Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Society After Religion

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    However it would not stop human irrationality at all, thats my point.

    It would stop humans being irrational in terms of being religious. You argument is still "doctors shouldn't cure cancer because people would still get sick", which is ludicrous. You either seem to be saying that its only worth getting rid of a source of irrationality if we can get rid of all of them at once, or you are saying its not worth getting rid of irrationality.
    jank wrote: »
    From the same link

    So?:confused: It originally meant the 6th to the 13th or 14th century's, but during the enlightenment era is was used to mean the period of time where they saw religion as having a hold on thought, from the link:
    During the 17th and 18th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment, many critical thinkers saw religion as antithetical to reason. For them the Middle Ages, or "Age of Faith", was therefore the polar opposite of the Age of Reason.
    jank wrote: »
    Why are humans irrational?

    Because our minds aren't perfect and we get too easily satisfied with quick easy answers. We emotively tend towards cognitive bias.
    jank wrote: »
    You are putting words in my mouth here.

    No, I'm not. You said "secularisation of schools and politics is not enough OK fair enough" and then followed with "what further restrictions would you impose". This implies that secularism (the new proposed system) is a restriction while religious bias (the old current system) is not.


  • Options
    #93
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    In your point of view you think that religion is the most irrational thing humans adhere to? Yes? However, who follows religion? Elephants? Cats? Dogs? No humans, therefore you must start with that basic principle. Saying that getting rid of religion will make us all rational beings is utter bollox. To say otherwise makes absolutely no attempt to understand the human condition. This is the real world, not Star Trek.

    So seeing as you aren't really putting effort into reading peoples posts properly, I'll play devils advocate for a moment.
    How do you propose we make humans more rational without doing anything about various examples or sources of irrationality, such as religion?


  • Options
    #94
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    Saying that getting rid of religion will make us all rational beings is utter bollox.
    Indeed. And that's probably the main reason that it's nobody's point of view.

    Having said that, the end of religion sits in the same category as the end of some terrible disease -- yes, people will still get sick from other things, but at least there's one disease less in the world.


  • Options
    #95
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    What about the point I offered you? That people's morals are not derived from Christianity but rather that Christianity's morals are twisted to suit people's. As I said 150 odd years ago people defended the right to keep slaves based on passages in the bible. Nobody (or only the fringe nutters) uses those passages today to defend slavery. What changed? The passages? Nope. People's views on the subject changed and now we have a whole host of apologetics to explain away the bits they don't like. In 150 years time Christianity if it still exists will be twisted further to suit the moral thinking of society not the other way round. So it's existence in regards morality is irrelevant.
    That's the big point you seem to be stepping around here. Religion existing or not will not change the path mankind heads down. It just provides a few speed bumps along the way.

    I don't buy that although it is a theory. Cast your eyes back 2000 years when Christianity was born. The Romans were not exactly a nice bunch of people when it came to rights and morals, although they were good engineers and knew how to have a good time if gladiator fighting and feeding people to lions was your thing. That is why Christianity back then was such a liberal, ground breaking movement. The Romans thought they were nut jobs of course.
    "What? love your neighbour? forgiveness? turn the other check, fecking weirdos!" That world was dog eat dog, literally!

    However they were a persistent bunch even when they were being feed to the lions, some out of their own free will!....and the rest is history.

    The slave issue is interesting because many Christians proclaim that to be a true christian then you should oppose slavery, this all happened in the 19th centuary. Lincoln was one of these people for example. So too were founding members of the anti-slavery society in Britian, Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce, both very pious men, one was a deacon.
    Of course slavery existed before the bible so...?

    On your last point, well that is an opinionof course. There is no proof or logic or scientific reason to believe that. Its such an open ended question. It may happen to be the case, it may not, I am just surprised so many just take it for granted that it will without no proof. I hear atheist's like proof.


  • Options
    #96
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    jank wrote: »
    I don't buy that although it is a theory. Cast your eyes back 2000 years when Christianity was born. The Romans were not exactly a nice bunch of people when it came to rights and morals, although they were good engineers and knew how to have a good time if gladiator fighting and feeding people to lions was your thing. That is why Christianity back then was such a liberal, ground breaking movement. The Romans thought they were nut jobs of course.
    "What? love your neighbour? forgiveness? turn the other check, fecking weirdos!" That world was dog eat dog, literally!

