Religions have succeeded!

[Nearly 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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Gonnagle]

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.

[ippy]

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

[Sriram]

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

[Rhiannon]

Sriram, we took what we learned about survival of the most co-operative and gave it a religious framework.

[Sriram]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Sriram]

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?

[Shaker]

Do we know how much cohesion the major religions brought about between small disparate groups in earlier times?

[Maeght]

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.

[Hope]

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. 

[Shaker]

seemed ... seems ...

So no, then.

[Hope]

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?

[Hope]

seemed ... seems ... HAS

FIFY

So no, then, except for where it has done.

Again, FIFY, Shakes.

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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."

[Shaker]

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.

[Hope]

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)?

[Shaker]

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?

[Hope]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.