Religions have succeeded

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, I’m using the term “life” to mean something like “existence that has real effects on real people without the need of human intervention beyond its original authorship”. Whether the "entity" involved is a meme or something else isn’t relevant – which I why I asked you “why “just?””.

That's not in any sense a usual meaning of 'life', and given the normal meaning of life. And removing people it has no 'existence'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That's not in any sense a usual meaning of 'life', and given the normal meaning of life. And removing people it has no 'existence'.

Of course it is - "life" is used colloquially in all sorts of contexts ("Beethoven's fifth has taken on a life of its own" etc).

Anyway, the point here is that various entities (including memes) can have real world effects on real people with no real time human intervention involved. Religions are a good example of that, albeit among many other examples.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Of course it is - "life" is used colloquially in all sorts of contexts ("Beethoven's fifth has taken on a life of its own" etc).

Anyway, the point here is that various entities (including memes) can have real world effects on real people with no real time human intervention involved. Religions are a good example of that, albeit among many other examples.

I've already covered that there is a metaphorical idea of life that doesn't mean that that is commonly regarded as 'existence that has real effects on real people without the need of human intervention beyond its original authorship'
 And you've now added 'real time' and assumed it as an entity.

[jeremyp]

Coming back...if Christianity (2 billion), Islam (1.5 billion), Hinduism(1 billion) and Buddhism (0.4 billion).....the main religions.... had not developed, what would all these 5 billion people be?  How much more disunity and differences between them would there be?!

The fact that 5 billion people on the planet are united under just four groups, across geography, race, language, economic status.... is a great situation. I don't think you people are able to appreciate this simple fact.

Christianity isn't one united group. I would argue that most of the violence caused by religion was actually sectarian violence between groups within a single religion. For example most of the religious violence of Christians in the last millennium (excluding maybe the 20th century) was directed at other Christians. I think the same applies to Muslims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Of course it is - "life" is used colloquially in all sorts of contexts ("Beethoven's fifth has taken on a life of its own" etc).

Anyway, the point here is that various entities (including memes) can have real world effects on real people with no real time human intervention involved. Religions are a good example of that, albeit among many other examples.

This "life" you are talking about...is it an emergent property of religion or what?

[Sriram]

Christianity isn't one united group. I would argue that most of the violence caused by religion was actually sectarian violence between groups within a single religion. For example most of the religious violence of Christians in the last millennium (excluding maybe the 20th century) was directed at other Christians. I think the same applies to Muslims.

Violence is a part of some peoples lives. They just need an excuse.  There is violence within some families...doesn't mean that families by their very nature encourage violence or are responsible for it. Families are a unifying and essential unit...violence is just an aberration.  Similarly with religions.

Religions have been responsible for a feeling of oneness among diverse groups across geography and other differences. The feeling of kinship among people within a religion is far more pervasive and far more powerful than any differences or violence among them.

Also, many of the modern humanistic values that civilized people (including atheists) promote has been taught and enforced by religions. These values are today an essential part of civilized societies because of the social control brought about by religions.  The transition from tribal values to universal values of humanism, love, honesty, non-violence, charity, service above self and so on....have been possible largely because of religions.

Today many of these values could exist outside religions but they have been enforced and spread across the world largely by religions, over the centuries.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Violence is a part of some peoples lives. They just need an excuse.  There is violence within some families...doesn't mean that families by their very nature encourage violence or are responsible for it. Families are a unifying and essential unit...violence is just an aberration.  Similarly with religions.

Religions have been responsible for a feeling of oneness among diverse groups across geography and other differences. The feeling of kinship among people within a religion is far more pervasive and far more powerful than any differences or violence among them.

Also, many of the modern humanistic values that civilized people (including atheists) promote has been taught and enforced by religions. These values are today an essential part of civilized societies because of the social control brought about by religions.  The transition from tribal values to universal values of humanism, love, honesty, non-violence, charity, service above self and so on....have been possible largely because of religions.

Today many of these values could exist outside religions but they have been enforced and spread across the world largely by religions, over the centuries.

A good summary of your case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religions haven't done anything. People created all of them. It makes no difference what they claim. The homophobia etc come from the people.

I believe it was Chief Rabbi Sachs who observed that if Christianity were true it could be true without any adherents but there could be no Judaism without people.

[Gordon]

Violence is a part of some peoples lives. They just need an excuse.  There is violence within some families...doesn't mean that families by their very nature encourage violence or are responsible for it. Families are a unifying and essential unit...violence is just an aberration.  Similarly with religions.

I agree with you on one point: religions are an aberration.

Religions have been responsible for a feeling of oneness among diverse groups across geography and other differences. The feeling of kinship among people within a religion is far more pervasive and far more powerful than any differences or violence among them.

Where the 'us and and them', and consequent 'othering', has been a prime cause of human conflict over millenia.

