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
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Sarky wrote: »
    Are we missing anything?

    Wear a mini skirt and show some cleavage while performing the explanation.


  • Options
    #63
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Wear a mini skirt and show some cleavage while performing the explanation.

    Extra bonus points if you do it as a guy.


  • Options
    #64
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Triple word score for the next post on-topic.


  • Options
    #65
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Cossax wrote: »
    So you're admitting he was a Christian then? Excellent. A quick read of the wiki about him seems to confirm he is, self-proclaimed brother of Jesus, quite into the Bible, even managed to meet God!
    Yes in the not a mainstream sense. christianity would not rgard him as christian by long established standards in existance a last 1000 years before him.
    Nor wuld i think the Branch davidians were Christian or Al Khyda are really islam or aum shira or the heavens gate groups or Scientology are serving any higher Power. they are not religions like Islam or Christianity or Judaism.

    "diceman" make it up as you go along religion is heterodox.

    i do apologise because most of my religion arguments are confined to christianity. trying t make blanket comments to include all religion is like trying to make comments about atheist dogma.


  • Options
    #66
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    The best you can say is that he wasn't one of your Christians.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes in the not a mainstream sense. christianity would not rgard him as christian by long established standards in existance a last 1000 years before him.
    Nor wuld i think the Branch davidians were Christian or Al Khyda are really islam or aum shira or the heavens gate groups or Scientology are serving any higher Power. they are not religions like Islam or Christianity or Judaism.

    Do you not see how ridiculous this is to an outsider? To us, christianity is the same as this guy's heterodoxy, as both christianity and this guys heterodoxy started with a guy who splintered off from the main religion in the area (christianity from judiasm, this guys heterodoxy from christianity) because they believed they were the son of god, and that people should stand up to the ruling class because god wanted them to. The only difference is that Jesus couldn't get enough people to start a civil war before he died. The guy is Chinese Jesus.


  • Options
    #68
    Cossax
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes in the not a mainstream sense. christianity would not rgard him as christian by long established standards in existance a last 1000 years before him.
    Nor wuld i think the Branch davidians were Christian or Al Khyda are really islam or aum shira or the heavens gate groups or Scientology are serving any higher Power. they are not religions like Islam or Christianity or Judaism.

    "diceman" make it up as you go along religion is heterodox.

    i do apologise because most of my religion arguments are confined to christianity. trying t make blanket comments to include all religion is like trying to make comments about atheist dogma.

    Surely the only thing involved in being a Christian is accepting Jesus as being the son of god?
    Just because, for example, the Catholic Church considered Cathars to be heretics doesn't mean they weren't Christians.


  • Options
    #69
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you not see how ridiculous this is to an outsider? To us, christianity is the same as this guy's heterodoxy, as both christianity and this guys heterodoxy started with a guy who splintered off from the main religion in the area (christianity from judiasm, this guys heterodoxy from christianity) because they believed they were the son of god, and that people should stand up to the ruling class because god wanted them to. The only difference is that Jesus couldn't get enough people to start a civil war before he died. The guy is Chinese Jesus.

    Not to an outsider to a person ignorant of the field. A person who is aware of the field could be an atheist. What difference should it make what i personally believe? As lng as the academic standard is maintained then the arguments apply.
    Hertodoxy is not Christianity no more than UFO channeling is science.

    If you want to learn about the subject try:
    this guy
    http://history.psu.edu/faculty/jenkinsPhilip.php
    had a lot to say about the more probable outcome that religion wont go away
    Particularly in the last source:

    Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years, New York: Harper One, 2010, 328 pp.
    The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia — and How It Died, San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008, 315 pp.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Anti-Catholicism:_The_Last_Acceptable_Prejudice
    Images of Terror: What We Can And Can't Know About Terrorism, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003. 227 pp.
    The Next Christendom: The Rise of Global Christianity, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 270 pp. (translated into many languages, including Chinese in Taiwan).

    Makes no difference if you consider his personal beliefs silly or not. the scholarship is valid.


