|
|
|
|
|
| | Can culture advance without religion?Page 35 of 39 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) |
Sharia....
/snip/
So... I don't know about you but it does not compute to lump western religon in with all of this... It isn't western culture. It is quite different and yes... from my point of view it's kind of scary. It should be the most effective example of seperation of church and state... However, equality being the higher ideal means, "You can't judge them"
I'm not defending Sharia here, but you need to get some perspective. You've been mentioning Britain / Sharia law and beheadings/stonings as if they all connect. As far as I know the Sharia Tribunal things in Britain are only licensed to deal with commercial and/or family court type matters, only apply to Muslims, and are voluntary. I gather also that there are Jewish Boards/Tribunals that are constituted on similar lines that operate within the Jewish community in both Britain and the US.
Beth Din - http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1236789702_1.pdf
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyPubsPDF.php?facID=7246&pubID=6
The Church of England apparently has 'Ecclesiastical Courts' that rule on 'internal' matters -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Courts_Jurisdiction_Act_1860
And the Roman Catholic Church is well known for subverting the purposes of the civil courts.
If you think Catholic authorities respect civil jurisdiction read this -
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04447a.htm
etc etc etc
I don't know why you are railing at the atheists/secular participants in this thread as if they were responsible for allowing religious influences to gain a foothold, you should be looking to those who advocate that religion has something to contribute to what we call 'culture'.
This isn't high school click or small community groups. This is state and national government. They have guns too. Regardless of who thinks what is in the sky governments have a tendency to use guns to finish the point. Sometimes knives... going all old school.
I agree with the point, but once again, get some perspective and consider being consistent. If you propose that a small subset of fanatical extremists equate to 'Islam' then it follows that examples of Christian extremism equally condemn the entire religion. Likewise Judaism, Sikhism, etc etc etc
As I've said many times in this thread, it's my position that none of these voodoo superstitions have any place in culture at all, not just that it's a bit dangerous, not to mention comically ludicrous, to let them run their own family and property courts.
I find it so strange that those on the side of mocking Christians find it so distasteful to use this example. Instead they always use it as another argument to say that Christians are just as ‘crazy’ and the reality is that those that practice hardcore Sharia are not crazy in the least. Intentions matter. (my emphasis)
Indeed they do. That's why it's so distasteful that individual religions seek to inject themselves into areas they don't belong - like into definitions of ethics and morals, like into medical, educational, and scientific matters where they have no expertise and no jurisdiction.
Basically, inserting themselves into and trying to influence the culture that should represent everyone, not the narrow self interest of a bunch of superstitious fantasists. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/16/2012 10:08:04 PM | my hatred of Israel is palpable).
So is it just a requirement that every group has to have someone they hate? I think the opposite of you and that those that think the way you do are causing terrorism’s rise by excusing it as, 'just those crazy religious guys that just don't know any better'.
I have a problem with beheading. It isn't ok when the Mexican drug cartels do it. It isn't ok when it is done to an infidel. I really have serious doubts that it is fixable. What do you want them to do with Israel? Just make it disappear? I don't know... it can't be left alone because the world is too small.
I think the alarmist position is the most logical. Maybe you could point me to something that isn't scary about it because every time I look at it... it always comes up with authoritarian rule, terror, death, rape and violence.
http://www.islamicity.com/
From the "what do muslims belive" page
Muslims believe in One, Unique, Incomparable God; in the Angels created by Him; in the prophets through whom His revelations were brought to mankind; in the Day of Judgement and individual accountability for actions; in God's complete authority over human destiny and in life after death
God's complete authority doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room now does it? This is the moderate version.
There is a belief that strict authoritarian rule over all aspects of life will create peace. Saudi Arabia is fully Sharia and that is far from accurate. Although they have less crime then the United States it is a dangerous place for travel.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1012.html#crime
Persons violating Saudi Arabian laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested, imprisoned, or even executed. Suspects may be detained without charges or legal counsel, and with limited consular access, for months during the investigative stage of criminal cases Penalties for the import, manufacture, possession, and consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs in Saudi Arabia are severe. Convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences, heavy fines, public floggings, and/or deportation. The penalty for drug trafficking in Saudi Arabia is death. Saudi officials make no exceptions.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Saudi-Arabia/United-States/Crime
What should foreign policy be?
but no society likes to feel oppressed or mistreated Can you show me that isn't the entire goal of this religion?