    Because the Christians were so nice when they went around burning to death people they thought were witches etc. Not barbaric at all that.
    And will people stop using the word literally when they don't mean literally!!!!
    The slave issue is interesting because many Christians proclaim that to be a true christian then you should oppose slavery, this all happened in the 19th centuary.

    It's almost as if they came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong despite the bible didn't tell them so...
    It' almost like this piece of morality came about independently of the Bible...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Dades wrote: »

    What are your own opinions on this question?

    I think humans are irrational and the demise of religion wont solve this key fundamental problem with humans. That is one of the bug bears of atheists who see religion as the all encompassing disease of mankind. Fix that and hey presto we are one big/small leap closer to a more perfect society....if only. I know you are saying that as a cause of us becoming more rational, humans will decide that religion has not part to play, however again that is a hopeful argument.


  • Options
    #98
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    jank wrote: »
    I think humans are irrational and the demise of religion wont solve this key fundamental problem with humans. That is one of the bug bears of atheists who see religion as the all encompassing disease of mankind. Fix that and hey presto we are one big/small leap closer to a more perfect society....if only. I know you are saying that as a cause of us becoming more rational, humans will decide that religion has not part to play, however again that is a hopeful argument.

    I don't know any atheists who believe what you think they believe.


  • Options
    #99
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    It's rather better than thinking that leaving religion as is will bring about a perfect society. People have been trying that one for millennia and I think it's safe to say that's been a miserable failure. It's fairly easy to see that countries where religion isn't at the forefront tend to be nicer places to live. As robindch mentioned before it probably happens the other way round, but either way, less religious influence seems very closely related to better standards of living.

    So I dunno, maybe give it a try instead of saying it'll never work?


  • Options
    #100
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It would stop humans being irrational in terms of being religious. You argument is still "doctors shouldn't cure cancer because people would still get sick", which is ludicrous. You either seem to be saying that its only worth getting rid of a source of irrationality if we can get rid of all of them at once, or you are saying its not worth getting rid of irrationality.

    That of course would be true if cancer was a natural phenomena. It is like commissioning research to find a way to make humans live forever. Ageing and dieing is natural, so is human irrationality, unfortunately, as much as you would like to claim otherwise.

    What I am saying is that it is better to improve something rather then get rid of it. Improve religion, rather then get rid of it, because you cant and wont get rid of it, so put your effort into improving it. That is all I am saying.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Because our minds aren't perfect and we get too easily satisfied with quick easy answers. We emotively tend towards cognitive bias.

    And the fix?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, I'm not. You said "secularisation of schools and politics is not enough OK fair enough" and then followed with "what further restrictions would you impose". This implies that secularism (the new proposed system) is a restriction while religious bias (the old current system) is not.

    Well, i didn't mean it that way, but you could answer my question.


  • Options
    #101
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Because the Christians were so nice when they went around burning to death people they thought were witches etc.

    It wasnt really a mainstream thing and was more of a Protestant fundamentalist thing.
    And the numbers were in the thousands over centuries.
    that does not justify it but you need to put it in context.
    Regimes promoting atheism killed in the millions per month and built nothing.
    Mainstream Christianity rarely killed any and built things.
    It's almost as if they came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong despite the bible didn't tell them so...
    It' almost like this piece of morality came about independently of the Bible...

    It did. sin existed before the law. even the Bible says that!

    and slavery democracy monarchy etc; are not really set up as a best or the better way by Christianity. Exploitation of human rights is frowned on though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Wait, instead of truth you just want better lies?


  • Options
    #103
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    That is one of the bug bears of atheists who see religion as the all encompassing disease of mankind.
    Hands up everybody who believe that religion is the "all-encompassing disease of mankind"?

    <keeps hands in pockets>


  • Options
    #104
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    New and improved cancer?


  • Options
    #105
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    sin existed before the law. even the Bible says that!
    Gotta be true then, eh?


  • Options
    #106
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    ISAW wrote: »
    Mainstream Christianity rarely killed any and built things.

