether a bunch of Catholics wanted to blow me sky high or not. At one point whenever I went to visit my mum at her London apartment I had to go through an armed checkpoint.
-
What a stupid way of looking at life.
No more stupid than the philosophy that you seem to espouse in your posts, ippy. After all, you seem to bvelieve that we came about as little more than the result of chance events, there is no purpose in or for our lives, we therefore have no reason to care for anyone other than ourselves, ... How stupid is that?
-
Came across this.
THE WHITE HOUSE & DOWNING STREET JUST CAN'T PINPOINT THE PROBLEM!
The French train guy is a Muslim
The Chattanooga guy is a Muslim
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
The Charlie Hebdo attackers were Muslims
The latest Paris attackers were Muslims
Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
But then,...
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
SO THIS LEADS TO
They're not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
So, where are they happy?
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam.....Not their leadership.....
Not themselves,THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!!
And they want to change the countries they're happy in,....to be like the countries they came from,....where they were unhappy,....and had they stayed there,....they would’ve been tortured, and killed, or both!
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
And The White House or Downing Street just cannot figure out who is causing the problem?????? Hello.......
It's certainly not Rocket Science!
All the best to you all.
~TW~
BIGOT! Not all Muslims are extremists only a minority, just like not all Christians are nasty, evil extremist bigots, only a minority! >:(
-
Depends what each understands by "succeed," in this instance.
I would agree, BA. I can't speak for other religions and philosophies of life, but the underlying reality of both Judaism and Christianity is that humans live in harmony with God and each other. That isn't to say that, over the centures, that reality has been usurped, abused and misrepresented, but then, that has been the case with just about everything in this world.
-
Far from it;
Now is the time to step up the “war” on religion. I mean we need to do much ... much more to convince believers they are wrong and that all religion is harmful.
Religion causes people to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong, blind to logic and consideration for the well being of humanity.
Those who believe they are right are likely to think it is OK to, cut of bits of children’s genitals for no good reason, Kill homosexuals, Deny human rights to women, Control and limit the behaviour of those who do not share their beliefs, Deny human rights to those who do not share their beliefs and/or simply kill them.
-
Although I DO understand when some here say 'not ALL Muslims' etc etc, I WILL say....
It only takes ONE suicide bomber or, indeed a SMALL !!!!!!! group to kill 100s... !!!
Nick
-
I grew up planning my forays into the West End around whether a bunch of Catholics wanted to blow me sky high or not. At one point whenever I went to visit my mum at her London apartment I had to go through an armed checkpoint.
:(
Not good!
I lived in the sticks, but some of my friends lived in Birmingham and they like you lived with it too ( so they have told me, worrying about families when bombs exploded)
I think we forget that, whilst the current situation is quite horrible, in a sense it is nothing new. Political and religious terrorism has been happening across Europe throughout my lifetime.
-
I grew up planning my forays into the West End around whether a bunch of Catholics wanted to blow me sky high or not. At one point whenever I went to visit my mum at her London apartment I had to go through an armed checkpoint.
:(
Not good!
I lived in the sticks, but some of my friends lived in Birmingham and they like you lived with it too ( so they have told me, worrying about families when bombs exploded)
I think we forget that, whilst the current situation is quite horrible, in a sense it is nothing new. Political and religious terrorism has been happening across Europe for my whole lifetime.
You are so complacent about everything! Oh, that's the way it is: that's the real world!!
-
Although I DO understand when some here say 'not ALL Muslims' etc etc, I WILL say....
It only takes ONE suicide bomber or, indeed a SMALL !!!!!!! group to kill 100s... !!!
Nick
Of course - but what point are you making? So you agree with labeling all Muslims as the problem?
-
Suppressing religion isn't the answer. The most likely solution in the long run is that the next generation of Muslims will look at the terrorists and regard them as a bunch of embarrassing wankers. Because for all the horror they inflict, there's something indescribably pathetic about them.
-
I grew up planning my forays into the West End around whether a bunch of Catholics wanted to blow me sky high or not. At one point whenever I went to visit my mum at her London apartment I had to go through an armed checkpoint.
:(
Not good!
I lived in the sticks, but some of my friends lived in Birmingham and they like you lived with it too ( so they have told me, worrying about families when bombs exploded)
I think we forget that, whilst the current situation is quite horrible, in a sense it is nothing new. Political and religious terrorism has been happening across Europe throughout my lifetime.
