Religious inconsistency question

[sandorski]

We're not connecting on this. I think writing is failing here. Could be the forum format's fault. Some ideas take whole books to sink in (whether you end up accepting or rejecting them). But it's more likely my writing ability.
Sorry.

I'm not talking about when you answer a test question wrong, or make a simply incorrect assumption. I mean when you're so off kilter - could be drunk, though I've never been that drunk; could be completely broken hearted finding the person you've loved for years has utterly betrayed you; maybe suddenly being homeless - that now you don't know which way is up.


You can build on religion's rules with other mental (spiritual?) constructs. These can address lifes issues where the religious basics you've been taught don't reach.


I'm not suggesting new knowledge ("new" to science) adds to the universe itself.

I don't believe that as humans we can hold all of the universe (all the answers) in our minds. I think it will require a post humanity. Whether this post humanity will be achieved through purely scientific or some other means I don't know. (How about a religion about cybernetics that achieves the greatest advances in modified human intellect :awe


Zen and the Art... that I mentioned does profess the idea of Colleges being "Churches of Reason" and that they can be absurd, yes. That doesn't make it all pointless.
I think the pursuit of knowledge is an admirable one. Without it, I wouldn't be able to log on to this forum to converse with you! One of my favorite projects to watch is the Human Brain Computer Interface (BCI).

I think that the achievement of religious ideals can also be advanced with more knowledge. Scientific pursuit is not pointless, it's just not the only valid way of thinking about the world. I find spirituality in general, and religion in particular, add a richness to life that would be absent without it.



Agreed.

When I'm broken hearted or overwhelmed with Emotion, I cry(or whatever is appropriate for the circumstance) for awhile, think about things, and eventually I get through it. Was there something else I am supposed to do? This is essentially how everyone deals with such things, barring those who commit suicide anyway. Some people "turn to God" during those times, but I would suggest that they are merely talking to themselves, their "god" is just an imagined alter ego.

Thoughts, Reason, or the Mind are not "Spiritual". Spiritual or the Soul are entirely different concepts that, if they existed, do not require the Brain. Everything you think is a function of the Brain, there is nothing that you do that doesn't require the Brain's involvement.

I agree, 1 Mind can't hold all the answers of the Universe/Reality. Hell, 1 Mind can't hold all the answers we have acquired already. It is a moot point however. As a Group we can use these answers by working together.

I disagree, Religion is not a valid way of thinking about the World. I would agree that at some point it was an improved way of doing it, but only in an indirect fashion. It has contributed and benefited to/from Philosophical thinking/discussion. At times it provided a certain form of Order and Legal structure, but those were called the Dark Ages for a reason and there was little to no improvement throughout that period when Religion was the sole focus. We have grown beyond Religion, it's only affect on Society now is to hold us back and, increasingly, to drag us back to the Dark Ages.

 

[v-600]

Well whadda ya know. This appears to have turned into another science vs religion thread

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well whadda ya know. This appears to have turned into another science vs religion thread

There is much hate simmering. These rarely end well.

 

[LightPattern]

When I'm broken hearted or overwhelmed with Emotion, I cry(or whatever is appropriate for the circumstance) for awhile, think about things, and eventually I get through it. Was there something else I am supposed to do? This is essentially how everyone deals with such things, barring those who commit suicide anyway. Some people "turn to God" during those times, but I would suggest that they are merely talking to themselves, their "god" is just an imagined alter ego.

Thoughts, Reason, or the Mind are not "Spiritual". Spiritual or the Soul are entirely different concepts that, if they existed, do not require the Brain. Everything you think is a function of the Brain, there is nothing that you do that doesn't require the Brain's involvement.

I agree, 1 Mind can't hold all the answers of the Universe/Reality. Hell, 1 Mind can't hold all the answers we have acquired already. It is a moot point however. As a Group we can use these answers by working together.

I disagree, Religion is not a valid way of thinking about the World. I would agree that at some point it was an improved way of doing it, but only in an indirect fashion. It has contributed and benefited to/from Philosophical thinking/discussion. At times it provided a certain form of Order and Legal structure, but those were called the Dark Ages for a reason and there was little to no improvement throughout that period when Religion was the sole focus. We have grown beyond Religion, it's only affect on Society now is to hold us back and, increasingly, to drag us back to the Dark Ages.

