Originally posted by Bardock42
What are the [b]unique, positive things Religion can inspire, in your opinion? [/B]
In my opinion some of the greatest works of art and music have been the ones inspired by religion and faith. People can make art and music themselves but the drive given to them by religion seems unprecedented.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What are the [b]unique, positive things Religion can inspire, in your opinion? [/B]
not that I think you're making the argument, but on the flip side, what are unique costs attributable to religion?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In my opinion some of the greatest works of art and music have been the ones inspired by religion and faith. People can make art and music themselves but the drive given to them by religion seems unprecedented.
The same can be said of LSD or simple dreaming
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Neither consistently produces real products for the rest of humanity to see.
tangible art has not been inspired by dreams?
Music has not been inspired by LSD?
Dreams probably have been interpreted in religious light, but they could just as easily inspire people without that narrative, and even people who know the neuroscience in the most reductionist way can still have meaningful subjective experiences that lead to inspiration from dream experiences.
LSD is too recent to have a comparable number of items to point to as religion, but the entire invention of modern music is tied highly to drug use.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Besides both of those would have to be banned because they involve irrationality which disrupts the perfect atheist world.
I'd never argue that religion and rationality are mutually exclusive.
This thread as a whole shows that atheism and irrationality certainly are not
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosHmm, well, I don't see that Religion has a unique drive that can't be replaced. I do agree though that it played a big part in the creation of much of the art we have (though, kinda like you say bad people will still be bad, I feel artsy people will still be artsy)
In my opinion some of the greatest works of art and music have been the ones inspired by religion and faith. People can make art and music themselves but the drive given to them by religion seems unprecedented.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, well, I don't see that Religion has a unique drive that can't be replaced. I do agree though that it played a big part in the creation of much of the art we have (though, kinda like you say bad people will still be bad, I feel artsy people will still be artsy)
I agree.
However, religion is cultural- you can't really box it up and treat it as a singular phenom. It reacts with many other factors in society to create outcomes.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But we wouldn't be worse off. We'd be better off because the good that religion does exists within people, and wouldn't go away.
All im saying is that if you think religon can make people commit worse attrocities you also should argue that religon can make people more kinder than usual. Therefore religon is a source that has two extremes.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And no, we wouldn't be having this convo if Buddhism was the dominant religion. Buddhism values critical thinking, reason, and not believing something if it doesn't make sense to you. Blind faith isn't a part of its doctrine, which is the central point
So what does that prove? Your just saying we would be better off without religon because of Christanity. So religon isn't the problem its the interpretation. Blind faith causing people to be intolerant doesnt have to be an aspect of religon.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're either religious or you're not?! I was devoutly religious and now I'm devoutly unreligious. Does that make me bi?
The point I was making is that people are motivated by different things. Just because a person is attracted to people of the same sex doesnt mean they will be less happy or fulfilled. Just because somebody is motivated by God and afterlife doesnt mean they will be less motivated without it....you know you don't have to take analogies literially...
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And I'm not talking about happiness. People can be happy or unhappy in any walk of life. I'm talking about the suffering caused in the world, its causes and affects, and how it would be lessened (not eradicated, but lessened) with the abolishment of blind faith.
Yes I know but if your going to argue that religon can make people commit atrocious acts it shouldn't just be applied to that. We should also consider that religon can make people happier, more motivated etc etc. The point im making is that if Atheists are just as fuliflled as religous people foir different reasons it can also be argued that they can be just as intolerant but for different reasons.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Eternal life will always make people do more crazy things than political ideologies, in greater numbers and in greater degree. More willing to kill, to die, to condemn others for lifestyle choices, etc. etc. because their faith is absolute and comes from an infallible source. Politics isn't infallible. Social trends aren't infallible. Neither promises eternal life with God. Atrocities will still occur, but LESS will.
Wanna explain to me why you put emphasis on LESS when I already explained to you I got that point? Is this one of those cases where you think I don't understand because I don't agree?
Anyway your logic isn't really that sound first of all you keep saying that God is infallible but the problem is people think that Hitler is infallible as well just because he doesnt have supernatural powers is neither here nor there. Sorry for some people politics is infallible.
You are also assuming that promise of afterlife and eternal peace with God is enough to make people act in certain ways. The fact of the matter is when it comes to really serious situations it tends to be not enough. The reason being is that you can tell somebody that if they do a certain act they get to heaven but when somebody punches them in the face or pulls a knife on them they stop doing it because the fact of the matter is physical pain is directly more real than God. So to be quite frank religon probably isn't really the key factor thats making these people do these acts its other factors plus religon. Real life really contradicts your theory.