The IRA didn't use suicide bombers and sometimes gave warnings beforehand, not that it excuses them.
But when you are up against someone who expects to die, they are harder to stop and are capable of causing even more harm.
Yeah, the suicide bomber ups the ante. But we've had Lockerbie, the Madrid bombings were over ten years ago. And there was the atrocity at the Munich Olympics all those years ago. :-\
-
Rose,
"Failed to get their humanitarian message across."
I would say that if the message reaches some, it is succeeding. But it is not just about getting a message across. Speaking only from a Christian perspective, it is very largely about helping others, those who are in need; and in that respect it certainly does succeed.
-
Came across this.
THE WHITE HOUSE & DOWNING STREET JUST CAN'T PINPOINT THE PROBLEM!
I think this is erroneous in a whole multitude of ways, ~TW~.
Let's starts with the first part of the list:
the Oklahoma bomber was almost certainly a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant anti-federalists
the Warrington bombers were white, Catholic Irish republicans
the destroyers of the Ayodhya Mosque were Hindu Indian nationalists
those responsible for the downing of Malaysian Airlines' Flight MH17 were white Russians of indeterminate religious faith
That's just 4 examples that don't match the 'Muslim' narrative
Then there are the well-known bloodbaths that have existed amongst differnt ethnic/religious/national groups across the world. The atrocities by both sides during the Partitioning of the Indian Sub-continent; the Holocaust; the events surrounding apartheid; the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in Eastern Europe/Rwanda/etc; the Buddhist violence in Burma/Myanmar; ...
Wherever you got your 'list' its about time you contacted the source and reminded them just how wrong they are.
To suggest that
-
Rose,
"Failed to get their humanitarian message across."
I would say that if the message reaches some, it is succeeding. But it is not just about getting a message across. Speaking only from a Christian perspective, it is very largely about helping others, those who are in need; and in that respect it certainly does succeed.
I'd agree that actions are extremely important, however if you can change what is in people's hearts ( figuratively speaking) some of those actions would become unnecessary.
(By message I am not referring to people believing in Christianity but a basically humanitarian golden rule one )
Christianity has failed to reach those who hurt others, in the case of a few Muslims even their own religion has failed.
Has it? You can teach people the right ways, but you cannot force them to adopt them; especially when people are open to so many other influences. The thing is, you keep trying.
-
What a stupid way of looking at life.
No more stupid than the philosophy that you seem to espouse in your posts, ippy. After all, you seem to bvelieve that we came about as little more than the result of chance events, there is no purpose in or for our lives, we therefore have no reason to care for anyone other than ourselves, ... How stupid is that?
Incredibly stupid as a putative description of atheism, for sure.
-
Just after the Paris attacks by Islamic terrorists this may seem a tad ironic...but it is true that religions have succeeded. After the 'meek shall inherit the earth' thread... I thought how true it was.
What I mean is that... humans have become more civilized, tolerant, patient, non-violent, humanistic, compassionate and selfless today as compared to earlier centuries. This is precisely what religion and spirituality have been promoting all these millennia.
That's a particularly one-sided view of religion. Some elements of some religions have promoted acceptance, non-violence and compassion, but other religions - and other elements of those religions - have promoted concepts like slavery, misogyny, homophobia, caste systems and racism.
But for the controls and discipline insisted on by religions, humans today would not have been as humanistic and as civilized (spiritually evolved IMO) as we are today. Religions have made it possible for us to move out of our tribal mentality and accept others.
Religious attempts to control are no different to any other attempt to control. Humanity's record has improved with the introduction of the idea of personal autonomy and individual rights, the very antithesis of classical religion, and something that modern religions are either dissolving themselves into insignificance to try and embody (i.e. Anglicanism) or desperately fighting back against (i.e. fundamentalist Islam's ongoing campaign against 'Western' values and culture). We haven't advanced because of religion but despite it.
Without religious motivations the degree of uniformity and worldwide unity would not have been possible.
We haven't advanced through uniformity, which religion would promote, but through unity - people agreeing fundamental, underlying principles and allowing individuals to choose their own paths outside of that wherever possible.
Ok...there are still many who are not as civilized as we would wish...
And, typically, those cultures are characterised amongst other ideas by overt religiosity.
but that is the reality of gradation and differences in spiritual growth. All humans will never be the same at any one time. Maybe some people still need religious motivations and religious controls but since many people don't, it shows that religions have worked.