  • Options
    #70
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sarky wrote: »
    The best you can say is that he wasn't one of your Christians.

    not the best or only thing. He wasnt christian by any established christian theology.
    It is like saying a creation science is science.


  • Options
    #71
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not to an outsider to a person ignorant of the field. A person who is aware of the field could be an atheist. What difference should it make what i personally believe? As lng as the academic standard is maintained then the arguments apply.
    Hertodoxy is not Christianity no more than UFO channeling is science.

    If you want to learn about the subject try:
    this guy
    http://history.psu.edu/faculty/jenkinsPhilip.php
    had a lot to say about the more probable outcome that religion wont go away
    Particularly in the last source:

    Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years, New York: Harper One, 2010, 328 pp.
    The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia — and How It Died, San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008, 315 pp.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Anti-Catholicism:_The_Last_Acceptable_Prejudice
    Images of Terror: What We Can And Can't Know About Terrorism, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003. 227 pp.
    The Next Christendom: The Rise of Global Christianity, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 270 pp. (translated into many languages, including Chinese in Taiwan).

    Makes no difference if you consider his personal beliefs silly or not. the scholarship is valid.

    What has any of that got to do with the guy being christian? The first thing is some religious scholars CV and the second piece is a bunch of off-topic books. Don't quote book titles at me, I'm not going to buy them and read them, and if you are giving links, at least give a few lines of text in a quote so I can at least find relevant information on the webpage, should there be any.

    The guy believes in god and believes Jesus is the son of god, ergo he is a christian. That he also believed that he was the brother of the son of god just makes it an offset of christianity, but he's not much different to the likes of those American politicians who claim that god told them to run for office. The guy is a christian, sure he may have just added a load of his own propaganda on top of basic christianity, but Jesus did the same thing when he proposed his new religious offset of Judaism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes in the not a mainstream sense. christianity would not rgard him as christian by long established standards in existance a last 1000 years before him.
    Nor wuld i think the Branch davidians were Christian or Al Khyda are really islam or aum shira or the heavens gate groups or Scientology are serving any higher Power. they are not religions like Islam or Christianity or Judaism.

    "diceman" make it up as you go along religion is heterodox.

    i do apologise because most of my religion arguments are confined to christianity. trying t make blanket comments to include all religion is like trying to make comments about atheist dogma.

    Who are you do decide who is and is not Christian, what gives you that power? He decided he is a Christian just like you did, therefore he is.

    Maybe he did sin and he went against some of the Christian teachings but I bet there are at least 3.5 million people in Ireland alone that claim to be Christian but still sin weekly if not daily. Some priests sin regularly, are they not Christian? Did you know that in Catholicism it is a sin to question, think about or argue over weather god is real or not, you are supposed to just accept it and not think about it. By your own logic that means you are not a Christian.


  • Options
    #73
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    strobe wrote: »
    Totalitarianism is a system whereby the State seeks to assert control over every possible aspect of the citizenries lives...

    ...but you yourself go on in your very next post to use the loose definition of communism below. (in bold)

    You say you 'cannot have communism without totalitarianism'...

    You believe you can't have 'a classless, equal, stateless nation and society' without a system whereby the state seeks to control the lives of it's citizens totally?

    How do you have absolute state control without a state?

    .

    I am glad you picked up on that as you re-enforce my point.
    The goal of communism is to create a classless, moneyless, equal society of people. People is the key word here. As we know, its not easy to control the free will of people, especially when trying to create a society of an equal nature such as communism. It either all in or it wont work.

    See Oxford:
    a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs

    The goal of communism is not state rule over others, its ideaolgical rule over others. The ideaology is what matters. What was the USSR? It was a collection of states with Russia at the head bound together to form a "super state" that was communist in its ideaology.
    Now, how do you achive such a system? By control of course. Who, does the controlling, well the leaders of such a system in the forms of state control (courts, laws, police, spys, informers etc.) Therefore communism is already a hypocratical theory. You cannot force people into a shared ideaology of community without the force of the state because it wont work otherwise.