Your logic isn't really that sound its more of a "yeah maybe but not neccesarily".
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
All im saying is that if you think religon can make people commit worse attrocities you also should argue that religon can make people more kinder than usual. Therefore religon is a source that has two extremes.
Sure. Conceded. It can make people more kind. But lots of things can make people kind. Few, if any, forces have the negative potential of faith. Religion's a great force for both good ane evil. I've said this more than once. But more of the evil would go away if it was gone than would the good.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
So what does that prove? Your just saying we would be better off without religon because of Christanity. So religon isn't the problem its the interpretation. Blind faith causing people to be intolerant doesnt have to be an aspect of religon.
Blind faith is an intrinsic part of Christianity. 99% of Christians worldwide would agree with me. I fail to see why my point isn't valid simply because you say it doesn't have to lead to intolerance. You're right, it doesn't have to, and it doesn't always do such. But it does, more often than it should.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
The point I was making is that people are motivated by different things. Just because a person is attracted to people of the same sex doesnt mean they will be less happy or fulfilled. Just because somebody is motivated by God and afterlife doesnt mean they will be less motivated without it....you know you don't have to take analogies literially...
My analogy had nothing to do with sexual preference. Bi was a half-joking comment that modified my past religious tendencies.
And as before, yes, people are motivated by different things. The fact that your points seem to revolve around "all people don't do this..." leads to believe you're missing the point, despite your assertions that you understand my opinion. If that's the objection you continue to make, you might not understand it properly.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yes I know but if your going to argue that religon can make people commit atrocious acts it shouldn't just be applied to that. We should also consider that religon can make people happier, more motivated etc etc. The point im making is that if Atheists are just as fuliflled as religous people foir different reasons it can also be argued that they can be just as intolerant but for different reasons.
They can be intolerant as well, yes. Some atheists are, in fact. But not as many will be homicidally so, or will actively discriminate against groups of people because of their beliefs. Do we have stories in the media of atheists throwing their Christian children on the streets because of their beliefs? I have yet to see one. Do we have those same stories of Christians disowning homosexual children? Many. An anecdote, granted. But atheists opinion don't come from a supposedly infallible source, God and the Bible, and they are therefore less likely to committ irrational acts of evil because of their beliefs.
Blind faith that remains unchanged with or without evidence leads to irrational acts. So do other forces, but not as much.
And I don't think you're dumb, and I believe that you sorta get my point. But I've repeated myself once or twice because the response to your objections remains the same, since you're not disproving anything I've said.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Wanna explain to me why you put emphasis on LESS when I already explained to you I got that point? Is this one of those cases where you think I don't understand because I don't agree?
Less was emphasized because it got the stress in that sentence. When you start to read into bolded words as insults, I begin to wonder if we're really having the same discussion here, and if you're mature enough to realize that continually diagreeing with you doesn't mean I think less of you, nor does it mean I shouldn't say the same response occasionally if it adequately counters your points.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Anyway your logic isn't really that sound first of all you keep saying that God is infallible but the problem is people think that Hitler is infallible as well just because he doesnt have supernatural powers is neither here nor there. Sorry for some people politics is infallible.
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.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You are also assuming that promise of afterlife and eternal peace with God is enough to make people act in certain ways.
It is in many cases. We;ve seen it throughout history. Your point would only work if I were saying that it always leads to such outcomes. So it's actually real life that contradicts your theory, not mine. Real life only supports you if I'm making an argument that I'm not.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Is your argument about personal self report or behaviour?
Surely you could see a situation where a person would claim that someone is imperfect yet still unquestioningly follow their every command?
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
eeeexactly.
His post hardly defeats my point.
🙄
In any case, the personal reports would undoubtedly show a lower frequency than actual behavior, but the frequency for both would be far higher for God, both in personal response as well as in practice. So the results would vary but the conclusion remains the same.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
His post hardly defeats my point.🙄
In any case, the personal reports would undoubtedly show a lower frequency than actual behavior, but the frequency for both would be far higher for God, both in personal response as well as in practice. So the results would vary but the conclusion remains the same.
I disagree entirely
I know they are not representative, but look at people who vote in the relatively free society of America. Many will agree to the opposite policies of their candidate if they are asked it in a way that makes it appear it is the position their candidate supports.
Not to be glib, but you, as assuredly as I, have sources of information we are much less, if at all, critical of. Being a critical thinker doesn't get rid of things like cognative dissonance and the basic descision making mechanisms of the brain.