What I find most incredibly bizarre about your position which leans towards, it’s just misunderstood, is what would happen to you?
http://www.islamic.org.uk/whyislam.htm
It is a common perception in the (post?) Christian world that 'faith' or 'belief' is irrational; that a matter of faith is one for which there is little or no evidence. To the Muslim this seems quite absurd. In Islam people who disbelieve in Allah and in the prophethood of Muhammad can only do so out of ignorance or out of wilful denial of what is evident to them as clear as seeing:
Say thou: "This is my way: I do invite unto Allah on evidence clear as the seeing with one's eyes, I and whoever follows me: Glory to Allah! and never will I join gods with Allah!"
...
Being rational means being a moral thinker.
Being a moral thinker means believing in Allah.
Only the irrational disbelieve
...
In Islam you can only be guilty of the 'sin of disbelief' if the message of Islam has been delivered to you. Bad thinking can only take hold when the evidence and arguments have been clearly presented..
So... once you have heard the message you accept or?
And you have no escape path out of it either with fairy’s and unicorns...
The effect of this is that the sin of disbelief in Christianity can't use a deliberate breakage of basic logical reasoning as a foundational element in the sin of disbelief. Christians don't merely 'not always expect better explanations' to their questions about reality, they also have no problems with explanations that are logically self -contradictory or paradoxes.
In conclusion the sin of disbelief in Christianity, because of its doctrinal beliefs, is far from the description set out above. Believing Christians can be very bad thinkers and people well informed about Christianity and extremely good thinkers may never become Christians.
I do not see how this works with the 'western culture' version of advancing that this thread is basically about. I do not see it as compatible in any way with secularism or ever with atheism. So, yes… this position has had me baffled ever since I’ve started reading these forums. In the forums your position is typically the one that ‘the more enlightened’ tend to take and it does not compute. I tend to think that it is more of a political stance than anything else. It just does not make any sense to me.
To keep on topic... This is something that needs to be addressed for culture to advance without religion right... So how?
If I had to take a wild guess and be compatible with your world view and mine... I would think the best option would be to absorb it much like Christianity absorbed pagan religions. So, in theory you could allow sharia courts, finance, holiday, and westernize them and remove the dangerous parts but keep the names....
Is that the objective? But... I wonder if atheism would survive that? Would definately push the demise of religion back quite a bit into the future.
| |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 7:04:41 AM | So is it just a requirement that every group has to have someone they hate? I think the opposite of you and that those that think the way you do are causing terrorism’s rise by excusing it as, 'just those crazy religious guys that just don't know any better'.
Did you not read what I had written prior to that? (talk about lack of context) My hatred of Israel is due to their oppression of the Palestinians! (when did I say anything about "those crazy religious guys"?) Their actions are contributing significantly to the discord in the middle-east, including terrorism. Israel needs to back off their claims and let the Palestinians have an independent state.
Can you show me that isn't the entire goal of this religion?
What I find most incredibly bizarre about your position which leans towards, it’s just misunderstood, is what would happen to you?
http://www.islamic.org.uk/whyislam.htm
Again, you are so alarmist it is mind-boggling. I'm sorry to say this, but your thinking is remarkably similar to neo-cons like Bush, assuming that Islamists are trying to destroy or take over the west. Don't you think it's possible that these people just want to be left alone, to live their lives the way they want? (you know, like we do?) I've also said repeatedly that a secular government should be defended at all costs.
BTW, you do know that Christian fundamentalists would also like to kill or silence people like me, right? All Abrahamic fundamentalists have a distain/hatred for those who do not believe in God.
I do not see how this works with the 'western culture' version of advancing that this thread is basically about. I do not see it as compatible in any way with secularism or ever with atheism. So, yes… this position has had me baffled ever since I’ve started reading these forums. In the forums your position is typically the one that ‘the more enlightened’ tend to take and it does not compute. I tend to think that it is more of a political stance than anything else. It just does not make any sense to me.
Your bias towards Christianity has been displayed numerous times, even though the western version of Christianity is one that has been severely compromised by the enlightenment. Whether you believe it or not, secularism IS the basis for western society and is fully compatible with it.
If I had to take a wild guess and be compatible with your world view and mine... I would think the best option would be to absorb it much like Christianity absorbed pagan religions. So, in theory you could allow sharia courts, finance, holiday, and westernize them and remove the dangerous parts but keep the names....