    Government sponsored Christianity in Uganda is doing a great job killing loads of people.
    Or what about those mainstream Christians who killed countless in the Crusades?

    ah forget it. This thread has descended into pointless willy comparison.


  • Options
    #107
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    Indeed. And that's probably the main reason that it's nobody's point of view.

    Having said that, the end of religion sits in the same category as the end of some terrible disease -- yes, people will still get sick from other things, but at least there's one disease less in the world.

    LOL, now your just trying to wind me up, watching Hitchens on youtube lately?

    By that logic maybe we should kill all of mankind as they are inately irrational, would fix the problem alright ;)

    I don't see how you are equating diseases of the biological world to a "disease" of the human mind brought about by irrationality of thought. Apples and elephants right there.


  • Options
    #108
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    ISAW wrote: »
    It wasnt really a mainstream thing and was more of a Protestant fundamentalist thing.
    And the numbers were in the thousands over centuries.
    that does not justify it but you need to put it in context.

    If it's unjustifiable, why are you trying to put it into a context where it's less awful than something else? You don't get to excuse the sh*t people have done in the name of God.
    Regimes promoting atheism killed in the millions per month and built nothing.
    Mainstream Christianity rarely killed any and built things.

    I'm fairly sure no such regime ever existed. You probably mean some of those totalitarian regimes that had cults of personality and the like. And because I love annoying you, we can point once more to all the Christian stuff that Hitler spouted (Go on, tell us he wasn't a Christian as if you have the authority to determine something like that!), as well as how all those fascist regimes in Europe and beyond generally had the full backing of the Catholic church.

    Oh, and have you SEEN a German autobahn? some of Hitler's finest work, that.
    It did. sin existed before the law. even the Bible says that!

    and slavery democracy monarchy etc; are not really set up as a best or the better way by Christianity. Exploitation of human rights is frowned on though.

    Except where it's endorsed in the bible. Oh wait, those bits are metaphorical aren't they? Well, metaphorical since people decided that slavery was no longer ok. funny, that.


  • Options
    #109
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Because the Christians were so nice when they went around burning to death people they thought were witches etc. Not barbaric at all that.
    And will people stop using the word literally when they don't mean literally!!!!
    Do you have a point? Or just have a daily rant?

    Galvasean wrote: »
    It's almost as if they came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong despite the bible didn't tell them so...
    It' almost like this piece of morality came about independently of the Bible...

    LOL, not so. Read up on the anti slavery movement of Britain and the US. Most if not all of the founding members were deeply pious and evangelical (am I allowed use that word here ;)). But you can believe anything of historical fact any way you want, I wont hold it against you.


  • Options
    #110
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    Hands up everybody who believe that religion is the "all-encompassing disease of mankind"?

    <keeps hands in pockets>

    but at least there's one disease less in the world.

    Well the co mod of this forum at least recognizes that its a disease, I should get at least a C- for that!

    Anyway, what are these other factors?


  • Options
    #111
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I don't know any atheists who believe what you think they believe.

    Hitchens and Dawkins would be of that view. They made a ****ing fortune out of those views.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    That of course would be true if cancer was a natural phenomena. It is like commissioning research to find a way to make humans live forever. Ageing and dieing is natural, so is human irrationality, unfortunately, as much as you would like to claim otherwise.

    seriously-meme.jpg
    How is cancer not a natural phenomena?
    What has cancer being or not being natural got to do with my analogy?
    Where have I ever claimed that human irrationality is not natural?
    You are doing a piss poor job of actually reading what people say.
    jank wrote: »
    What I am saying is that it is better to improve something rather then get rid of it. Improve religion, rather then get rid of it, because you cant and wont get rid of it, so put your effort into improving it. That is all I am saying.

    Then why start a thread called "Society AFTER Religion" if what you really to talk about is improving religion?
    jank wrote: »
    And the fix?

    Last paragraph of post 83 (would be a start anyway).
    jank wrote: »
    Well, i didn't mean it that way, but you could answer my question.

    I answered your damn question in post 83! Why can't you read posts?


  • Options
    #113
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    By that logic maybe we should kill all of mankind as they are inately irrational, would fix the problem alright ;)

    You are a great example of religiously associated human irrationality.