In this vein, I find it nearly absurd that you would claim religion has more of a motivational force than say, nationalism or racism, in motivating people. The terrorist profiles of the 9-11 hijackers vs suicide bombers in Palestine sort of exemplify this, imho. The former being almost an entirely religiously motivated group, the latter almost entirely a nationalist one, with some religions (almost racial at this point) elements (especially narative, which is naturally a post-event rationalization, thus not necessarily a motivating factor [re: religion acts as an explanation after the fact, nationalism is the main motivator).
Broken down, my personal opinion is that these are things that exploit the natural ingroup-outgroup mechanisms of the human brain. This supports why times of economic and social prosperity are also the times least likely to be surounded by inter-religious conflict. As people feel threatened, they circle the wagons, and the most obvious divisions in a society become the lines where people break. Religion just happens to be a line where people can easily divide themselves.
Religion may make people see certain things as threats, like the breakdown of the "nuclear" family unit as the source of moral authority in society, but the behaviours religion promotes to these threats are no different than any other form of ingroup-outgroup.
Another sign of this might be the torture of detaniees at Baghram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Yes, religious iconography was used to abuse the prisoners, but the psychology of the guards was to view the people as sub human, and not necessarily as "muslims" or "arabs". It was a generic dehumnization based on context, much like what religion is capable of, just exploited through a different ingroup mechanism (catpors v. captives [almost harkening back to the Stanford Prison Experiment])
in's always trickier to debate against. But it's always a pleasure. And yes, I'll still be sticking to my original point, though in raises some valid counter-points.
I agree completely that religion as well as other influences pander to our genetic predisposition toward defining people in terms of ingroup-outgroup. And that's the core reason for such negative actions. And I think we'd both agree that religion triggers this tendency, as do other influences.
My issue has always been the degree to which they have the ability to trigger this tendency, and have it result in irrational acts of violence. The actions you mentioned are admirable counter-examples that show secular violence of such a nature. And a comparison of anecdotes would be pointless, because countless exist both for religious intolerance as well as secular. We'd only reinforce the above paragraph in naming them.
It is simply my opinion that because of the nature of religion and its potential promises and rewards (dozens of virgins in heaven, communion with God, eternal life, perfect bliss, etc.) that religious faith has the greater potential to trigger such mechanisms within humans, because those same promises cannot be made by other influences and will thus lead to a greater potential for pushing people past lines of morality that they otherwise would not cross. It is merely an opinion, yes. I can't cite studies to back me up, nor are there those that would refute me (to my knowledge), because it would require such a vast analysis of social and genetic forces that a complete conclusion couldn't likely be reached.
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. 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. It affects many, granted. But I think the numbers are less, as well as the degree in which it affects most.
So I think world would be better off without religion, 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. But some of it would disappear, because the promises of religion and blind faith in them would be gone.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
in's always trickier to debate against. But it's always a pleasure. And yes, I'll still be sticking to my original point, though in raises some valid counter-points.I agree completely that religion as well as other influences pander to our genetic predisposition toward defining people in terms of ingroup-outgroup. And that's the core reason for such negative actions. And I think we'd both agree that religion triggers this tendency, as do other influences.
My issue has always been the degree to which they have the ability to trigger this tendency, and have it result in irrational acts of violence. The actions you mentioned are admirable counter-examples that show secular violence of such a nature. And a comparison of anecdotes would be pointless, because countless exist both for religious intolerance as well as secular. We'd only reinforce the above paragraph in naming them.
It is simply my opinion that because of the nature of religion and its potential promises and rewards (dozens of virgins in heaven, communion with God, eternal life, perfect bliss, etc.) that religious faith has the greater potential to trigger such mechanisms within humans, because those same promises cannot be made by other influences and will thus lead to a greater potential for pushing people past lines of morality that they otherwise would not cross. It is merely an opinion, yes. I can't cite studies to back me up, nor are there those that would refute me (to my knowledge), because it would require such a vast analysis of social and genetic forces that a complete conclusion couldn't likely be reached.
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. 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. It affects many, granted. But I think the numbers are less, as well as the degree in which it affects most.
So I think world would be better off without religion, 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. But some of it would disappear, because the promises of religion and blind faith in them would be gone.
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.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
in's always trickier to debate against. But it's always a pleasure. And yes, I'll still be sticking to my original point, though in raises some valid counter-points.
thanks, might that be one of the things John McCain would advise you not to say out loud though? 😉
anyways, yes, I agree, you are a knowledgeable debater, so this will at least be fun and trying, though like these situations normally play out, I can imagine us finding far more common ground than contencious (**** I hate having no spell check on this computer).