I don't understand this. Why would society need to absorb elements of Sharia? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 7:39:11 AM |
I think the alarmist position is the most logical. Maybe you could point me to something that isn't scary about it because every time I look at it... it always comes up with authoritarian rule, terror, death, rape and violence.
Perhaps you are looking at the wrong cross-section of websites, or listening to the wrong media commentators.
Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country on earth, yet there's not a lot of stonings and beheadings going on there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
http://www.islamicity.com/ From the "what do muslims belive" page Muslims believe in One, Unique, Incomparable God; in the Angels created by Him; in the prophets through whom His revelations were brought to mankind; in the Day of Judgement and individual accountability for actions; in God's complete authority over human destiny and in life after death God's complete authority doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room now does it? This is the moderate version.
There are probably more Americans who believe something very similar ^^^, if not exactly the same, about a god thing with a different name than there are total Muslims in the Middle East. Yet it's them you apparently fear the most?
There is a belief that strict authoritarian rule over all aspects of life will create peace. Saudi Arabia is fully Sharia and that is far from accurate. Although they have less crime then the United States it is a dangerous place for travel.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1012.html#crime
The 'Travel Advisory' given by the Australian Government for Australians considering travel to Saudi Arabia is at the same level as that given in regard to South Africa.
I imagine too that the Saudi government 'Advisory' for its citizens considering travel to Israel probably sounds pretty alarmist.
but no society likes to feel oppressed or mistreated Can you show me that isn't the entire goal of this religion?
Again, I don't want to seem to be defending Islam, but seriously... have you never worked with anyone of the Muslim persuasion?
You are talking as if they're all members of the Taliban.
Maybe you need to get some perspective and stop looking at the hate sites?
It's actually a bit funny that you're going on in this way because you've been accusing atheists in post after post of lacking perspective and urging everyone to be reasonable and balanced in their, according to you, unfair criticisms of Christianity. Yet now you seem to have flown off the handle in regard to Islam.
To keep on topic... This is something that needs to be addressed for culture to advance without religion right... So how?
/snip/
I would think the best option would be to absorb it much like Christianity absorbed pagan religions. So, in theory you could allow sharia courts, finance, holiday, and westernize them and remove the dangerous parts but keep the names....
Is that the objective? But... I wonder if atheism would survive that? Would definately push the demise of religion back quite a bit into the future. (my emphasis)
It's odd that you object to the idea of Christianity being assimilated (and therefore naturally evaporating as it's deprived of relevance) into a rational view of existence and point out how 'upsetting' that would be to its followers. Yet you recommend the assimilation (and functional disappearance) of Islam into a different and fundamentally conflicting magic fantasy system that already has it's own exclusive set of witchdoctors running things.
That's the "best option" you can think of?
It makes more sense to just skip a step and bin them both, along with all the other voodoo superstitions.
Education is the key - not only to depriving Islam of its relevance, but Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and The Magic Unicorn Fairy as well.
Clear the roadblocks out of the way and let culture advance.
I'm wondering too why it is you don't seem concerned about the other religions having their own court systems? And why is it that you find some other religion that has no effect on on western culture more threatening than the clearly identified, ongoing, and present threat Christianity represents to areas of culture such as medicine, education, and science, not to mention the warped definitions of ethics and morality they try to impose on the entire world. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 8:27:39 AM |
Did you not read what I had written prior to that? (talk about lack of context) My hatred of Israel is due to their oppression of the Palestinians! (when did I say anything about "those crazy religious guys"?) Their actions are contributing significantly to the discord in the middle-east, including terrorism. Israel needs to back off their claims and let the Palestinians have an independent state
I didn't take it out of context. Hate is a very specific word. It has a very specific emotional context. Origin/cause/rational does not matter. There is a group and you said you hate them. I asked if it was a requirement that every group has to have someone to hate?
Christian fundamentalists are not typically western are they? The most difficult Christians in my experience are born again but they also have issues as they are not a cohesive group. They are fragments and splinter groups. There may be strict Catholics but I really don't know much about them. Most of my experience with Christian craziness has been through born again Christians. Most of them seem more high on love then in killing anyone though so I don't quite get the context you portray. All I have is my subjective experience but if you say you have experience with Christian fundamentalists that want you dead I would have to believe you. Can you describe them? Are they a cohesive group?
