Originally posted by inimalist
There are sociological theories that support your view, and I almost conceded it in my previous post.
Victory!
woot
Nah, I'll be careful to frame my point more carefully in the future. You raise valid concerns that cause me to perhaps modify my opinion to make it less overtly a religious discussion, though I still hold to the general theory, just not as vehemently so.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yeah because ini isn't making the same point I was making was he? The fact of the matter is people without religon can be just as zealous as religous people and quite frankly on this point ini is saying the samething as I am theres not need to try and pretend like hes making a different point all he did was go into more detail.......give me a break. 🙄I'll respond to the rest of your post tommorrow.
Inamilist agrees with me.
😛
...well, sorta.
😮
I didn't mean my comments on in as a lesser opinion of you. That wasn't intended. I just genuinely do enjoy debating inamilist, because we usually agree on more things than not, so there's a lot of common ground when we take issue with the others' opinion.
But yeah, he refined your opinion some. There was common ground between you and I as well, I'd imagine. But the way we were wording it at the time just made it seem more contentious.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
For some, yeah. Let's take a worldwide poll, however (hypothetical of course). Two questions: Is God infallible? Is any human being? The results will undoubtedly support my opinion.
God is.
The Pope is when he speaks ex cathedra.
😄
Sorry, I just had to point it out... 😮
forgetting god, the pope isnt, since there is always the chance that as a human, hes got even the most basic thing wrong. always a chance. and infalliable means NO chance of falliability. even when he invokes infalliability, hes still human and his mental faculties are boosted to perfection by supernatural means.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
forgetting god, the pope isnt, since there is always the chance that as a human, hes got even the most basic thing wrong. always a chance. and infalliable means NO chance of falliability. even when he invokes infalliability, hes still human and his mental faculties are boosted to perfection by supernatural means.
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah
He is.
Its midterm season right now, so instead of studying for stats I'll keep my word and make a reply to this
I love you guys, procrastination is so easy here 🙂
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It is merely an opinion, yes.
of course, don't think I was getting after you for presenting your opinion as fact, lol.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I can't cite studies to back me up, nor are there those that would refute me (to my knowledge),
There is some stuff for both sides. I think it comes down more to what we are talking about with "religion" or something being unique to it.
For instance, if there is a room of people, and only one has died their hair blue, blue hair is, temporally, unique to that person. However, there is no reason to believe those other people couldn't have blue hair, won't have blue hair, or never had blue hair.
so like, I posted a study on here a little while back that talks about religious scripture (vs the same passages only with secular names) being able to provoke aggression.
They found that religious text produced more lab measures of aggression (which is controversial anyways, I'm sure you know the problems). However, like the studies I talked about earlier which show benefits from religion, I personally don't think the results are specific to "religion" as much as they are specific to the type of institution and ideals that comprise religion as it exists today (the person with blue hair).
In all of the cases, sure, there is a correlation, but the actual mechanism that produces aggression or benefit are not "religion" mechanisms, just that the memes produced by religion are "evolved" such that they fill very specific roles that our brains naturally desire to be filled. Lol, that probably sounds like the Devil King technobabble post, so I'll leave it and await questions...
Originally posted by DigiMark007
because it would require such a vast analysis of social and genetic forces that a complete conclusion couldn't likely be reached.
not to mention that any attempt of modern science to distinguish between social and biological influences of any behaviour has shown more that the two are interactive and not exclusive.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
My stance makes sense to me from a logical standpoint, and don't feel swayed by inamilist's post (though it raises valid points about the nature of violence), but I realize I may be wrong.
ha, fair enough.
It would be odd to see someone claim "OMG I see things in a new light" just because of some text I posted....
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I simply can't fathom, say, nationalistic pride (or any other force) affecting as many people as profoundly as the blind faith of religion does.
I don't know. I might agree that religion is in a unique position to create supernatural tensions in society between groups, which would overshadow cultural prosperity, however, even then, I can think of scant few examples of this.
People in a nation where there is cultural stability and prosperity, yet clear lines being drawn, in the promotion of animosity, between religious groups which are not competeing for any social or political goal... Maybe I'm not trying hard enough, but that seems like a very rare occurance.
