(August 31, 2012 at 9:32 pm)Polaris Wrote: Religion does not even have to be about gods. Take Buddhism for example....in the traditional views, there are no gods. Religion is simply about setting doctrine to faith.

We would not be where we are today without religion, but now secular principles have replaced that crutch.

Despite labelling yourself christian, you still do not answer my queries about what difference, if any, it makes, and why it should be considered relevant if in fact it carries no advantage.

That we would not be where we are today without religion is as true and useful as saying we would not be where we are today without tobacco. The sheer variety of religions and gods clarifies that religion is a secondary phenomenon, an adjunct to human behaviour up until the point people start believing it affords moral rightness (where stephenmills1000 is coming from) when it becomes a relevant problem.

Religion throughout early history was a primary phenomena which culture centered upon....many of the great communities were founded as religious destinations such as the Stonehenge complexes. Most of what we see today in archeology concerns religion, which those cultures had as the focus of their laws and government. Religion was the center of life and the center of the civilizations....even Christian Europe and the Moslems did not even come close to the pervasiveness of religion into their daily lives.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You can quote all the scripture you want, if an argument warrants it. Just don't go around trying to sell it to everyone.

Fair enough. I'm here as a representative of my religion, not to impose it.

(August 31, 2012 at 5:00 am)Kayenneh Wrote: Pad, it would be Jim Jefferies

Ah,yes,that's the one; very angry and very funny.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RJeqyh-vI

(August 31, 2012 at 10:19 pm)Atom Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 9:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You can quote all the scripture you want, if an argument warrants it. Just don't go around trying to sell it to everyone.

Fair enough. I'm here as a representative of my religion, not to impose it.

Good lad. I'm sure there'll be someone here who'll ensure you stick to that intention.

Quote:I'm here as a representative of my religion

What? Who fucking died and made YOU pope?


One of the great arrogances (and cons) of religion is that people need representatives,mediators and translators. That God is too stupid to make himself clear for all.

(August 31, 2012 at 10:15 pm)Polaris Wrote: Religion throughout early history was a primary phenomena which culture centered upon....many of the great communities were founded as religious destinations such as the Stonehenge complexes. Most of what we see today in archeology concerns religion, which those cultures had as the focus of their laws and government. Religion was the center of life and the center of the civilizations....even Christian Europe and the Moslems did not even come close to the pervasiveness of religion into their daily lives.

Sorry, but this is going nowhere for so long as you avoid answering what difference religion actually makes when compared across societies, or if any religion will work why that is not a by-product of human thinking rather than some truth?

The more primitive and less knowledgeable the society the more they thought fairies would fix stuff. As they organised around tribal leaders and commenced agriculture they had surplus resources to support more thinking so religious thinking was gradually pushed back. Stonehenge was not a community founded as a religious destination, by the way, it was the religious product of a culture existing. Dominant kings imposed laws and used religion for law enforcement, claiming divinity for themselves.

Perhaps you could help by developing for me the social and philosophical ideas we obtained from Greek gods rather than from Greek people, yet the Greeks commenced with religious exploitation to support privilege as well.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:03 pm)Boccaccio Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But genocide promotes your own survival by eradicating competition for limited resources.

So how did genocide become evil?

Have you read anything about serial strategies in game play?

It became evil when we turned to agriculture and city states, realising that if genocide were acceptable then one might well find oneself the genocidee rather than the genocider.

Optimal strategy in the longer term for ourselves and our descendants is not to kill, nor to engage in genocide, but to co-operate in managing resources and access to them on a relatively equitable basis. Genocide was the tribal religious practice celebrated still by people like W L Craig (Those poor soldiers, feeling bad about killing everyone on god's command. Have a bit of sympathy!)

So what if there is a possibility of becoming the genocidee?

All we have to do is minimize the probability of being the genocidee (haha, this word!) and maximize the probability of being the perpetrator. If you accomplish this, you have no problems. And this can certainly be accomplished. Look at Genghis Khan. Hitler. Stalin. Saddam Hussein.

Genocide is still an option that can maximize survival and reproduction possibilities in some situations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g?rel=0

I knew you reminded me of someone!

(August 31, 2012 at 8:04 pm)Polaris Wrote: They get their base morality from religion, but have learned to evolve that morality as they have been exposed to more liberal and humanist ideas and ways of thinking.

Morality predates religion, so you have that idea the wrong way around. Religion copied nature, not vice versa.