I do have a bias towards Christianity. Of course I do. Why wouldn't I? My entire family is Christian. Growing up most people I knew where Christian. We all had holidays for Christmas and Easter and put up Christmas trees and dyed hard boiled eggs... Was there another experience I was supposed to have growing up in Los Angeles? I don't understand why you think I don't believe secularism is the basis for western society. It is. Are you saying to me is that western Christianity that was compromised by the enlightenment is compatible with secularism? Ok? I recognize my bias. I try to account for it. How do you not have some level of bias when refering to culture advancing?
For the absorbing part I think you could try harder to understand. What you assert with Western Christianity being compromised by enlightenment. Same thing. It is the same idea that Christianity used for pagan religions. The pagan ceremonies were absorbed and became Christian symbols. Christmas and Easter are examples. In our modern society they were absorbed through yearly shopping sprees and are now being diluted down to 'happy holiday's. Having Sharia courts and permitting sharia approved finance institutions should, in theory, be used as a way to absorb parts of sharia to make western society appear more compatible with Islamic views which could then be the step in westernizing Islam. The faith has a place to practice and aspects of it exist but the punishments, and rituals, and strict adherence are left out. IF that isn't why it is being done than I really don't get it.
If the world left the US alone as you say we should leave them alone... What would that even mean? If the US was left alone to do what it wants... it would be to take over the world... It's not like we haven't been trying. The world is a small place and 'leaving them alone' doesn't have a very realistic meaning anymore. Leave them alone to create nuclear weapons? Leave them alone to pirate computer software? What does it mean with an eye towards reality and not a well-intentioned ideal that has no substance? | |
|
A_Gent
| | Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 856 | |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 10:49:09 AM |
I asked if it was a requirement that every group has to have someone to hate?
It may not be an absolute requirement, yet no matter the ideology, it does make things easier. Unite the people with an emotional appeal against the out-group. Build your self up by putting others down.
Christian - Non-christian, Sunni - Sufi, Republicans - Democrat, American - Rest of the world, Capitalist - Marxist/Communist, Nazis - Jew/Mud people, Atheist - Religious, Quebecois - Anglo, North - South, Soldiers of one nation against the soldiers of another, Cornel - Harvard, etc....
Sadly such divides lend themselves to being easy to use by unscrupulous leaders to manipulate one's followers against any opposing interest, or even if they are not opposing, if they an easier target they may still prove more useful than allying with them.
The basis of propaganda.
Sadly, there are many religious leaders who have used this tactic all too well.
It takes a huge investment in an alternative ideology, investing through education, and enforcing by law, and a passion to do something better toward overcoming this more primitive emotional mindset. It requires long term vision and strategy... not just winning the next election.
There are many religious leaders who have worked sacrificially to promote peace and tolerance between groups. Gandhi, Anti-slavers (like the guy who wrote Amazing Grace), Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Millions upon millions of points of light. Many of the global peace organizations and initiatives come from religious origins. Many organizations that actively wage peace.
Lots of thought and talk how a secular future is the way to go... but talk is cheap.
Where are the secular leaders to promote an enlightened future? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 12:49:38 PM |
Build your self up by putting others down.
This is a stupid mentality. Let's say I step on your head. If I push your head straight to the ground, I can stand my height plus your head's width. That's about 6ft (I'm short) and that's all I'm ever going to attain.
Being a little smarter, I can raise you up (perhaps we build a ladder. Now you're 10ft up and if I now stand on your head, I'm 16ft. Now we can see many out there still at the 6ft level. We can invite them and help them build a hill upon which they can reside, say 16 ft up, you're 26 and I'm a wopping 32 ft up. Remember when 6 ft was my limit? We've not only improved me by over 500% but your head is out of the dirt and the others have raised up 10 ft. If we contiune this process, we can reach incredible heights.
Unfortunately, we're stuck trying to push each other's heads in the dirt so we can stand a head's width higher. Because of the in-grained hatred's between religions, I doubt we'll ever get any higher. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 1:56:04 PM |
Lots of thought and talk how a secular future is the way to go... but talk is cheap.
Where are the secular leaders to promote an enlightened future?
Secularism has already done the west enormous service, giving it science, freedom and democracy. The future would include extending these ideas to all areas as needed. Promoting sexual equality (female and male, homosexual and heterosexual) is still a work in progress, as well as scientific efforts to improve our lives (curing AIDS, cancer, degenerative diseases). Now, guess what the biggest stumbling block to these goals is? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 2:37:51 PM |
I didn't take it out of context. Hate is a very specific word. It has a very specific emotional context. Origin/cause/rational does not matter. There is a group and you said you hate them. I asked if it was a requirement that every group has to have someone to hate?