  • Options
    #114
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Sarky wrote: »
    It's rather better than thinking that leaving religion as is will bring about a perfect society. People have been trying that one for millennia and I think it's safe to say that's been a miserable failure. It's fairly easy to see that countries where religion isn't at the forefront tend to be nicer places to live. As robindch mentioned before it probably happens the other way round, but either way, less religious influence seems very closely related to better standards of living.

    So I dunno, maybe give it a try instead of saying it'll never work?

    That is very hard to quantify. In the past places of no religion were hell holes. See USSR. Cambodia etc.
    China doesn't really do religion, OK they aren't killing each other now but 40 years ago?

    The best places in the world to live all have something in common ,democracy free markets and trade. I wouldn't necessarily call Singapore, Sweden Australia, or NZ overtly religious or secular. They are secular in the scales compared to Iran for example but religious compared to China and the old communist regimes. But I get the argument, chicken and egg scenario.


  • Options
    #115
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    Hitchens and Dawkins would be of that view. They made a ****ing fortune out of those views.

    Any evidence of this? I don't read either of them so I wouldn't know off hand their exact views.


  • Options
    #116
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    seriously-meme.jpg
    How is cancer not a natural phenomena?
    What has cancer being or not being natural got to do with my analogy?
    Where have I ever claimed that human irrationality is not natural?
    You are doing a piss poor job of actually reading what people say.

    I meant natural born phenomena. Generally we are not born with it, however humans are coded to be irrational.
    Anyway, I didn't bring up the cancer argument, ask your mod, and I was answering to him not you.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Then why start a thread called "Society AFTER Religion" if what you really to talk about is improving religion?

    Looking for guidance! :)
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Last paragraph of post 83 (would be a start anyway).

    I don't know, You could teach humans all that and some would still go off and form a cult. Like herding cats.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I answered your damn question in post 83! Why can't you read posts?

    Genuinely sorry, I did read that but forgot about it (Sydney time!). I agree with a lot of that by the way. I am quite secular in my views on education.


  • Options
    #117
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Any evidence of this? I don't read either of them so I wouldn't know off hand their exact views.

    The titles of their books give it away really.

    God_070524021654357_wideweb__300x454.jpg

    the-god-delusion.jpg


    You also have to factor in the amount of time and effort they have gone to to campaign against religion. If there were other major factors to human irrationality surely they would have devoted some time to that?


  • Options
    #118
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    I meant natural born phenomena. Generally we are not born with it, however humans are coded to be irrational.

    Which has got what to do with what? Besides humans are coded for cancer (breast cancer can be genetic, if a woman gets it, her female siblings are encouraged to get tested) but we can still create cures and treatments to fight it. Just because we have the genetic code for something, or the emotional tendency to do something, doesn't mean we can't treat it or work around it. We don't have to do what we are "coded" to do.
    jank wrote: »
    Anyway, I didn't bring up the cancer argument, ask your mod, and I was answering to him not you.

    You might want to go back and check your post, because you quoted only me.
    jank wrote: »
    Looking for guidance! :)

    But your thread title has nothing to do with what you want guidance on, so you were never going to get what you want.
    jank wrote: »
    I don't know, You could teach humans all that and some would still go off and form a cult. Like herding cats.

    So? We have seatbelts to make driving safer, but sometimes they fail and sometimes people just don't use them.Should we abandon seatbelts then?


  • Options
    #119
    MisterEpicurus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭MisterEpicurus


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Or what about those mainstream Christians who killed countless in the Crusades?

    Not just Muslims, but FELLOW Christians;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople


  • Options
    #120
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    The titles of their books give it away really.

    You also have to factor in the amount of time and effort they have gone to to campaign against religion. If there were other major factors to human irrationality surely they would have devoted some time to that?

    The title of their books and the effort in their work certainly points to them seeing religion as quite an important obstacle to human improvement, but I don't see how you can jump from that to labeling them as "atheists who see religion as the all encompassing disease of mankind".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I don't see how you can jump from that to labeling them as "atheists who see religion as the all encompassing disease of mankind".
    Jumping to conclusions that are out of reach?

    All it takes is a leap of faith.


Advertisement