Nationalism affecting as many people? I'd be surprised if 100% of the people on this planet didn't feel some sense of national pride. lol, don't get me wrong, I'll bad mouth my country all the time, but put me on the bus with some ignorant tourist who is bitching about how much better things are in Amreica than here, it makes me soooooo enraged!
The degree? I know you don't want to just name off instances, but what about Palestinian suicide bombers? Or even Iraqi suicide bombers. These people may use religious narrative, but it is more than abundantly clear that these are attacks of nationalism rather than religion. (though, I don't agree with that distinction really, as what I am arguing is they are both a form of our natural predisposition toward tribalism. Like why me and you like to debate eachother rather than those who just believe entirely different things)
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It affects many, granted. But I think the numbers are less, as well as the degree in which it affects most.
phrased: "At this moment in time, religion affects more people in a more harmful way (as opposed to just more people or just more harmful [meaning other forms could be more abundant or more harmful, just not both]) than other forms of human tribalism"
I would give than tentative agreement. Though totally through a "blue hair" narrative 😛
Originally posted by DigiMark007
So I think world would be better off without religion,
I actually disagree.
In my mind, a world without religion is one without free choice or free association.
There are negative things produced in the name of religion, and I think it is bad for people to have a closed mind from a young age due to a religious upbringing, and I would do anything that I though might change these problems, but I can't personally desire to take someone's beliefs away from them.
Like, I believe lots of crazy things, tons of which are non-verifiable. Potentially they even cause me to act in irrational and self-destructive ways. That is still my right.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
because it is a great force for both good and evil, possibly greater for good, but the good wouldn't vanish because it is human good to someone who doesn't believe in God. Most of the evil would remain as well, because religion is just an outlet for their animosity.
99% agreement, 1%: see below
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But some of it would disappear, because the promises of religion and blind faith in them would be gone.
I don't think we can say for sure that people who do violence in the name of religion would not have done so otherwise.
I sort of agree with the statement, but I feel it presumes too much controlling power by social forces. Not that I'm making the argument for human volition or anything, just that some things aren't socially determined. People can be born with a violent disposition.
I don't really think this is a disagreement, more that I think it is too much of a blanket statement about the causes of "evil"
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Victory!woot
not entirely. These are the same theories that claim "reductionism" in the study of religion is "bad".
lol, I don't know how that sounds to you, but as someone who LIVES to reduce human action to its lowest possible components, they seem highly lacking.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nah, I'll be careful to frame my point more carefully in the future. You raise valid concerns that cause me to perhaps modify my opinion to make it less overtly a religious discussion, though I still hold to the general theory, just not as vehemently so.
It is a really difficult question, and it seems like it has only begun to be asked with any real meaning by a large enough section of society.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think religion is benevolent or even neutral, I just can't attribute causality to it in relation to human violence. I feel it acts a lot as a scapegoat or as cognitive dissonance, for potentially as simple of a reason as it is very uncomfortable to think that people might just be violent and evil for reasons that are not rationally available. LOL, don't take that personally, I'm just sort of rambling.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Inamilist agrees with me.
as if that means anything...
lol, how quickly people forget my pages of debate about whether Storm (the X-man [X-woman?]) had matter manipulation powers.
Originally posted by inimalist
Its midterm season right now, so instead of studying for stats I'll keep my word and make a reply to thisI love you guys, procrastination is so easy here 🙂
of course, don't think I was getting after you for presenting your opinion as fact, lol.
There is some stuff for both sides. I think it comes down more to what we are talking about with "religion" or something being unique to it.
For instance, if there is a room of people, and only one has died their hair blue, blue hair is, temporally, unique to that person. However, there is no reason to believe those other people couldn't have blue hair, won't have blue hair, or never had blue hair.
so like, I posted a study on here a little while back that talks about religious scripture (vs the same passages only with secular names) being able to provoke aggression.
They found that religious text produced more lab measures of aggression (which is controversial anyways, I'm sure you know the problems). However, like the studies I talked about earlier which show benefits from religion, I personally don't think the results are specific to "religion" as much as they are specific to the type of institution and ideals that comprise religion as it exists today (the person with blue hair).