No, you took it competeley out of context. I mentioned nothing about hating them as a group, I specifically mentioned their foreign policy against the Palestinians! (seriously, you should learn to read more carefully) I basically regard them the same as any other country that tries to bully and oppress another country. If you haven't figured it out already my issue with them is about politics, not religion, and not some group vs group mentality.
I do have a bias towards Christianity. Of course I do. Why wouldn't I? My entire family is Christian. Growing up most people I knew where Christian. We all had holidays for Christmas and Easter and put up Christmas trees and dyed hard boiled eggs... Was there another experience I was supposed to have growing up in Los Angeles? I don't understand why you think I don't believe secularism is the basis for western society. It is. Are you saying to me is that western Christianity that was compromised by the enlightenment is compatible with secularism? Ok? I recognize my bias. I try to account for it. How do you not have some level of bias when refering to culture advancing?
Well, as long as you admit your bias. My family is Christian as well, and almost all my friends are, yet I do not afford Christianity any sort of special respect. Of course I know about our Christian heritage but I know what belongs in the past.
If the world left the US alone as you say we should leave them alone... What would that even mean? If the US was left alone to do what it wants... it would be to take over the world... It's not like we haven't been trying. The world is a small place and 'leaving them alone' doesn't have a very realistic meaning anymore. Leave them alone to create nuclear weapons? Leave them alone to pirate computer software? What does it mean with an eye towards reality and not a well-intentioned ideal that has no substance?
Leave them alone - as in do not try to kill them, change their regime or put undue pressure on them (taking over the world would conflict with that). | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 4:14:21 PM | The regressive movement in the US and elsewhere is being led by Christians and others against the secularism that has protected religious freedom over the centuries. The wars on women and homosexuals, people who smoke pot, etc. are led by the same folks who want a Christian Taliban sort of tribunal to rule this country. Locally, in a fairly large metro area of Tennessee, the county commissioners are again, battling to fight against the Freedom From Religion groups to instill a theocracy in the county, leading off sessions with a christian prayer involking Jesus name before the secular business of governance. It is a never-ending struggle to beat back the dark ages and the gains of the enlightenment since to govern in a way that protects all of society, while protecting religious freedom. In their revisionism of history, the theocrats forget the struggles of the founders not that long ago in making this one of the better experiments in protecting both freedom of, and freedom from.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/155890/the_truth_about_religion_in_america:_the_founders_loathed_superstition_and_we_were_never_a_christian_nation?page=entire | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 6:25:26 PM |
The regressive movement in the US and elsewhere is being led by Christians and others against the secularism that has protected religious freedom over the centuries. The wars on women and homosexuals, people who smoke pot, etc. are led by the same folks who want a Christian Taliban sort of tribunal to rule this country.
Yes, as the late Arthur Miller said:
"There are some Americans - I think they're a minority but they're very vocal - really aching for an Ayatollah [Christian one in this case]. I think they would love to have a Department of Religion... it's something that has to be resisted in principle from one generation to the next. Right now, it's harder than ever, since the government is blatantly on the side of religion."
Secularism protecting religious freedom is also spot-on. What many theists forget is that the wall of separation is also the best means of protecting religion, and to make sure that everyone is free to believe whatever they want. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/17/2012 11:06:24 PM |
Where are the secular leaders to promote an enlightened future?
The culture we (in the west) now enjoy, due to its many facets summarised by the word 'advanced', is largely a product of secular thinkers who were generally persecuted by the various religious authorities of the times.
The same observation applies to the issue of the alleged benefits of religious influence over morality and ethics.
Religion, both eastern and western varieties, have bequeathed perverted versions of 'morality' to the world and it is secular thinkers who are at the forefront of trying to repair the damage.
Even the western religions still persist in imposing their perverted versions of morality on peoples who can't fight back. For instance, it is clearly both unethical and immoral to prevent the use of condoms in areas where sexually communicable diseases, fatal ones that are transmissible to unborn children at that, are endemic.
It is clearly unethical to conceal sex crimes and shield criminal perverts from secular law, yet this is exactly what the Catholic Church has been doing for years, and continues to do still.