When in crisis we may intellectually pivot. Accept a new schema for re-interpreting the world. I believe one thing religious training accomplishes is the ability to get through that process while retaining more of what the religious would call Truth.
So you rely on your faith in your own intellect, and haven't noticed significant distortions after falling into intellectual darkness?
Some people I have found (not suggesting you, but some) don't have a good recollection of the times that they are in crisis. They don't remember being in a severely altered state of consciousness.

Zen & the Art.., as well as books on Taoism were an awakening for me. I now see the holes in relying on knowledge and logic alone. And that I had experienced those gaps in the past, before I learned to recognize them.
Everything you feel is not simply a function of the brain. Even strictly biologically speaking. Your feelings do severely impact your thoughts. As a friend of mine stated "There is no intellectual motion, without e-motion."

I'm not trying to be haughty or superior, though I do believe more knowledge/experience can lead to superiority. If we're not growing and advancing when we add to our minds what are we doing?

You spoke earlier of knowledge leading to more focus that would benefit the pursuit of more knowledge. I think many people view the world through the lens of their religion and it helps them focus on the knowledge that is important to them.

We do disagree here. I don't see that it's truly possible to grow beyond religion. You can start ignoring it, lose a lot of knowledge and skills that are associated and developed with it, and eventually lose touch with what it means.

I think the perception you're reflecting on here is limited to the Christian Church. I'm sure you have knowledge of other religions, but are you really trying to refute Native American, Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist, Sikhism and other religions that are practiced all around the world?
Religion and culture are inexorably linked. It sounds to me like you think the world would be better off with a single, secular, culture. That right?
I think the only way to give up religion entirely would be to give up our humanity. I do believe in post humanity, I just hope it's not composed of cold calculating secular robots.

 

[LightPattern]

Well whadda ya know. This appears to have turned into another science vs religion thread

I believe science and religion coexist fairly well. I have had people tell me my view of religion is nontraditional though.

There is much hate simmering. These rarely end well.

I think Sandorski and I are doing quite well actually. *raises his cup of tea*
If there is hate, it's not transmitting over here.

 

[Pulsar]

I admired your earlier post. This one I have an issue with.
Are you thinking of the anti-homosexuality edicts of most religions? I can only speak for some Christian teaching, but it is generally to show love to all people. You can still disagree with the way someone acts, while being tolerant of it.
Good religion trains in admirable traits like honor, loyalty, and resilience.
It's true that churches are made up of fallible people, and so they sometimes fail to live up to their principles.

That was what came to mind first, yes. Unfortunately, it's written into the bible and that's religion's textbook.

I like your statement about teaching people about honor, loyalty, and resilience. But teaching them that traits like homosexuality are sins can't really be glossed over. By tieing in those anti-homosexual views with the attainment of heaven, religion has and continues to create hatred.

Unfortunately, changes in religion happen far more slowly than cultural changes do. (That's part of religion's point - to maintain). Eventually they'll back away from the homosexual issue the same way that they've been forced to back away from divorce, etc.

There are quite a few religious people who I consider friends. But I still have to lay the problems that religion causes at their doorstep. There would certainly be hatred of homosexuals without religions - but teaching that it's wrong just makes it that much worse.

I respect religion for the good that it does, but I hope they can step forward and remove those parts of their beliefs that are harmful.

 

[Pulsar]

It's ok to play devils advocate but the bolded is just flat out wrong. So there should be no harm involved. Atheists, in large part, simply discard it all, period. That may not be fact but a all but undisputed opinion bordering on fact.

Mind you, I am not implying they are "ignorant smacks" just most lack the ability to decipher opinion from fact. (especially their own). Oh, and lol at the request for 'data' proving an opinion, just like an atheist to request such scientific and imperial proof for an opinionated debate, lol...