    The Nazi's were very different, to them the state (fatherland) and the right of the German "pure" race to rule over others was their prime motive.

    strobe wrote: »
    The fact that communism is an ideology and to use your own words again 'Totalitarianism is driven by many forces, one of them is a strong belief in an ideology' does not mean totalitarianism, a social order whereby the states seeks absolute control in all areas, is a necessary facet of communism, a stateless social order. The ideologies are absolutely incompatible if anything. ?.

    LOL, now your getting it! That is why Communism doesnt work, or ever will work. It seeks to "achive" a stateless society, doesnt mean that it is one. The supposed end was when all the world was a communist super state and we all shared the joys of being an equal community or something to that affect.
    Can you name a communist regieme that didnt have state intervention of a totalitarianism kind to impliment its ideaology?
    strobe wrote: »
    How does one have free association and also dictate totally who and what shall associate with who and what and in what way?.

    Who said anything about "free". We are talking totalitarianism and communism here. I think you will find that curtailment of freedom is the point here.

    strobe wrote: »
    Ideally communism (or anarchism) come about from the ground up through the overwhelming will of the people and endures the same way. When communism is enforced by a State it is not communism.

    Maybe you should read up on the Russian Revolution of 1917 as that is how it started. Didnt end well though did it.

    Ideally there should be world peace, an end to hunger, disease, alcohol abuse, political corruption and so on. However, we live in a real world with real people who all have different needs, wants and points of view. Communism has been tried and has failed utterly. It has been nothing short of catastrophic.


  • Options
    #74
    guitarzero
    Registered Users Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭guitarzero


    After religion? Drones, pills, robots, suicide, more pills, transhumanism, dehumanization, technological mayhem.


  • Options
    #75
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    dead one - any more nonsense about moon landing conspiracy theories and you're gone. I also suggest you do not question this warning.


  • Options
    #76
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    OP, when you say religion free society does that mean that people no longer hold views they know are illogical and deep down wrong and so transfer those views onto a deity that they have to follow?
    It's hard to guess what would change as it's hard to tell often whether religion influences areas or is used as a tool for people to influence areas. Would those millionaire faith healers in the States still be greedy con artists if it weren't for religion or did religion make them that way and would people be as gullible if they were still con artists?
    My guess is the sell changes but people still get conned regularly. If someone wants something bad enough and you're claiming to be able to supply it they will often ignore all warning signs that you're probably bull****ting them.


  • Options
    #77
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    However, what comes next? How will society organise itself? Will it lead to an explosion of discovery, peace and universal human enlightenment or would a world without religion descend into an age without morals, chaos and general malaise where humans still fumbling around in the dark.

    It depends entirely on why society abandons religion. Religion is a symptom of (although it also reinforces) bad thinking like cognitive dissonance and irrationality in general. If we abandon religion as a result of society as a whole becomes more rational and rejecting such bad logic, then we should become more enlightened. When society finally separated religion from science in the dark ages it, well, stopped being the dark ages.

    However, if we dont abandon religion as a result of society as a whole becoming more rational, then we run the risk of falling afoul of other areas of irrationality that can seriously hurt us (and already so - look at alternative medicine, global warming denial, the MMR autism hoax). That doesn't mean we don't fight to reduce religions hold on society, it just means that we recognise that we aren't finished just because religions no longer are in schools or politics.


  • Options
    #78
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    OP, when you say religion free society does that mean that people no longer hold views they know are illogical and deep down wrong and so transfer those views onto a deity that they have to follow?
    It's hard to guess what would change as it's hard to tell often whether religion influences areas or is used as a tool for people to influence areas. Would those millionaire faith healers in the States still be greedy con artists if it weren't for religion or did religion make them that way and would people be as gullible if they were still con artists?
    My guess is the sell changes but people still get conned regularly. If someone wants something bad enough and you're claiming to be able to supply it they will often ignore all warning signs that you're probably bull****ting them.

    I would like to know or at least find out what you guys think how society would order itself and tbh so far I haven't really gotten anything worthwhile.
    Religion has been with society for the past few thousand years, so cast ahead even 100 or 200 years where religion or at least organised religion for the masses is a underground, minority held view point and activity.