No, it really doesn't. You seem to think that civil compliance and obedience is a goal, and religion does an exceptional job at that, but constraining people simply leads to rebellion.
The ladder may not be useful after we have climbed to the top.....but its role in our ascent cannot be denied
It's role can't be denied, but I wouldn't describe that role as 'ladder'.
O.
-
What a stupid way of looking at life.
No more stupid than the philosophy that you seem to espouse in your posts, ippy. After all, you seem to bvelieve that we came about as little more than the result of chance events, there is no purpose in or for our lives, we therefore have no reason to care for anyone other than ourselves, ... How stupid is that?
Incredibly stupid as a putative description of atheism, for sure.
Is it intended to be a putative description of atheism?
-
Looks like it, yes, given Hope's reference to "the philosophy you seem to espouse in your [ippy's] posts."
-
The problem with the idea that religion has succeeded here is that it means any ism you want has succeeded, indeed any activity has succeeded. It's the same issue as those who talk about removing religion because they see it as bad. Religion is not an external, and is a manifestation of what we are, not an external effect.
-
Looks like it, yes, given Hope's reference to "the philosophy you seem to espouse in your [ippy's] posts."
Perhaps he might tell us himself if it was what you say.
-
Looks like it, yes, given Hope's reference to "the philosophy you seem to espouse in your [ippy's] posts."
Perhaps he might tell us himself if it was what you say.
You mean, get a straight answer out of him? Good luck with that.
-
Far from it;
Now is the time to step up the “war” on religion. I mean we need to do much ... much more to convince believers they are wrong and that all religion is harmful.
OK you've talked the talk now walk the walk:
How is ALL religion harmful? Your chance to persuade.
-
PS You'll have to do better than the Shaker/Dawkins method of persuasion which roughly translate to:
Cor, you thick w"nker....don't you know?....it's self evident....you some kind of a c**t or something?
-
Dear Sane,
The problem with the idea that religion has succeeded here is that it means any ism you want has succeeded, indeed any activity has succeeded. It's the same issue as those who talk about removing religion because they see it as bad. Religion is not an external, and is a manifestation of what we are, not an external effect.
It needs repeating ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Hi everyone,
Just after the Paris attacks by Islamic terrorists this may seem a tad ironic...but it is true that religions have succeeded. After the 'meek shall inherit the earth' thread... I thought how true it was.
What I mean is that... humans have become more civilized, tolerant, patient, non-violent, humanistic, compassionate and selfless today as compared to earlier centuries. This is precisely what religion and spirituality have been promoting all these millennia.
But for the controls and discipline insisted on by religions, humans today would not have been as humanistic and as civilized (spiritually evolved IMO) as we are today. Religions have made it possible for us to move out of our tribal mentality and accept others.
Without religious motivations the degree of uniformity and worldwide unity would not have been possible.
Ok...there are still many who are not as civilized as we would wish...but that is the reality of gradation and differences in spiritual growth. All humans will never be the same at any one time. Maybe some people still need religious motivations and religious controls but since many people don't, it shows that religions have worked.
The ladder may not be useful after we have climbed to the top.....but its role in our ascent cannot be denied.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
What a stupid way of looking at life.
ippy
What a stupid answer!
I'm really lookig forward to one of your gem like posts, explaining why another one of Sriram's strange posts is making sense. Not.
ippy
-
Hi everyone,
I am not denying that religion is also the source of many conflicts. Anything can be misused. Even science and technology are misused. It depends on the people and their stage of development. Science and technology have perhaps ruined our planet more than religions ever have.
We must remember that we humans develop beginning with base animal urges... moving to emotional faculties... and then to intellectual faculties. Our need to discipline ourselves also therefore moves in the same direction....from base urges to emotional needs to intellectual needs.
Religions have helped us to control these aspects of ourselves in various ways for centuries. I cannot imagine a situation where religions did not at all exist.
Just imagine no Ten Commandments, no Jesus and his teachings, no Mohammad and his teachings, no Hindu scriptures, no Mahavira teachings, no Buddha teachings. No temples, no churches, no mosques. No Christmas, no Diwali, no Ramzan....!
We would have still been savages and remained separated by animal urges and petty emotional tangles.
Even science and philosophy have been possible only because we have managed to discipline our first and second faculties to a large extent and thereby managed to develop our intellectual faculties.
Obviously, all individuals will not develop together or even in sync with one another. Different communities will develop at different rates and individuals within communities will also develop at different rates. But in the long run many if not most individuals will manage to develop in that order. We can see that it has already happened.