I guess we're going to have to disagree. I'm having a lot of cognitive dissonance trying to understand your contention that atheists as a group are motivated by opinion rather than fact. I would think, in general, that your statement would apply more to those who support religion, for which there is no scientific proof.

 

[Pulsar]

Finally, back to the original poster's point. I'm not sure what you mean by left-to-right scale. I didn't see that clearly in the article. When I taught my children about the bible, I simply skipped over the contradictory (and anti-woman/anti-gay etc) portions of it. So I guess I try to ignore them and just take the good. Of course, this is coming from a pseudo-atheist point of view.

 

[Pulsar]

I think the only way to give up religion entirely would be to give up our humanity. I do believe in post humanity, I just hope it's not composed of cold calculating secular robots.

We disagree there. I don't believe that our humanity, or morals, or ethics stem from the bible. To put it another way, I don't believe religions is necessary to have morals, ethics, or humanity.

 

[v-600]

By left to right scale I simply meant a linear one from one side of the page to the other. It could run up and down if you wanted.

 

[sandorski]

When in crisis we may intellectually pivot. Accept a new schema for re-interpreting the world. I believe one thing religious training accomplishes is the ability to get through that process while retaining more of what the religious would call Truth.
So you rely on your faith in your own intellect, and haven't noticed significant distortions after falling into intellectual darkness?
Some people I have found (not suggesting you, but some) don't have a good recollection of the times that they are in crisis. They don't remember being in a severely altered state of consciousness.

Zen & the Art.., as well as books on Taoism were an awakening for me. I now see the holes in relying on knowledge and logic alone. And that I had experienced those gaps in the past, before I learned to recognize them.
Everything you feel is not simply a function of the brain. Even strictly biologically speaking. Your feelings do severely impact your thoughts. As a friend of mine stated "There is no intellectual motion, without e-motion."

I'm not trying to be haughty or superior, though I do believe more knowledge/experience can lead to superiority. If we're not growing and advancing when we add to our minds what are we doing?

You spoke earlier of knowledge leading to more focus that would benefit the pursuit of more knowledge. I think many people view the world through the lens of their religion and it helps them focus on the knowledge that is important to them.

We do disagree here. I don't see that it's truly possible to grow beyond religion. You can start ignoring it, lose a lot of knowledge and skills that are associated and developed with it, and eventually lose touch with what it means.

I think the perception you're reflecting on here is limited to the Christian Church. I'm sure you have knowledge of other religions, but are you really trying to refute Native American, Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist, Sikhism and other religions that are practiced all around the world?
Religion and culture are inexorably linked. It sounds to me like you think the world would be better off with a single, secular, culture. That right?
I think the only way to give up religion entirely would be to give up our humanity. I do believe in post humanity, I just hope it's not composed of cold calculating secular robots.

Ok, I think I understand better by what you mean by Intellect Failure. I disagree with the term, as that is all we have to make decisions. Some think there's more, the reality is that they simply are misattributing their Intellect for Soul, Spirit, or even God, Angels, or other such thing.

There's a reason why the Military, Police, Fire Fighters, and others in high stress situations train regularly in often potentially dangerous exercises. That is to condition them for those times when split second decisions need to be made. They Know what to do in those situations and that makes it more likely that they will make the right decisions. That is the key, their Intellect stays in control and they live, lose control and they die.

Perhaps some Religious people in Religions that practice calm Meditation and the like may be less likely to lose control of their faculties under high stress, but even then it is their Intellect that they use. Other Religious people of other Religions are likely to fail as they succumb to calling out to their god(s)(I suppose some of them could get lucky, if doing nothing is the right choice).

I would postulate though that if an Atheist came home and found their spouse cheating on them with their best friend and a Religious person came home to the same situation, that the outcome is likely to be the same on average. Whether they commit a Crime of Passion or not will not be altered by their view of Religion. With one caveat, some Religion would give that Spouse, especially if they were the Male, clearance to commit such a violent act. In fact, it may encourage or even command it.

I simply don't accept the notion that Religion holds any unique Knowledge or Skill. Anything a Religion does can be done outside of it and in a Secular way.