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I agree completely that religion as well as other influences pander to our genetic predisposition toward defining people in terms of ingroup-outgroup. And that's the core reason for such negative actions. And I think we'd both agree that religion triggers this tendency, as do other influences.
to be necessarily pedantic, I do not agree with the distinction between religion and other things, as if religion acts through a unique mechanism and other things through their own, to produce similar results, but that is me nit picking what you said in order to reply to the paragraph.
we pretty much are in agreement here.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
My issue has always been the degree to which they have the ability to trigger this tendency, and have it result in irrational acts of violence.
if someone is violent in the name of their religion, is it irrational?
For instance, if someone percieves their nation is in mortal danger, and they perform violence on its behalf, it is rarely labeled as irrational, though is condemned. If the world that Timothy McVeigh believed existed truly did, there would be no question of the rationality of his attacks.
again, this is somewhat superfelous to the larger discussion, although, it does bring up the question of what is it exactly about religion that promotes violence? Is it the conception of the community being harmed or is it the reaction to the dehumanization of others? Both are clearly relevant, and obviously different situations will have different impacts (McVeigh is a good example of the first option, Abu Ghraib the second). More than anything, I want to point out that given there are different types of things that can lead to ingroup/outgroup violence, which can differ independently of religion.
lol, since I'm sure we agree more than disagree, im probably preeching at the converted, I don't think any of that is controversial.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
The actions you mentioned are admirable counter-examples that show secular violence of such a nature. And a comparison of anecdotes would be pointless, because countless exist both for religious intolerance as well as secular. We'd only reinforce the above paragraph in naming them.
certainly I don't think they act as difinitive proof of anything, aside from showing that religion is not unique, which is the core of my argument.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It is simply my opinion that because of the nature of religion and its potential promises and rewards (dozens of virgins in heaven, communion with God, eternal life, perfect bliss, etc.) that religious faith has the greater potential to trigger such mechanisms within humans, because those same promises cannot be made by other influences and will thus lead to a greater potential for pushing people past lines of morality that they otherwise would not cross.
There are sociological theories that support your view, and I almost conceded it in my previous post.
Religion, given its non-empirical nature, can say that things with no provable harm are actually harmful, fostering either ingroup threat from those who act in that way, or fostering dehumanization of the outgroup. ie, the family unit being under attack by homosexual marriage.
Given that the rewards are non-verifiable, nobody can ever be "shown" that the promises will never materialize. Both of these factors do, I guess, predispose religion, as it exists, to cause people to create divisions between themselves and other non-religious people.
Further, the percieved threat can cause them to ingroup protect/outgroup dehumanize, even in times of social and financial prosperity. And yes, metaphysical threat is something that is unique to religion.
I think it is where you start saying these are unique to the irrationality and blind faith used in religious discourse. I would say anything that has certain qualities that religion contains would produce these effects, and anecdoteally, we can see where they have. That nationalism doesn't exist as a subversive force like religion in modern western democracies does not mean that, in other places and at other times, it hasn't adopted the same non-verifiable and supernatural promises as religion, nor does anything prevent it from happening.
BLAH: I have class. I will respond to the rest when I get home, hopefully (lol, how often do I say this...)
And I say...
In order to build a shared view of what can be improved, to focus on improvement, not cost, presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea generation. Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong, building flexibility through spreading knowledge and self-organization, the components and priorities for the change program. The three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a new world for business working through a top-down, bottom-up approach, that will indubitably lay the firm foundations for any leading company. Taking full cognizance of organizational learning parameters and principles, exploitation of core competencies as an essential enabler, maximization of shareholder wealth through separation of ownership from management. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
To experience a profound paradigm shift, by moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators, taking full cognizance of organizational learning parameters and principles. The balanced scorecard, like the executive dashboard, is an essential tool building a dynamic relationship between the main players. Measure the process, not the people. Whether the organization's core competences are fully in line, given market realities organizations capable of double-loop learning, highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added outcome.
The strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to identify building flexibility through spreading knowledge and self-organization, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are assessed. An important ingredient of business process reengineering whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong, as knowledge is fragmented into specialities. By adopting project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis, the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to identify the balanced scorecard, like the executive dashboard, is an essential tool.
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, measure the process, not the people. Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added outcome. Maximization of shareholder wealth through separation of ownership from management by adopting project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis, while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall goals. The three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a new world for business building a dynamic relationship between the main players. Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added outcome.
In order to build a shared view of what can be improved, the new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals and units, the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to identify. The components and priorities for the change program organizations capable of double-loop learning, empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives. Building a dynamic relationship between the main players.
😬 😐 😛