Of course many will still be at the emotional stage and some even at the base stage. This is to be expected.
IMO.... religions have therefore been very useful in making us develop using such things as morality, rules, discipline, social order and self control. They have been Nature's (God's?) tools in making us evolve culturally, emotionally and intellectually.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram, we took what we learned about survival of the most co-operative and gave it a religious framework.
-
Sriram, we took what we learned about survival of the most co-operative and gave it a religious framework.
Its obviously not just about survival. Bacteria can survive better than us. We need not have existed at all.
Human evolution is about cultural, social, emotional and intellectual development. Its about moving from base animal urges to emotional development and then to intellectual development. Its about moving towards becoming 'civilized' people from savages.
-
And we did that be learning to co-operate. That is how we formed our civilised societies.
No religion necessary for that. History shows that if anything it's been a hindrance.
-
And we did that be learning to co-operate. That is how we formed our civilised societies.
No religion necessary for that. History shows that if anything it's been a hindrance.
Do you realize how much of cohesion the major religions have brought about between small disparate groups in earlier times?
-
Do we know how much cohesion the major religions brought about between small disparate groups in earlier times?
-
Sriram, we took what we learned about survival of the most co-operative and gave it a religious framework.
Its obviously not just about survival. Bacteria can survive better than us. We need not have existed at all.
Human evolution is about cultural, social, emotional and intellectual development. Its about moving from base animal urges to emotional development and then to intellectual development. Its about moving towards becoming 'civilized' people from savages.
There is no 'need' regarding our existance. We evolved as animals who to survive, work in social groupings and as a part of that religions have been important to bind people together and to give structure. This could be achieved without religions, and hopefully will happen more so, but at the moment with haven't made that transition.
-
Do we know how much cohesion the major religions brought about between small disparate groups in earlier times?
Christianity seemed to serve as a gel for the Roman Empire, Shakes. It seems to have pulled the disparate Italian tribes together. Similarly, it has pulled disparate groups of otherwise unrelated groups across the world together. To an extent, the same could be said to apply to Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
-
seemed ... seems ...
So no, then.
-
And we did that be learning to co-operate. That is how we formed our civilised societies.
And how did we learn to do that, Rhi, if not by religious beliefs? After all, the world's most civilized nations and societies reached those heights on the back of religious beliefs - not just Christian, or Islam, but other religious beliefs. I accept that the Mayans and Aztecs would probably be deemed less than civilized by modern-day Western thinking, but back in the day hey were thought of as being in the 'Premiership' of civilised society.
I suppose it also begs the question as to what constitutes a civilised society. Is a society that struggles to house its citizens properly, or fails to provide proper educational chances for all it's children (and I don't mean the one-size fits all comprehensive system we currently have), etc. a developed one, or one masquerading as civilised?
-
seemed ... seems ... HAS
FIFY
So no, then, except for where it has done.
Again, FIFY, Shakes.
-
I'm really lookig forward to one of your gem like posts, explaining why another one of Sriram's strange posts is making sense. Not.
Well, at least Rose tries to unwrap and critique people's posts, rather than the instant and uncritical dismissal technique that you use.
-
And how did we learn to do that, Rhi, if not by religious beliefs?
How about "The same way other primates manage to do it without religious beliefs."
-
seemed ... seems ... HAS
FIFY
So no, then, except for where it has done.
Again, FIFY, Shakes.
Do not alter my posts. They are written to convey the thoughts I have and don't need "fixing," least of all by the likes of you. Convey what passes for your thoughts in your own words if you must, but do so without tampering with my posts to make them.appear to read to say what you intend rather than what I intend.
-
How about "The same way other primates manage to do it without religious beliefs."
Which assumes that animals don't have 'religious' beliefs of some sort. Do you have any evidence that they don't? In fact, does anyone actually know what 'religious belief' does or doesn't consist of (after all, one doesn't have to believe in a deity, per se, to be religious)?
-
Which assumes that animals don't have 'religious' beliefs of some sort.
Some human animals do; there's no evidence that any other species has the cognitive capabilities and capacities for it.
Do you have any evidence that they don't?
You're wholly unable to stop yourself doing this, aren't you?
-
seemed ... seems ... HAS
FIFY
So no, then, except for where it has done.
Again, FIFY, Shakes.