    How would people live? How would they organise themselves socially and in the community. Would the family be still the nucleus of society? Would logic dictate everything, if so how does on apply logic to morals. What about things like human cloning, eugenics, forced euthanasia, would they be common? What are the repercussions. Very hard to say or even hazard a guess of what all this entails but one must at least think about it, or maybe nobody gives a rats ass. Live today, die tomorrow?


  • Options
    #79
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It depends entirely on why society abandons religion. Religion is a symptom of (although it also reinforces) bad thinking like cognitive dissonance and irrationality in general. If we abandon religion as a result of society as a whole becomes more rational and rejecting such bad logic, then we should become more enlightened. When society finally separated religion from science in the dark ages it, well, stopped being the dark ages.

    First of all humans are irrational beings. FULL STOP. Religion might be a symptom of it in your view but getting rid of it will not stop irrationality in any way.

    You have your history wrong too. The dark ages was well before the enlightenment period. Things like the printing press, trade with the far east and Arabia, discovery of capital/banking, had far more to do with new discoveries than the easing of mental religious oppression. I can see why people would make that argument though, but its not wholly accurate
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    However, if we dont abandon religion as a result of society as a whole becoming more rational, then we run the risk of falling afoul of other areas of irrationality that can seriously hurt us (and already so - look at alternative medicine, global warming denial, the MMR autism hoax). That doesn't mean we don't fight to reduce religions hold on society, it just means that we recognise that we aren't finished just because religions no longer are in schools or politics.

    You make it sound as religion is wholly to blame for human irrationality." We get more rational but if religion remains as a presence it will be like a temptation to exert of innate irrationality??" Is that what you are saying?

    So secularisation of schools and politics is not enough OK fair enough. How would one carry out this fight, what further restrictions would you impose?


  • Options
    #80
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    jank wrote: »
    I would like to know or at least find out what you guys think how society would order itself and tbh so far I haven't really gotten anything worthwhile.
    Religion has been with society for the past few thousand years, so cast ahead even 100 or 200 years where religion or at least organised religion for the masses is a underground, minority held view point and activity.

    As I said it's hard to really guess. Religion is just one influence on humanity and actually derives itself from humanities desire for comfort. So for all I know it could be replaced by something else just as silly.
    How would people live? How would they organise themselves socially and in the community. Would the family be still the nucleus of society? Would logic dictate everything, if so how does on apply logic to morals. What about things like human cloning, eugenics, forced euthanasia, would they be common? What are the repercussions. Very hard to say or even hazard a guess of what all this entails but one must at least think about it, or maybe nobody gives a rats ass. Live today, die tomorrow?

    Wow that's a lot of topics. Each one you could probably spend months on. I don't think religion would play a pivotal part in a lot of them to be fair. But I'll do my damndest to briefly step through them.
    Community, I guess it won't change due to a decrease in religion. People will still join groups and clubs they enjoy. Though religions removal could allow people currently trapped in certain communities (like the Amish) to mix more freely. You could suggest that for plenty of people today mass is a huge part of mixing with people but evidence suggests if you raise people without religion they find other ways to mix.
    Family? Hmm I think we'll move away slightly from what you and I think of as family. There will probably be families with two dads or two moms or maybe even a collective if polygamy shakes off it's one sided rep. I'm not sure what a "nucleus of society" means though even if I have heard it before.
    Logic, I'd love for people to be more rational but I feel education rather than atheism (education leading to atheism is another topic I guess) will see a better hope of that happening. As for morals being guided by logic I think we already do that to a huge extent and it works well.
    Human cloning, it's a strange one, a fascinating one too. If you could clone your child who was in horrible accident and killed would it feel the same even if they acted the same. Today I don't think so but in the future who knows? As for allowing it; People will argue based on how they feel on the subject regardless of if they have god in their corner.
    Eugenics, hmm it depends on your context. If you mean treating foetuses in the womb to prevent disabilities or even to give them the strongest potential genes I think we're a long way off but I can see it happening. Again, religion would have little influence imo. What will really decide it is how people feel on the subject.
    Forced euthanasia? I can't see where that would arise but I would hope the death of religion would open people up more to freely debating the idea of allowing someone to choose to be euthanized.