Also, many of the modern humanistic values that civilized people (including atheists) promote has been taught and enforced by religions. These values are today an essential part of civilized societies because of the social control brought about by religions.  The transition from tribal values to universal values of humanism, love, honesty, non-violence, charity, service above self and so on....have been possible largely because of religions.

Today many of these values could exist outside religions but they have been enforced and spread across the world largely by religions, over the centuries.

To a degree perhaps, though I don't think religions can lay claim to ethics and morality. But what about the unethical and immoral social values promulgated by religion - institutional misogyny for example?

[jeremyp]

That will be because society was made up of people who were homophobic.

I think your argument is a version of the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. The problem with that argument is that guns make it a lot easier to kill people.

Similarly, people might be homophobic without religion, but a religion that tells you homosexuality is a sin makes it a lot easier to justify your homophobia to yourself and others and makes it easier to go out and be cruel to gay people.

[Sriram]

I agree with you on one point: religions are an aberration.

Where the 'us and and them', and consequent 'othering', has been a prime cause of human conflict over millenia.

To a degree perhaps, though I don't think religions can lay claim to ethics and morality. But what about the unethical and immoral social values promulgated by religion - institutional misogyny for example?

I said ...violence is an aberration.  The two world wars were not caused by religions nor is the Ukraine war.

The 'us' and 'them' feeling would have been much more without the unifying major religions. Local  communities were always suspicious of other communities. Suspicion and violence are a natural part of instinctive survival issues. The major religions in fact reduced these mutual suspicions by unifying people under a single doctrine and also by teaching them tolerance, love and brotherhood.

Misogyny  is present in many societies regardless of religion.  Trafficking and exploitation of women are present world over today. Thugs and the mafia are responsible for this.   

No religion teaches exploitation of women. Some religions (not all) probably restrict the movement of women because of social conditions and possibilities of exploitation and rape under ancient and medieval conditions.   

[ProfessorDavey]

I think your argument is a version of the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. The problem with that argument is that guns make it a lot easier to kill people.

Similarly, people might be homophobic without religion, but a religion that tells you homosexuality is a sin makes it a lot easier to justify your homophobia to yourself and others and makes it easier to go out and be cruel to gay people.

Exactly - the notion that an individual will act in exactly the same manner if they live on one societal culture compared to a different societal culture is completely bonkers. How we behave is a combination of our innate beliefs and the overlaying impact of societal expectations. And even those innate beliefs will largely be driven by that societal overlay, but at the most 'local level' of parental expectation but also a much wider societal view of the limits of what is, and is not, acceptable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think your argument is a version of the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. The problem with that argument is that guns make it a lot easier to kill people.

Similarly, people might be homophobic without religion, but a religion that tells you homosexuality is a sin makes it a lot easier to justify your homophobia to yourself and others and makes it easier to go out and be cruel to gay people.

Bzz Mission creep and bad analogy. Guns were always intended to kill. Religion not so. I have long contended that campaigning atheism has weaponised homosexuality which is now seen for its utility in sticking one on a fast reducing number of churches rather than anything else.
In other words boys, when the church is tolerant of guys you can concentrate on missing secular homophobia.

[ProfessorDavey]

No religion teaches exploitation of women.

Really - I was at a school christmas concert a couple of nights ago that included the standard bible readings used for that purpose, which includes the start of Genesis which included the following words (note girls and boys were present):

'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

And this is the very starting point of three of the major religions in the world today - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Some religions (not all) probably restrict the movement of women because of social conditions and possibilities of exploitation and rape under ancient and medieval conditions.

Sure there are extreme examples, but certainly in the UK the major christian denominations do not support equality for women. So, of course RCC allows only men to become priests and therefore attain levels of hierarchy in the church. Sure the CofE allows women priests, bishops etc but there still isn't equality as parishes and individual priests can refuse to accept the authority of a bishop if she is a woman, but they cannot refuse to accept the authority of a male bishop.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First past the post makes this a specious argument in terms of majorities of people.

The Conservative party is evil and there are no signs of repentance. Nobody should be voting for them so it should be irrelevant what the voting system is or how it's gamed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - I was at a school christmas concert a couple of nights ago that included the standard bible readings used for that purpose, which includes the start of Genesis which included the following words (note girls and boys were present):

'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

And this is the very starting point of three of the major religions in the world today - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Sure there are extreme examples, but certainly in the UK the major christian denominations do not support equality for women. So, of course RCC allows only men to become priests and therefore attain levels of hierarchy in the church. Sure the CofE allows women priests, bishops etc but there still isn't equality as parishes and individual priests can refuse to accept the authority of a bishop if she is a woman, but they cannot refuse to accept the authority of a male bishop.

But hang on...the nativity narrative in the Bible where the key decision in the foundation of the gospel and church is made
 by Mary stands in contradiction to what you are suggesting in that bible passage.