Do not alter my posts. They are written to convey the thoughts I have and don't need "fixing," least of all by the likes of you. Convey what passes for your thoughts in your own words if you must, but do so without tampering with my posts to make them.appear to read to say what you intend rather than what I intend.
But when you quote selectively - as you did here - your thoughts are incomplete in treagrd to the post you are referring to. I will, where necessary, amend quotes (in a way that legitimately indicates that something has been added - or removed) that fail to properly reflect what was written. If you want to ensure that this doesn't happen to your posts, you need to make sure that what you say in response to a quoted post (even if only quoting partially) actually reflects what that post says. If it doesn't, just leave the quote out and make a general post.
-
I'm prepared to bet that early humans learned that they lived longer if they didn't hit each other over the head with rocks than if they did. But some humans still liked doing the rock/hitting thing, do Angry Sky God was invented to stop them.
Or something like that.
-
seemed ... seems ... HAS
FIFY
So no, then, except for where it has done.
Again, FIFY, Shakes.
Do not alter my posts. They are written to convey the thoughts I have and don't need "fixing," least of all by the likes of you. Convey what passes for your thoughts in your own words if you must, but do so without tampering with my posts to make them.appear to read to say what you intend rather than what I intend.
Or selects a small part that, out of context it looks as though you are saying something else, this bloke often goes for the underhanded in these ways.
ippy
-
I'm really lookig forward to one of your gem like posts, explaining why another one of Sriram's strange posts is making sense. Not.
Well, at least Rose tries to unwrap and critique people's posts, rather than the instant and uncritical dismissal technique that you use.
To short for you to alter, without showing your hand?
ippy
-
To short for you to alter, without showing your hand?
ippy
And that hand would be ...?
-
To short for you to alter, without showing your hand?
ippy
And that hand would be ...?
[/quote
True to form.
ippy]
-
The cohesive effect of religions cannot be denied. Centuries ago when people lived separate and disparate lives in thousands of villages and towns around the world with each tribe being suspicious and scornful of the other....the only uniting factor was religion. It helped us to move away from the animal tendencies of mutual suspicion to mutual cooperation and a vision of unity.
Religion is the only emotional factor that supersedes all other distinctions such as geography, national, racial, linguistic, class and so on. Today we can see the cohesion between Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Muslims across the world irrespective of national boundaries and racial and linguistic differences.
In spite of atheism, science and other factors...even today religion is the prime source of morality, social control and self discipline around the world. We have moved from hundreds of religions in earlier times to just five or six major religions for seven billion people worldwide today. A remarkable feat of uniting and maintaining a common moral fiber across humanity!
Religions have clearly succeeded in making humans more humanistic, more tolerant, more united,more ethical and moralistic than before.
-
I am not denying that religion is also the source of many conflicts. Anything can be misused. Even science and technology are misused. It depends on the people and their stage of development. Science and technology have perhaps ruined our planet more than religions ever have.
Science and technology cannot be 'misused', because they claim no inherent morality or purpose. They are discoveries of the underlying mechanisms and patterns of the universe, and the applications of those learnings.
Similarly, religions cannot be 'misused', because there is no definitive 'use' in any of them: they are all subjective interpretations, and the ones that have survived best are the ones that are vague enough to lend themselves to multiple interpretation to weather storms of reality and knowledge. Religion is not something that can be applied, religion is the result of the collective application of faith.
We must remember that we humans develop beginning with base animal urges... moving to emotional faculties... and then to intellectual faculties. Our need to discipline ourselves also therefore moves in the same direction....from base urges to emotional needs to intellectual needs.
That sounds wonderful. I fail to see how following fairy-tales does that.
Religions have helped us to control these aspects of ourselves in various ways for centuries. I cannot imagine a situation where religions did not at all exist.
No, they haven't. Religions have suppressed aspects in favour of conformity - sometimes to reasonable suggestions, sometimes to arbitrary crap, sometimes to tribal nonsense of their origin location and time. Maturity doesn't come from following rules because they are there, maturity comes from understanding the underlying principles that guide the rules and realising which ones are worthy and rewriting those that aren't.
Just imagine no Ten Commandments, no Jesus and his teachings, no Mohammad and his teachings, no Hindu scriptures, no Mahavira teachings, no Buddha teachings. No temples, no churches, no mosques. No Christmas, no Diwali, no Ramzan....!