    Anyway I don't think the death of religion will change all that much. It just might accelerate it a bit. Humanity's morals have changed through the ages even when their religion doesn't. How many people 100 years ago would tell you the bible supported keeping slaves, how many would today? The wording hasn't changed, the people have and they will twist their religion to suit their views. Even if religion still exists in 500 years, even if Christianity does, it will be very different because the morals of the time will change. And sure it's nice to theorise but all we're doing is guessing and we won't change the future on those topics anyway. We will only influence when they come up, bar we all kill each other first.


  • Options
    #81
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    First of all humans are irrational beings. FULL STOP. Religion might be a symptom of it in your view but getting rid of it will not stop irrationality in any way.
    That's a bit like saying that banning guns in schools will cause children to be murdered there some other way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    jank wrote: »
    How would people live? How would they organise themselves socially and in the community. Would the family be still the nucleus of society? Would logic dictate everything, if so how does on apply logic to morals. What about things like human cloning, eugenics, forced euthanasia, would they be common? What are the repercussions. Very hard to say or even hazard a guess of what all this entails but one must at least think about it, or maybe nobody gives a rats ass. Live today, die tomorrow?
    Your question seems to imply that religion is currently central to all of the above.

    Our society is not held in check by scripture, it's subject to legislation and the law. Religious morals are exceptionally vague - even the various branches of the same religions have huge discrepancies in what they deem moral/immoral. There may not be a universal morality based on logic only, but it would be a far-cry more stable than one based on one (or ten) different religions.

    Look at Irish people for example. A majority of them are *catholic*, and a majority of those make their own minds up as to what teachings to follow. Why? Because their own sense of morality overrides the prescribed one of the church. It's this innate sense of morality that will shape societies in the absence of religion. It's the "backup" that already guides most of us.

    Arguments about cloning and eugenics are always going to be up for grabs. But I've never seen a parable in the Bible about either so any official line is always going to be simply that of some top cleric. Forced euthanasia? I thought we were talking about progressive societies, rather than notorious 20th Century regimes.

    I simply don't see how society would change structurally. Biologically, we'll still want to reproduce and look after our young. And there are plenty of other social things to be doing on Sunday mornings as 90%+ of the Irish population will tell you. :)


  • Options
    #83
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    First of all humans are irrational beings. FULL STOP. Religion might be a symptom of it in your view but getting rid of it will not stop irrationality in any way.

    It would stop religious irrationality. Seriously your point of view is like saying doctors shouldn't cure cancer because aids would still exist.
    jank wrote: »
    You have your history wrong too. The dark ages was well before the enlightenment period. Things like the printing press, trade with the far east and Arabia, discovery of capital/banking, had far more to do with new discoveries than the easing of mental religious oppression. I can see why people would make that argument though, but its not wholly accurate

    Didn't the term "Dark Ages" originate with thinkers in the enlightenment period describing the 1000 or so years previous, relative to their time?
    jank wrote: »
    You make it sound as religion is wholly to blame for human irrationality."

    Weird how you could get that when I expressedly said "if we dont abandon religion as a result of society as a whole becoming more rational, then we run the risk of falling afoul of other areas of irrationality".
    jank wrote: »
    We get more rational but if religion remains as a presence it will be like a temptation to exert of innate irrationality??" Is that what you are saying?

    No, in the bit you quoted I'm saying that even if we get rid of religion (one source and result of irrationality) there are still other areas of irrationality we can fall afoul of. You have spectacularly missed my point in that paragraph.
    jank wrote: »
    So secularisation of schools and politics is not enough OK fair enough. How would one carry out this fight, what further restrictions would you impose?

    So secularisation is a restriction but religion bias in schools and politics is not, is it :rolleyes:?