No, I don't believe in a Singular Culture. It could happen, given enough time, but multiple Secular based cultures could co-exist. However, certain universal values would have to be shared, like Non-Aggression and/or an agreed upon conflict resolution mechanism. As such, I believe that if we are to continue progressing, some form of a Global Government is necessary.

Religion does not offer that possibility, except through the domination of all other Religions. This will inevitably lead to a conflict that we simply can not afford or survive.

 

[LightPattern]

We disagree there. I don't believe that our humanity, or morals, or ethics stem from the bible. To put it another way, I don't believe religions is necessary to have morals, ethics, or humanity.

Not from the Bible alone certainly. But it can be a source and a mooring to weather the storms.

Religion teaches that there is more to life than can be perceived with external senses alone. You can classify this as the supernatural (and Christianity certainly does), or part of what is natural (Animism and Buddhism).

Everyone walks around with a fundamental lack of understanding, or even a misunderstanding, of some underlying principles.
But a few examples:
1) Why our feet don't go through the floor even though most of us with a high school education understand that atoms are composed primarily of empty space.
2) How the sun affects our bodies, giving us vitamin D among other chemical processes some of which may cause cancer.

Both of those are fairly important to our everyday lives aren't they? I'm not talking about esoteric things here.
Science proposes some level of answers to the examples I've given(though if you keep drilling down, eventually the answers stop). It's just that most of us don't understand those answers and happily go about our lives ignoring that fact.
So our minds ignore them, and focus attention elsewhere. I see this as a property of religion.
Something is used to explain away those gaps, keeping your mind on the rails upon which it travels. This something is at least a philosophy, but I pose that it extends further than that, necessarily into religion.

 

[LightPattern]

There's a reason why the Military, Police, Fire Fighters, and others in high stress situations train regularly in often potentially dangerous exercises. That is to condition them for those times when split second decisions need to be made. They Know what to do in those situations and that makes it more likely that they will make the right decisions. That is the key, their Intellect stays in control and they live, lose control and they die.

Perhaps some Religious people in Religions that practice calm Meditation and the like may be less likely to lose control of their faculties under high stress, but even then it is their Intellect that they use. Other Religious people of other Religions are likely to fail as they succumb to calling out to their god(s)(I suppose some of them could get lucky, if doing nothing is the right choice).

Military and first responders that you mentioned, who experience and deal with high stress on a regular basis, I understand have a higher tendency to be religious than the general population. I know this anecdotally and from my experience, I don't have statistics to back it up.

I agree sitting and calling out to a supernatural force when in trouble, and not acting in addition to it will generally produce poor results.

I would postulate though that if an Atheist came home and found their spouse cheating on them with their best friend and a Religious person came home to the same situation, that the outcome is likely to be the same on average. Whether they commit a Crime of Passion or not will not be altered by their view of Religion. With one caveat, some Religion would give that Spouse, especially if they were the Male, clearance to commit such a violent act. In fact, it may encourage or even command it.

On reacting to cheating or the sudden discovery of such - I disagree that religion makes no difference. A central tenet of Christianity is forgiveness. Now, you mentioned crimes of passion, I think those are more likely to occur if a person feels they don't have any support. A religious community is supportive of people who have been wronged. I've been part of non-religious communities that focus much more on winners and losers. If you're a loser, well, "sucks to be you!" Another common phrase is "that sounds like a personal problem" as opposed to people being more empathetic.

Religious commandments vary widely. I wouldn't stand up for a religion that advocates murder.

I simply don't accept the notion that Religion holds any unique Knowledge or Skill. Anything a Religion does can be done outside of it and in a Secular way.

Then what's in the Vatican's vaults ay? ^_^

But seriously, I don't think an atheist would be able to do some of what clergy can for their believers, and would have great difficulty and a lack of a base from which to build to accomplish some of what Eastern monks can do. Without their religious understanding.

No, I don't believe in a Singular Culture. It could happen, given enough time, but multiple Secular based cultures could co-exist. However, certain universal values would have to be shared, like Non-Aggression and/or an agreed upon conflict resolution mechanism. As such, I believe that if we are to continue progressing, some form of a Global Government is necessary.