Shame to lose the architecture, perhaps, but I suspect that in the absence of religious motivation people would have found other reasons to express themselves. The underlying principles of moral behaviour would still emerge, because they have done so despite the presence of these religions claiming ownership of morality.
We would have still been savages and remained separated by animal urges and petty emotional tangles.
You have no way to know that, definitively, and I have no reason to believe it. Religion is an intrinsic part of history, but I see no reason to presume that it's necessary for our development or all societies that moved past religion would have stagnated, when in fact they are the happiest, most developed, most equitable, most moral societies we have.
Even science and philosophy have been possible only because we have managed to discipline our first and second faculties to a large extent and thereby managed to develop our intellectual faculties.
Right. Is that because of religion, despite religion or regardless of it?
Obviously, all individuals will not develop together or even in sync with one another. Different communities will develop at different rates and individuals within communities will also develop at different rates. But in the long run many if not most individuals will manage to develop in that order. We can see that it has already happened.
Yes, we can see that it's happened. And where it's happened most is where religion is being discarded as unnecessary at best, actively deleterious at worst.
Of course many will still be at the emotional stage and some even at the base stage. This is to be expected.
Not really. We have global communication, we have the capacity to teach, but we are being stymied by 'tradition' and 'culture' - religion.
IMO.... religions have therefore been very useful in making us develop using such things as morality, rules, discipline, social order and self control. They have been Nature's (God's?) tools in making us evolve culturally, emotionally and intellectually.
Religion has been very useful in developing close-knit communities, tribal support mechanism and the like. It has, however, also been useful in controlling large segments of the populace, maintaining imbalanced power systems, institutional misogyny, homophobia, racism, caste systems, slavery, arbitrary social exclusions and wars.
O.
-
Or selects a small part that, out of context it looks as though you are saying something else, this bloke often goes for the underhanded in these ways.
ippy
Thanks for supporting me in my comment about Shakes, ippy. ;)
-
Science and technology cannot be 'misused', because they claim no inherent morality or purpose. They are discoveries of the underlying mechanisms and patterns of the universe, and the applications of those learnings.
Sorry, O, science and technology can be misused. Findings can be used to give false impressions in the same way that stats can be. Perhaps the most famous one that I can think of was Kinsey's findings regarding the proportion of homosexuals in the population - 10% - based on a very small, untypical sample of society. They may have 'no inherent morality or purpose', but the scientists who use them often will have these things.
Similarly, religions cannot be 'misused', because there is no definitive 'use' in any of them: they are all subjective interpretations, and the ones that have survived best are the ones that are vague enough to lend themselves to multiple interpretation to weather storms of reality and knowledge. Religion is not something that can be applied, religion is the result of the collective application of faith.
See above.
I fail to see how following fairy-tales does that.
Why the sudden reference to fairy tales, O? Are you suggesting that science and religion are fairy tales?
No, they haven't. Religions have suppressed aspects in favour of conformity - sometimes to reasonable suggestions, sometimes to arbitrary crap, sometimes to tribal nonsense of their origin location and time. Maturity doesn't come from following rules because they are there, maturity comes from understanding the underlying principles that guide the rules and realising which ones are worthy and rewriting those that aren't.
Try replacing the word 'religions' with 'legislation', O. You will realise that they both serve the same purpose.
... but I suspect that in the absence of religious motivation people would have found other reasons to express themselves. The underlying principles of moral behaviour would still emerge, because they have done so despite the presence of these religions claiming ownership of morality.
No, they haven't emerged 'despite the presence of these religions claiming ownership of morality'; they have emerged because of the presence of those religions, O. We don't live in a moral vacuum, and today's morals are based on the principles of previous ones.
Religion has been very useful in developing close-knit communities, tribal support mechanism and the like. It has, however, also been useful in controlling large segments of the populace, maintaining imbalanced power systems, institutional misogyny, homophobia, racism, caste systems, slavery, arbitrary social exclusions and wars.
O.
As has secularism and humanism, O. At the same time, it should be pointed out that belief that X, Y or Z behaviours are bad for society may well be, at least in part, the outcome of non-religious factors. Our modern society can't claim to have only good morals. If anything, our current morality status is no better than those of previous generations, societies or centuries.
-
Sorry, O, science and technology can be misused. Findings can be used to give false impressions in the same way that stats can be.
Science can't be misused - it's a process, and as soon as you aren't doing it you aren't doing science - check out NicholasMarks for a case in point - you can claim it's science, but it really isn't. Technology can't be misused - it can be retasked, but because it has no inherent moral stance, using it for something else is not 'misusing' it.