    Secularisation just removes the religious favouring bias in schools and politics. The remaining education system as a whole still needs improvement. Learn-by-wrote needs to be dropped. Maths, science and languages need to be taught much more efficiently (I'm of the opinion that we should put the Irish language out to pasture, but if we insist on keeping it at least teach with the view of having kids speak it, rather than just to pass a meaningless, useless, arbitrarily compulsive leaving cert exam) and to a much higher standard (and we need higher standards in our teachers, especially maths teachers, too). We especially need a much stronger emphasis on statistics (statistics are everywhere, especially in the media - shampoo ads, political campaigns etc and almost every single example from the media is either completely meaningless in reality, or completely misrepresented, but most people don't enough about to statistics to know they are being bamboozled). We need to classes were kids are introduced to debating, rationality, logic and shown how to recognise bad logic like cognitive bias, non sequitors, circular reasoning and the like.


  • Options
    #84
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    jank wrote: »
    How would people live? How would they organise themselves socially and in the community. Would the family be still the nucleus of society? Would logic dictate everything, if so how does on apply logic to morals. What about things like human cloning, eugenics, forced euthanasia, would they be common? What are the repercussions. Very hard to say or even hazard a guess of what all this entails but one must at least think about it, or maybe nobody gives a rats ass. Live today, die tomorrow?
    Funny that the word ethics does not seem to be in your vocabulary, jank.

    "forced euthanasia".... maybe you watched Logan's Run and thought it was an atheist's vision of the future?

    Here's something more worthwhile; a quickie on Ethics V Commandments by the Hitch, just for you...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D40hxOBZxZY


  • Options
    #85
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    jank wrote: »
    I am glad [...]short of catastrophic.

    The thread isn't really on the nature of communism so I won't piece by piece your post Jank.

    You claimed communism was the worlds greatest evil. I was just correcting you on what communism actually is and what you were (unintentionally I presume?) conflating it with.

    I'm not arguing that communism is achievable or desirable or positive or negative. Just pointing out that what you view as the most evil thing imaginable is totalitarianism, not communism. Communism neither is, nor requires, totalitarianism. They are entirely incompatible. Like you say, when it's been attempted to mesh them it does not work, they can not, by their very definitions, exist simultaneously. The fact that people have tried to use totalitarianism to bring about communism, or that people have used the mass appeal of the ideals of communism to gain support, seize power and then install themselves as a totalitarian regime is beside the (very simple, straight forward and singular) point I was making.

    There's really nothing else to be said on the matter. Not by me in this thread or on this forum, in anyway.


  • Options
    #86
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    That's a bit like saying that banning guns in schools will cause children to be murdered there some other way.

    Em, no its not but have some straw for your efforts.

    straw.jpg

    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.


  • Options
    #87
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Dades wrote: »
    Your question seems to imply that religion is currently central to all of the above.

    Our society is not held in check by scripture, it's subject to legislation and the law. Religious morals are exceptionally vague - even the various branches of the same religions have huge discrepancies in what they deem moral/immoral. There may not be a universal morality based on logic only, but it would be a far-cry more stable than one based on one (or ten) different religions.

    Look at Irish people for example. A majority of them are *catholic*, and a majority of those make their own minds up as to what teachings to follow. Why? Because their own sense of morality overrides the prescribed one of the church. It's this innate sense of morality that will shape societies in the absence of religion. It's the "backup" that already guides most of us.

    Arguments about cloning and eugenics are always going to be up for grabs. But I've never seen a parable in the Bible about either so any official line is always going to be simply that of some top cleric. Forced euthanasia? I thought we were talking about progressive societies, rather than notorious 20th Century regimes.

    I simply don't see how society would change structurally. Biologically, we'll still want to reproduce and look after our young. And there are plenty of other social things to be doing on Sunday mornings as 90%+ of the Irish population will tell you. :)

    Of course this is all your opinion (as was mine). I think you give far too much credence to the advancement of human morality. Morals can change over time. It wasn't so long ago that humans were feed to lions as entertainment, or gassed due to their racial "inferiority". There is a strong case to me made that Christianity in Europe was the foundation of the advancement of Western civilization. Of course this is debatable. But to dismiss it outright and say "It will be all right jack" is a bit disingenuous.