In all of the cases, sure, there is a correlation, but the actual mechanism that produces aggression or benefit are not "religion" mechanisms, just that the memes produced by religion are "evolved" such that they fill very specific roles that our brains naturally desire to be filled. Lol, that probably sounds like the Devil King technobabble post, so I'll leave it and await questions...
not to mention that any attempt of modern science to distinguish between social and biological influences of any behaviour has shown more that the two are interactive and not exclusive.
ha, fair enough.
It would be odd to see someone claim "OMG I see things in a new light" just because of some text I posted....
I don't know. I might agree that religion is in a unique position to create supernatural tensions in society between groups, which would overshadow cultural prosperity, however, even then, I can think of scant few examples of this.
People in a nation where there is cultural stability and prosperity, yet clear lines being drawn, in the promotion of animosity, between religious groups which are not competeing for any social or political goal... Maybe I'm not trying hard enough, but that seems like a very rare occurance.
Nationalism affecting as many people? I'd be surprised if 100% of the people on this planet didn't feel some sense of national pride. lol, don't get me wrong, I'll bad mouth my country all the time, but put me on the bus with some ignorant tourist who is bitching about how much better things are in Amreica than here, it makes me soooooo enraged!
The degree? I know you don't want to just name off instances, but what about Palestinian suicide bombers? Or even Iraqi suicide bombers. These people may use religious narrative, but it is more than abundantly clear that these are attacks of nationalism rather than religion. (though, I don't agree with that distinction really, as what I am arguing is they are both a form of our natural predisposition toward tribalism. Like why me and you like to debate eachother rather than those who just believe entirely different things)
phrased: "At this moment in time, religion affects more people in a more harmful way (as opposed to just more people or just more harmful [meaning other forms could be more abundant or more harmful, just not both]) than other forms of human tribalism"
I would give than tentative agreement. Though totally through a "blue hair" narrative 😛
I actually disagree.
In my mind, a world without religion is one without free choice or free association.
There are negative things produced in the name of religion, and I think it is bad for people to have a closed mind from a young age due to a religious upbringing, and I would do anything that I though might change these problems, but I can't personally desire to take someone's beliefs away from them.
Like, I believe lots of crazy things, tons of which are non-verifiable. Potentially they even cause me to act in irrational and self-destructive ways. That is still my right.
99% agreement, 1%: see below
I don't think we can say for sure that people who do violence in the name of religion would not have done so otherwise.
I sort of agree with the statement, but I feel it presumes too much controlling power by social forces. Not that I'm making the argument for human volition or anything, just that some things aren't socially determined. People can be born with a violent disposition.
I don't really think this is a disagreement, more that I think it is too much of a blanket statement about the causes of "evil"
not entirely. These are the same theories that claim "reductionism" in the study of religion is "bad".
lol, I don't know how that sounds to you, but as someone who LIVES to reduce human action to its lowest possible components, they seem highly lacking.
It is a really difficult question, and it seems like it has only begun to be asked with any real meaning by a large enough section of society.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think religion is benevolent or even neutral, I just can't attribute causality to it in relation to human violence. I feel it acts a lot as a scapegoat or as cognitive dissonance, for potentially as simple of a reason as it is very uncomfortable to think that people might just be violent and evil for reasons that are not rationally available. LOL, don't take that personally, I'm just sort of rambling.
as if that means anything...
lol, how quickly people forget my pages of debate about whether Storm (the X-man [X-woman?]) had matter manipulation powers.
Wait wait, woah. You think Storm has matter manip. powers?!
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Wait wait, woah. You think Storm has matter manip. powers?!
no, it was some other person
It got into whether or not she could control the electrons of atoms in the brain to read people's minds and the like...
She had matter manip powers, because she had to control electrons to control the weather, thus she could make electrons do whatever she wanted...
God, I don't know if it is more embarrassing that I spent the time arguing it or that I still remember the arguments...
Originally posted by DigiMark007
...or that I needed to clarify that before caring about continuing the religious discussion.😮
no, I hear you. I couldn't possibly have an intellectual conversation with someone who believed such about Storm
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also, I know the person you're talking about. He/she has gotten into it with many people.
I know, just still, I should have known better 😛
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You aren't the only one to have been sucked it.
thats an amazing typo