Religion does not offer that possibility, except through the domination of all other Religions. This will inevitably lead to a conflict that we simply can not afford or survive.

I don't believe a single culture could happen on a worldwide basis without the discovery of some new, mind & social altering, technology. Social networking has moved us in that direction, but alone it is not enough. Perhaps a social network of BCI connected people would all share the same culture.

Our ability to wage war with WMDs (nuclear, chemical, biological) does indeed threaten the planet's people. Religion is but one cause of war, and there are religions to which no wars have been attributed. It is true that Judeo Christianity and Islam are militant religions. And that brings them into, sometimes violent, conflict.
Not all religious communities are that way.


Some of what I'm talking about are the wider implications of religion rather than religion itself. But as you're arguing for getting rid of religion all together I think this is fair.

 

[sandorski]

Military and first responders that you mentioned, who experience and deal with high stress on a regular basis, I understand have a higher tendency to be religious than the general population. I know this anecdotally and from my experience, I don't have statistics to back it up.

I agree sitting and calling out to a supernatural force when in trouble, and not acting in addition to it will generally produce poor results.



On reacting to cheating or the sudden discovery of such - I disagree that religion makes no difference. A central tenet of Christianity is forgiveness. Now, you mentioned crimes of passion, I think those are more likely to occur if a person feels they don't have any support. A religious community is supportive of people who have been wronged. I've been part of non-religious communities that focus much more on winners and losers. If you're a loser, well, "sucks to be you!" Another common phrase is "that sounds like a personal problem" as opposed to people being more empathetic.

Religious commandments vary widely. I wouldn't stand up for a religion that advocates murder.

Then what's in the Vatican's vaults ay? ^_^

But seriously, I don't think an atheist would be able to do some of what clergy can for their believers, and would have great difficulty and a lack of a base from which to build to accomplish some of what Eastern monks can do. Without their religious understanding.



I don't believe a single culture could happen on a worldwide basis without the discovery of some new, mind & social altering, technology. Social networking has moved us in that direction, but alone it is not enough. Perhaps a social network of BCI connected people would all share the same culture.

Our ability to wage war with WMDs (nuclear, chemical, biological) does indeed threaten the planet's people. Religion is but one cause of war, and there are religions to which no wars have been attributed. It is true that Judeo Christianity and Islam are militant religions. And that brings them into, sometimes violent, conflict.
Not all non-religious communities are that way.


Some of what I'm talking about are the wider implications of religion rather than religion itself. But as you're arguing for getting rid of religion all together I think this is fair.

Religion is not the only reason for conflict, it's just the biggest cause of the divisions that exist at this time that result in War. It is Tribalistic and divisive. We no longer can afford such division in this day and age.

 

[LightPattern]

Religion is not the only reason for conflict, it's just the biggest cause of the divisions that exist at this time that result in War. It is Tribalistic and divisive. We no longer can afford such division in this day and age.

Christianity - as based on the New Testament, not the Old - is not tribalistic to my understanding. Jesus's teachings are actually quite anti-tribal. I did mention Judeo Christianity and the Bible if taken as a whole includes Jewish superiority, yes.
I mentioned in post #8 that I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. I also believe that to be true of any extensive recording. Put more technically - no recording has perfect fidelity.
(This would be a great defense for the Bible as a whole, but personally I hold parts of it to be flat out wrong.)

An aside.. some celebrated academics believe that tribalism can be a good thing. Daniel Quinn's work has inspired quite a few companies to try to change their cultures to include its advantages. (Including one I used to work for.)​

Divisiveness apart from tribalism... I won't argue.

 

[sandorski]

Christianity - as based on the New Testament, not the Old - is not tribalistic to my understanding. Jesus's teachings are actually quite anti-tribal. I did mention Judeo Christianity and the Bible if taken as a whole includes Jewish superiority, yes.
I mentioned in post #8 that I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. I also believe that to be true of any extensive recording. Put more technically - no recording has perfect fidelity.
(This would be a great defense for the Bible as a whole, but personally I hold parts of it to be flat out wrong.)