It could be argued that the institutionalised denigration of women by the Catholic Church is also unethical, not only in the lack of access to any kind of significance, but also in the general attitude that 'women' are the source of 'sin' upon which the doctrine of a celibate priesthood partly rests. Not to mention the terrible effect celibacy appears to have on the dimwitted clowns who subject themselves to it.
It is clearly unethical to lop bits off the penis of a non-consenting six day old baby. Yet this is exactly what Judaism recommends - even going so far as to promote the idea that the knife wielding mutilator should then suck the baby's dick to complete the process and make 'God' happy.
Religion is a pox on civilisation, and the sooner we're rid of it the better.
| |
|
| |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/18/2012 12:22:45 AM |
CULTURE... ^^^ what does that guy know about ...he is a lying cheat
So where do people who use fallacious ad homonyms based on irrelevancies fit into the concept of 'advanced' or 'cultured'? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/18/2012 1:26:28 AM | Christian extremists are behind the push to impose a theocracy in the US and around the world. Troubling as that is, there were a handful of them who made it into the republican primaries this year, ironically and safely for now, with a mormon beating them back.
Our past congressman Wamp, was a C Street extremist, now offering up his kiddo as a candidate. The Christian Taliban is relentlessly shoving people into positions and seeking to install their version of Sharia Law. They tend to hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights and seperation concept.
http://archive.truthout.org/c-street-review-is-fact-power-its-justification66406
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/17/the-tea-party-agenda-of-trickle-down-religion/ | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/19/2012 1:18:55 PM |
So where do people who use fallacious ad homonyms based on irrelevancies fit into the concept of 'advanced' or 'cultured'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2WJd5bXFg&feature=related
Where does anyone fit? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/20/2012 3:30:59 PM | Where does anyone fit? ,,,,
generally into the perceptions of their mind
then they argue with quotes from authorities to back that perception
then they get fluffed by some other quote or general opinion
then they get pissed and ad homenin a bit or build a new strawman with more quoted appeals to authorities.
then they are once again fluffed off. | |
|
| |
| |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:58:18 AM |
Be nice if "lying cheat" published his real picture.
Undeterred by lack of information or knowledge, you seem prepared to offer a vacuous opinion on any topic at all - most especially those where it's completely obvious you can't possibly know what you're talking about.
Which is nice of you, in a way, because the frequent appearances of your meaninglessly irrelevant posts provide a useful context for those lucky few still unfamiliar with the general standard of your execrable output. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:26:01 PM |
Be nice if "lying cheat" published his real picture.
lol. What... are you psychic? Why on earth would you think that or post it? {shakes head and chuckles} Gee. I think he looks exactly like I would imagine him.
It seems fairly apparent to me that culture would advance much faster without religion. I must just be thinking simplistically because it just seems so obvious how much religion had held us back over the past few millenia with their attempts to prohibit our ability to think freely.
I recall reading a great book (sorry I don't recall the title...the lead character was a dwarf female in Nazi Germany) about how the minds of the German people were successfully polluted by Hitler in part because the Catholic church had rendered them incapable of thinking independently. They simply did as they were told. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/22/2012 6:13:52 AM | Again I must say this thread is nothing more than mental masturbation....
And yes religion would prefer us to think earth is flat and that we all should kiss churchs ass.
What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/22/2012 9:12:59 AM | In terms of morality and scientific discovery, I would say that culture will advance faster with the less religion there is to get in the way. Looking through history all I see religion accomplish is spreading lies, intolerance, bloodshed, and getting in the way of human achievement.
Can culture advance without religion? lol. Its the only thing that prevents advancement. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/22/2012 9:29:29 PM | Sixteen percent of the world population (1.1 billion people) are considered non-religious. Some evidence suggests that the fastest growing religious status in the United States is "no religion" Wikipedia
I think culture has already advanced away from religion and will continue to move in this direction. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/23/2012 12:04:29 AM | | I think culture is just a fancy way of saying that its ok to be born fortunate and its not ok to be born lacking. The end. Therefore, culture has no roots in a reality that speaks louder than culture. Culture is a fancy word for nothing other than a celebration of the fittest. Yawn, how boring. On the other hand religion has some really good advice for the many culturists. Be still and remember that no friggen cultured, rich man ever passed through the eye of the needle. Or something to that effect. Much more interesting than culture and its lame response to the miracle of this universe and its complexities. Glad I won't be around to see this marvelous universe where all have abandoned their ignorant and dead allegiance to "religion." Have fun, culturists. hee haw. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
35
of
39 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
|
|
Home
login 