Perhaps the most famous one that I can think of was Kinsey's findings regarding the proportion of homosexuals in the population - 10% - based on a very small, untypical sample of society. They may have 'no inherent morality or purpose', but the scientists who use them often will have these things.
And that wasn't science being misused, it was being poorly applied - recent findings suggest that he was perhaps conservative, and that most women are far more fluid in their sexuality than conventional wisdom would have it.
Similarly, religions cannot be 'misused', because there is no definitive 'use' in any of them: they are all subjective interpretations, and the ones that have survived best are the ones that are vague enough to lend themselves to multiple interpretation to weather storms of reality and knowledge. Religion is not something that can be applied, religion is the result of the collective application of faith.
See above.
No, those are fundamentally different points. You can't misuse science because as soon as you aren't doing it right you're not doing science. By contrast you can't misuse religion because there's no demonstrable 'right' or 'wrong' way.
I fail to see how following fairy-tales does that.
Why the sudden reference to fairy tales, O? Are you suggesting that science and religion are fairy tales?
One of them, yes - can you guess which one?
Try replacing the word 'religions' with 'legislation', O. You will realise that they both serve the same purpose.
Yes, and they both have an equally chequered history, and neither of them actually relies on supernatural events, but one of them claims it.
No, they haven't emerged 'despite the presence of these religions claiming ownership of morality'; they have emerged because of the presence of those religions, O. We don't live in a moral vacuum, and today's morals are based on the principles of previous ones.
They are based on principles that have emerged during the tenure of particular religions, yes, but I see no basis for presuming they have emerged because of those religions, nor that those religions should lay particular claim to them. Religion has undoubtedly had an influence on history, and the people within it, that's no reason to presume that it has validity.
Religion has been very useful in developing close-knit communities, tribal support mechanism and the like. It has, however, also been useful in controlling large segments of the populace, maintaining imbalanced power systems, institutional misogyny, homophobia, racism, caste systems, slavery, arbitrary social exclusions and wars.
As has secularism and humanism, O.
Really? Can you show me an example of secularism maintaining imbalanced power systems, misogyny, homophobia, racism, caste systems, slavery etc.? Not merely failing to counter it, but actually maintaining it.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that belief that X, Y or Z behaviours are bad for society may well be, at least in part, the outcome of non-religious factors. Our modern society can't claim to have only good morals. If anything, our current morality status is no better than those of previous generations, societies or centuries.
That rather depends on what the basis of your morality is. If it's increased health, happiness, wellbeing and freedom then there are manifestly better and worse systems. If it's 'God' well then no there's no way to adequately measure, there are just arbitrary rules and everyone's take on them is equally (in)valid.
O.
-
The cohesive effect of religions cannot be denied. Centuries ago when people lived separate and disparate lives in thousands of villages and towns around the world with each tribe being suspicious and scornful of the other....the only uniting factor was religion. It helped us to move away from the animal tendencies of mutual suspicion to mutual cooperation and a vision of unity.
Religion is the only emotional factor that supersedes all other distinctions such as geography, national, racial, linguistic, class and so on. Today we can see the cohesion between Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Muslims across the world irrespective of national boundaries and racial and linguistic differences.
In spite of atheism, science and other factors...even today religion is the prime source of morality, social control and self discipline around the world. We have moved from hundreds of religions in earlier times to just five or six major religions for seven billion people worldwide today. A remarkable feat of uniting and maintaining a common moral fiber across humanity!
Religions have clearly succeeded in making humans more humanistic, more tolerant, more united,more ethical and moralistic than before.
Unfortunately there is no verifiable logic in your rhetoric Sriram. You could replace "religion" in the statement with all sorts of other words and make just as much (or little) sense : - from "sex", to "guns" or "weapons", to "horses", "gold", "drugs"or "alcohol".
My own pet candidate for the driver of humanity is "fashion". It is our ability to pick up and copy the actions of those around us, an ability for mimicry inherited from monkeys and other primates, that has helped us to develop morality, language, culture, agriculture, townships, trade and warfare, medicines, religion, philosophy, politics, science and, practically, everything else.
-
Outrider,
1. I can't see why something cannot be misused. Science and technology are meant for the welfare of humans. If they are used in such a way as to destroy humans (bombs) it is a misuse. Climate change is due to misuse of technology.