  • Options
    #88
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    strobe wrote: »
    The thread isn't really on the nature of communism so I won't piece by piece your post Jank.

    You claimed communism was the worlds greatest evil. I was just correcting you on what communism actually is and what you were (unintentionally I presume?) conflating it with.

    I'm not arguing that communism is achievable or desirable or positive or negative. Just pointing out that what you view as the most evil thing imaginable is totalitarianism, not communism. Communism neither is, nor requires, totalitarianism. They are entirely incompatible. Like you say, when it's been attempted to mesh them it does not work, they can not, by their very definitions, exist simultaneously. The fact that people have tried to use totalitarianism to bring about communism, or that people have used the mass appeal of the ideals of communism to gain support, seize power and then install themselves as a totalitarian regime is beside the (very simple, straight forward and singular) point I was making.

    There's really nothing else to be said on the matter. Not by me in this thread or on this forum, in anyway.

    I see what you are saying but again thats my point. Can you name ANY communist country or regime that didnt use totalitariansim to impliment itself?

    That is the inherient danger with it. It dresses itself up as "free" , "equal" , "better" "perfect!" and all that lovely stuff. That is why it is so dangerous. People can be easily fooled by such ideas. Even now in 2012 we have a communist party in Ireland and elsewhere. All legal! Yet would one be able to setup a Nazi party or fasict party in the resembelance of Franco or Mussolini? Hell no, they would probably be jailed. Yet communism becuase it "means well" is given a free pass. Thats why I think it is so dangerous.


    Anyway, by your very own definition of why communism is incompatible with totalitarianism ,then religion and Christianity should be wonderful and great as it means "Love your neighbor" and basically "don't be a douche bag". You apply the same reasoning to communism, so why not religion? People who go around killing people in the name of religion are not really religious so..., using your definition above. You cant have it both ways.


  • Options
    #89
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It would stop religious irrationality. Seriously your point of view is like saying doctors shouldn't cure cancer because aids would still exist.
    .

    However it would not stop human irrationality at all, thats my point.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Didn't the term "Dark Ages" originate with thinkers in the enlightenment period describing the 1000 or so years previous, relative to their time? .

    From the same link
    Originally the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between the extinguishing of the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, in the bit you quoted I'm saying that even if we get rid of religion (one source and result of irrationality) there are still other areas of irrationality we can fall afoul of. You have spectacularly missed my point in that paragraph. .

    Why are humans irrational?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So secularisation is a restriction but religion bias in schools and politics is not, is it :rolleyes:?.

    You are putting words in my mouth here.


  • Options
    #90
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    jank wrote: »
    Of course this is all your opinion (as was mine). I think you give far too much credence to the advancement of human morality. Morals can change over time. It wasn't so long ago that humans were feed to lions as entertainment, or gassed due to their racial "inferiority". There is a strong case to me made that Christianity in Europe was the foundation of the advancement of Western civilization. Of course this is debatable. But to dismiss it outright and say "It will be all right jack" is a bit disingenuous.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    jank wrote: »
    Of course this is all your opinion (as was mine). I think you give far too much credence to the advancement of human morality. Morals can change over time. It wasn't so long ago that humans were feed to lions as entertainment, or gassed due to their racial "inferiority". There is a strong case to me made that Christianity in Europe was the foundation of the advancement of Western civilization. Of course this is debatable. But to dismiss it outright and say "It will be all right jack" is a bit disingenuous.
    Why did you quote my post when writing this? You don't seem to have read it.

    The world is far from "all right Jack". Or even getting close. Humans can be stupid and cruel and that won't change anytime soon. My point was simply that we have morality without religion, i.e. there won't be a gap if religion was to fade away.

    And if you'd read my other posts you'd see that I don't suggest religion needs to disappear for civilisation to advance, but that as civilisation does advance, religion will dwindle naturally.

    What are your own opinions on this question?


Advertisement