[ProfessorDavey]

But hang on...the nativity narrative in the Bible where the key decision in the foundation of the gospel and church is made

Not really - the need for redemption is based on the concept of collective inherited guilt, which comes exactly from that section of Genesis. That's why that particular text in Genesis is read as part of the standard nine lessons and carols.

by Mary stands in contradiction to what you are suggesting in that bible passage.

No she doesn't, quite the reverse. The story of Mary, as written in the NT is one of someone ordered to do something over which she is given absolutely no choice. Sounds smack on consistent with the 'and he shall rule over thee' text in Genesis. And also the whole 'virgin' part is also entirely linked to the perceived sexually-inspired threat and deceit by women towards men.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - the need for redemption is based on the concept of collective inherited guilt, which comes exactly from that section of Genesis. That's why that particular text in Genesis is read as part of the standard nine lessons and carols.
No she doesn't, quite the reverse. The story of Mary, as written in the NT is one of someone ordered to do something over which she is given absolutely no choice. Sounds smack on consistent with the 'and he shall rule over thee' text in Genesis. And also the whole 'virgin' part is also entirely linked to the perceived sexually-inspired threat and deceit by women towards men.

I mean in terms of human decisions which had to be made.
Your interpretation of Mary's decision is caricature and I'm not sure about your interpretation of genesis.

That said, did you tackle anybody on the matter?

[ProfessorDavey]

I mean in terms of human decisions which had to be made.

No idea what you mean - the whole notion of the need for redemption of sins by Jesus is entirely based on Genesis, which is where the notion that we are all born in sin comes from. No Genesis, no need for Jesus.

Your interpretation of Mary's decision is caricature and I'm not sure about your interpretation of genesis.

Not at all - where is Mary given any say in the matter. I'm unaware that she consents to being impregnated - I think we have a term for that. And the immaculate (i.e. without sin) notion for Mary and that she is portrayed as a virgin is entirely consistent with the concept in Genesis that sin comes from the sexuality of women.

That said, did you tackle anybody on the matter?

Nope - because this is largely a music event, run by the music department and involving musical performances but in the traditional format of lessons and carols - the readings are traditional and as a non-religious school no-one would expect them to be taken literally or seriously. The ethos of the school is very clearly that students are treated equally regardless of sex.

[Aruntraveller]

The Conservative party is evil and there are no signs of repentance. Nobody should be voting for them so it should be irrelevant what the voting system is or how it's gamed.

That statement might be correct, and I agree nobody should be voting for them (no surprise there), but it is a stupid statement. It flies in the face of reality and human behaviour. People will vote for them because they perceive things differently from you and me. Until the voting system is changed we are always likely to suffer governments that do not more accurately reflect the will of the people.

[jeremyp]

But hang on...the nativity narrative in the Bible where the key decision in the foundation of the gospel and church is made
 by Mary stands in contradiction to what you are suggesting in that bible passage.

What? You mean where she agrees to get knocked up by God?

That doesn't sound very contradictory to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea what you mean

That Mary's consent is from one point of view the most important historical decision any believer has had to make making the decisions of the popes historical footnotes

  - the whole notion of the need for redemption of sins by Jesus is entirely based on Genesis, which is where the notion that we are all born in sin comes from. No Genesis, no need for Jesus.

That isn't right. Jesus according to Paul undoes the consequence of Adam. Western Christianity has this reversal imputed at baptism but in any case the route(jesus)back to God is reopened. Also there are numerous biblical references to Jesus saving people from ''their sins'' ''Your sins'' and where people do not take the route back to God as opened by Jesus dying in ''their sins''.

Not at all - where is Mary given any say in the matter. I'm unaware that she consents to being impregnated

First of all you do realise don't you that Mary is not already pregnant when the angel encounters her? The Angel explains a future conception. The encounter throughout which Mary remains not pregnant ends with Mary saying 'Let it be' this article explains it https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/let-it-be-marys-radical-declaration-of-consent/266616/

And the immaculate (i.e. without sin) notion for Mary and that she is portrayed as a virgin is entirely consistent with the concept in Genesis that sin comes from the sexuality of women.

Not a doctrine that is universal in christianity and inconsistent with the import of Adam's sin in any case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What? You mean where she agrees to get knocked up by God?

That doesn't sound very contradictory to me.

You what?

[jeremyp]

You what?

Mary is used by a male patriarchal god as a breeding mare in the Bible. Pregnancy was quite dangerous in those days, not to mention there would have been severe social repercussions for a woman pregnant out of wedlock. This is not a contradiction of the men ruling over women passage in Genesis, it is an affirmation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That statement might be correct, and I agree nobody should be voting for them (no surprise there), but it is a stupid statement. It flies in the face of reality and human behaviour. People will vote for them because they perceive things differently from you and me. Until the voting system is changed we are always likely to suffer governments that do not more accurately reflect the will of the people.

Yes and the point is, are religions or voting systems or any number of abstract ''things'' to blame or is it people?
The will of the people is that some vote for parties other than tories but most people are happy to let the tories win or vote for them to win....and somehow Humanists UK are optimistic!