Similarly religions are meant for social cohesion, social discipline, control of animal urges and spiritual development. If tribal suspicions and rivalries get the better of some people the same religion can be misused for war and terrorism.
2. Religions have deliberately suppressed individual self seeking because at a certain stage of development freedom is dysfunctional. It can lead to breakdown of society. Religions seek to control this tendency so as to build social cohesion and self discipline. Once most individuals have reached a certain stage of self control and are beyond emotional surges, self control becomes natural to them and at this stage religions may not be necessary.
Its like we don't allow small children all their indulgences. We fix rules and teach them self control and discipline in earlier stages ....but once they are grown up and know how to control their urges we allow them freedom. All rules apply for those who need them. If a person shows compassion, patience, self discipline and other such qualities as an adult...it reflects on his upbringing and the discipline he has been taught earlier on. Its the same with general human development.
The fact that many if not most, humans today seem to possess sufficient self discipline, compassion, tolerance, universal vision and so on...shows that people have developed beyond petty differences and suspicions. This has been possible only because of the rules applied earlier on....which is through religions.
-
1. I can't see why something cannot be misused. Science and technology are meant for the welfare of humans. If they are used in such a way as to destroy humans (bombs) it is a misuse. Climate change is due to misuse of technology.
No, they aren't for the welfare of humans. It would be lovely if they were, but they are purely to learn about nature works and then apply that to specific short-term goals. How we govern that application for the benefit of people is culture and politics and law, but the science and the technology are morally neutral. Climate change is not due to the 'misuse' of technology, it's due to the indiscriminate use of technology: power stations churning out CO2 are doing exactly what they are supposed to - converting chemical potential energy to electricity.
Similarly religions are meant for social cohesion, social discipline, control of animal urges and spiritual development. If tribal suspicions and rivalries get the better of some people the same religion can be misused for war and terrorism.
No, religions are to bring cohesion to tribal units. That some people have tried to overcome that and extend particular religions to all of humanity doesn't change that - all religions identify in-groups and out-groups (even if that's only 'believers' and 'non-believers').
2. Religions have deliberately suppressed individual self seeking because at a certain stage of development freedom is dysfunctional.
No it isn't.
It can lead to breakdown of society.
If those societies are about enforced conditions, yes. That's a good thing.
Religions seek to control this tendency so as to build social cohesion and self discipline.
You don't build self-discipline by controlling people.
Once most individuals have reached a certain stage of self control and are beyond emotional surges, self control becomes natural to them and at this stage religions may not be necessary.
Welcome to the 20th century.
Its like we don't allow small children all their indulgences. We fix rules and teach them self control and discipline in earlier stages ....but once they are grown up and know how to control their urges we allow them freedom.
Some of us do. Some of us teach them that there's an eternal, ever-watching policeman looking over their spiritual shoulder making sure they enforce the 'right' rules on everyone else with sufficient vigour.
All rules apply for those who need them. If a person shows compassion, patience, self discipline and other such qualities as an adult...it reflects on his upbringing and the discipline he has been taught earlier on. Its the same with general human development.
And the societies that display that best are those that have shed the trappings of formal religion the most.
The fact that many if not most, humans today seem to possess sufficient self discipline, compassion, tolerance, universal vision and so on...shows that people have developed beyond petty differences and suspicions. This has been possible only because of the rules applied earlier on....which is through religions.
No, it's because those societies have realised that the petty, superstitious tribalism and mysticism of religion fails to deal with reality, and that a robust legal and cultural expectation on personal responsibility is more effective.
O.
-
How about "The same way other primates manage to do it without religious beliefs."
How do you know? Have you discussed it with them?
-
How do you know? Have you discussed it with them?
No, but primatologists have studied this sort of thing for decades and I've read them.
-
Science and technology cannot be 'misused'
Complete shit.
-
No, but primatologists have studied this sort of thing for decades and I've read them.
Hmmmm.......I suspect primatology has been carried out with a heftier reductionism than even scientists who test prayer while simultaneously holding that science does not do God.
-
'Suspect' betrays the fact that you don't know and merely guess, then.
-
'Suspect' betrays the fact that you don't know and merely guess, then.
OK then where can this conclusion that primates get by without religion........They seem to get by without a lot of human traits not withstanding............be found
-
Complete shit.
And as soon as you've caught your breath from that dazzling display you'll get around to maybe pretending like you've got a reason for disagreeing? I'm presuming you're disagreeing, and not just blogging your toileting habits.
O.