An aside.. some celebrated academics believe that tribalism can be a good thing. Daniel Quinn's work has inspired quite a few companies to try to change their cultures to include its advantages. (Including one I used to work for.)​

Divisiveness apart from tribalism... I won't argue.

No, it's definitely Tribalistic. By that I mean, it separates people based upon an artificial construct. Anything that declares itself as the only way is automatically going to be divisive.

At some point I would agree that Tribalism was a good thing. It was the beginning of developing more civil societies. It has outlived its' usefulness as we have found much better ways of organizing societies.

 

[Pulsar]

Christianity - as based on the New Testament, not the Old - is not tribalistic to my understanding. Jesus's teachings are actually quite anti-tribal. I did mention Judeo Christianity and the Bible if taken as a whole includes Jewish superiority, yes.
I mentioned in post #8 that I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. I also believe that to be true of any extensive recording. Put more technically - no recording has perfect fidelity.
(This would be a great defense for the Bible as a whole, but personally I hold parts of it to be flat out wrong.)

An aside.. some celebrated academics believe that tribalism can be a good thing. Daniel Quinn's work has inspired quite a few companies to try to change their cultures to include its advantages. (Including one I used to work for.)​

Divisiveness apart from tribalism... I won't argue.

I would think that Christianity is quite Tribalistic from another religion's perspective. Indeed, I think most religions are. Therein lies one of the basic problems of religion. You either believe in a particular one 'or else'. In Christianity, the 'or else' is that you're going to hell. Clearly, in some people's version of the Muslim faith, it means you get your ass blown up. Etc.

I don't know how you fix that though, short of abolishing all religion, which in itself is not a positive action.

 

[sandorski]

I would think that Christianity is quite Tribalistic from another religion's perspective. Indeed, I think most religions are. Therein lies one of the basic problems of religion. You either believe in a particular one 'or else'. In Christianity, the 'or else' is that you're going to hell. Clearly, in some people's version of the Muslim faith, it means you get your ass blown up. Etc.

I don't know how you fix that though, short of abolishing all religion, which in itself is not a positive action.

That would depend on how you abolish it. I think the only way is through convincing Theists that they should. Forcing it only causes them to be even more convinced and turn more violent.

 

[LightPattern]

No, it's definitely Tribalistic. By that I mean, it separates people based upon an artificial construct. Anything that declares itself as the only way is automatically going to be divisive.

At some point I would agree that Tribalism was a good thing. It was the beginning of developing more civil societies. It has outlived its' usefulness as we have found much better ways of organizing societies.

Nations are historically considered to be larger than tribes. Christianity has united nations.
If we're going to use your definition of "tribalistic" than corporations are by default tribalistic, as are countries that have nationalistic attitudes.

I would think that Christianity is quite Tribalistic from another religion's perspective. Indeed, I think most religions are. Therein lies one of the basic problems of religion. You either believe in a particular one 'or else'. In Christianity, the 'or else' is that you're going to hell. Clearly, in some people's version of the Muslim faith, it means you get your ass blown up. Etc.

I don't know how you fix that though, short of abolishing all religion, which in itself is not a positive action.

I think Pulsar has something here. When you're looking from the outside in, any social group could be considered "tribalistic" if it excludes you.

I'm not a Buddhist, but my understanding is that their "or else" when you don't believe is that you just keep on suffering with the rest of humanity. Until you become "enlightened."

Animists according to http://animisminternational.org/faq/ really don't have an "or else." They just think you won't be as happy if you don't believe as they do.

Since the OP asked about our personal beliefs I'll say I don't believe in the traditional depictions of hell. I'll point to C.S. Lewis's writings again and elaborate via PM if someone wants to discuss it.

 

[ShagglestheLion]

It's important to remember, that religion is the pathway to greed.

Through control. Through malicious acts of control.

It's in part, to the sheer number of them being tied to the Government

in order to gain profit.

NOT prophet (s)

 

[sandorski]

Nations are historically considered to be larger than tribes. Christianity has united nations.
If we're going to use your definition of "tribalistic" than corporations are by default tribalistic, as are countries that have nationalistic attitudes.



