(June 6, 2021 at 3:29 am)Macoleco Wrote: This is why religion is so dangerous. Since God is above everything, so is religion, as the cause of its existence is God, and God is absolute. So your beliefs are absolute.

I must have missed the part where you explain why being above politics (or everything else) is dangerous?

---

(June 6, 2021 at 8:27 am)Belacqua Wrote: I suppose to test this, we'd have to work out whether people have been more or less willing to do violence for political purposes than for religious purposes. 

It's also worth noting that governments have a monopoly on violence. And to be in a political party is to have a conviction as to how and when your government should implement that violence. Perhaps this is why groups and ideologies (including religion) become dangerous when they join or are hijacked by governments—because they transform into a political party.

But as Macoleco mentioned, religion by itself just tends to have a monopoly on things like God, beliefs about the afterlife, etc.

(June 6, 2021 at 3:29 am)Macoleco Wrote: It is quite common to listen people saying that political ideologies, for example, can be as dangerous as religion. Nonetheless, I disagree with this statement.

The reason religion is so powerful is because of the concept of God. God is above everything. The universe, the Earth, humanity, were created by God. Since religion exists due to God, then religion is above everything too. Above politics, countries, economy, etc.  

Life after death, for example, is exclusive to religion. No political ideology promises you heaven after death. Religion tells you you will meet your parents after death, and reunite. No political ideology promises this.

This is why religion is so dangerous. Since God is above everything, so is religion, as the cause of its existence is God, and God is absolute. So your beliefs are absolute.

I would tend to agree. I think if one would put together a "top 40" list, Religion most certainly should be listed as Casey Kasem #1 hit on the charts.

But as dangerous as religion can be, there really is no pragmatic way to rid a planet of 7 billion of religion. Most humans worldwide get sold the social norms of their parents at birth long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills. 

But political ideology is also simply another excuse to control resources. "Communism" makes false promises but so do "Libertarians". There is no perfect economic ideology either. But even with the various economic/political ideologies, the followers do imply that one can just follow this model and hand that model down to the next generation. It really is also still a form of "forever" thinking, even if you are not involved after you die. Be it religion, or politics or economics, humans mostly defend that to which they are familiar, and both religious/ political and economic views are passed down to the next generation.   So all of those things can become dogmatic.

I'd only agree that Religion is at the top of the chain when it comes to group think having the most potential to lead to human horrors. But I'd argue, no matter how true that may be, I think the best humans can do is to have checks and balances on it so it doesn't go off the rails, in the same way we have checks and balances on political parties and economic views, at least in the west.

I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

Religiom helps a lot of people in this sad world. Being from area where soviet union collapsed, it sustains a lot of people to continue on living. Even if sometimes Gods acts insane, as well as his followers.

(June 7, 2021 at 4:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

What you are referring to are potential humans.

(June 7, 2021 at 4:33 pm)brewer Wrote:

(June 7, 2021 at 4:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

What you are referring to are potential humans.

Time to remove your In-This-House-We-Believe yard sign because you definitely do not believe science. The unborn are human from conception. We can debate the degree to which the lives of the unborn have value and should be protected but there is no debate over them being human. That is just a biological fact.

(June 7, 2021 at 4:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

Damn do I hate shallow bullshit arguments like this.

You are the one seeking a utopia, in that if we ban all abortions no matter what, suddenly the planet will become Mr Roger's Neighborhood, or Candyland, or a weather climate where clouds only drop fluffy kittens and puppies. 

Sperm is also UNBORN, eggs are ALSO UNBORN. Your bullshit attitude that only when the two meet, suddenly that bond should be treated exactly like a born human, which is patently fucking absurd.

First of, please if anything, ditch the bullshit slur that pro choice advocates go door to door, and tell females, " GO FUCK SO WE CAN HAVE A PARTY". That is NOT what pro choice advocates argue. Unwanted pregnancies are not a party or desire to pro choice either. All we argue is that every case is just that, case by case, and should only be between the female and the doctor.

If anything the "pro birthers" which is what "pro life" really means, they don't give one shit about saving life at all. They only care about pumping out club future club members. "Pro life" does not give one fuck about quality of life after birth.

---

(June 7, 2021 at 4:33 pm)brewer Wrote:

(June 7, 2021 at 4:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

What you are referring to are potential humans.

Hitler and Stalin and Po Pot were also "potential humans" at their point of conception. This is why people like Neo cant grasp that nature doesn't give a f about our personal wishes. As much as both left and right would love every  birth to turn out to be a Martin Luther King Jr, or Gandhi, our species has also produced monsters like Hitler and Stalin and Ted Bundy. Pro choice advocates are not advocating government forced abortion. But just the notion, that at the time a pregnancy the decision should only be left up to the female and doctor.

(June 7, 2021 at 5:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(June 7, 2021 at 4:33 pm)brewer Wrote: What you are referring to are potential humans.

Time to remove your In-This-House-We-Believe yard sign because you definitely do not believe science. The unborn are human from conception. We can debate the degree to which the lives of the unborn have value and should be protected but there is no debate over them being human. That is just a biological fact.

I absolutely believe science, medical science. It depends on the definition of human. There are many conceptions that are definitely not human. Ever seen a molar pregnancy?

Whatcha got now?

(June 7, 2021 at 4:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

I take it that you weren't actually unaware of the fact that human dignity isn't a religious concept, then? You knew that the sources and explanations you asked about existed, and were too many to count, you just don't think they "work"?

I'm guessing that's going to be a genuinely novel use of the term. Even people who pursue abortions possess a shared humanity, and.... if you asked.....you might find that they too hold to some idea of human dignity. They're not exactly werewolves, eh?

(June 7, 2021 at 5:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Time to remove your In-This-House-We-Believe yard sign because you definitely do not believe science. The unborn are human from conception. We can debate the degree to which the lives of the unborn have value and should be protected but there is no debate over them being human. That is just a biological fact.

Not if they don't identify as human. After all, non-binary seems to be a thing despite the fact that biologically there are only two genders.