I think Pulsar has something here. When you're looking from the outside in, any social group could be considered "tribalistic" if it excludes you.

I'm not a Buddhist, but my understanding is that their "or else" when you don't believe is that you just keep on suffering with the rest of humanity. Until you become "enlightened."

Animists according to http://animisminternational.org/faq/ really don't have an "or else." They just think you won't be as happy if you don't believe as they do.

Since the OP asked about our personal beliefs I'll say I don't believe in the traditional depictions of hell. I'll point to C.S. Lewis's writings again and elaborate via PM if someone wants to discuss it.

The things you mention are all tribalistic to varying degrees. Religion is more so though. Most Nations, especially Western ones, are very inclusive of all sorts.

Whether Outside or Inside, it is tribalistic. Those on the Inside may not recognize it, but that's moot.

 

[Pulsar]

It's important to remember, that religion is the pathway to greed.

Through control. Through malicious acts of control.

It's in part, to the sheer number of them being tied to the Government

in order to gain profit.

NOT prophet (s)

This is discussion club. Please try to be constructive and hold a conversation utilizing facts. Or at least a bit of tact.

I think that if you look more closely you'll find positive aspects to nearly every religion, even if you aren't religious.

Off topic may have been the forum you were looking for.

 

[Retro Rob]

The things you mention are all tribalistic to varying degrees. Religion is more so though. Most Nations, especially Western ones, are very inclusive of all sorts.

Whether Outside or Inside, it is tribalistic. Those on the Inside may not recognize it, but that's moot.

So, it's tribalistic because you say it is, not because it actually "is".

I think he made a very good point, any exlucsion, by your definition, is "tribalistic". This is a false statement. I don't let strangers into my home, so I guess I am "tribalistic"? :whiste:

So, if a business excludes certain behavior, like work-place romances, that's tribalistic? To me, it just sounds like you're parroting the same unoriginald arguments against religion people have been making for decades. Tribalism is tribalism -- you can't double-talk and say: "this form of tribalism isn't as bad as theirs so that's more acceptable".

That's like saying: "Radical Islam is worse than Radical Christianity because Christians use legislation instead of suicide vests"....no, radical behavior is radical behavior.

To have a decent conversation, you have to remove your anit-religious biases and this is cleary not the case with your extremely narrow defintion of tribalism.

Sure, I am inclined to agree with you with certain religious groups, but saying religion is tribal (which includes all of them) is like saying sports are violent because football and boxing is.

This is simply a fallacy, and one often trotted out.

 

[Retro Rob]

Religion is not the only reason for conflict, it's just the biggest cause of the divisions that exist at this time that result in War. It is Tribalistic and divisive. We no longer can afford such division in this day and age.

I agree, but need I remind you that we just exited the most barbaric century of human histroy and it was mainly a secular century.

The genocidal behavior demonstrated by Communist regimes simply means these things are HUMAN PROBLEMS -- not just religious issues, not just secular issues. Anyone thinking that ridding the world of religion would magically bring us peace are delusionally dishonest with themselves and others.

I don't recall the two world wars, (which claimed probably more than 100 million) being religiously motivated, though religion was heavily involved and sent people in droves to their graves.

What we can't afford are stupid humans, whether their Christian, Muslim, Atheists...whatever.

I don't think you're being honest.

 

[justoh]

Newton was also an alchemist.

Anyway, responding to the second point, the reason atheists may seem so anti religious is because it does or can affect society at large. Religious people can vote and often do so based not on reason but rather religious dogma. It's why we have compulsory education, premised on the idea that we have to prepare children to become politically involved. If the us govt was more decentralized then it wouldn't bother us so much, but religious faith affects us all, not just in areas that are particularly religious.

All a reasonable atheist wants is for people to base knowledge on evidence rather than faith. It's nothing personal. Deism is benign and we don't feel threatened unless the religious claim to not only know there is a god but also make very particularized knowledge claims about what this entity expects from all of us. They then use govt to realize this revealed knowledge.

It's also inherently divisive. Again, some vague wishy washy religious belief isn't threatening in the same way as revealed religion.