Atheism

Originally posted by Digi
Fair point. But that's kind of the point. You don't need religion to do good. Atheists aren't fighting evils that they perceive because they're atheists, but because they're human.

It's the fighting part that bothers me.

Originally posted by Digi
What does "independent of humans" mean? Because that isn't what I said. Fusion happens the same way for an alien as it does for us. Gravity has the same properties. 2 + 2 won't stop equaling 4. These are empirical truths. It's why science is independent of religion, even if, on occasion, religious individuals are the ones who make scientific discoveries.

You used the phrase "Scientific Method".
Definition = a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The scientific method has nothing to do with gravity or math. So, perhaps you used the wrong phrase.

Originally posted by Digi
Again, enlighten me. At least provide a synopsis of your reasoning. Because I can't respond to this. There's nothing to work with.

Science history is a gigantic subject that cannot be covered here.
Basically, at the beginning of scientific history there was no division between science religion and philosophy. The Greeks where the first (as far as we know) separate philosophy from religion.

Originally posted by Digi
How is reincarnation a fact? I'm curious.

What? I never said that. I said the Nichiren believed in reincarnation. It is a fact that he believe that way, just like it is a fact that I believe in reincarnation.

Originally posted by Digi
But my issue is that, if a "religion" is entirely congruent with science, reason, the natural world, etc. why are we calling it a religion?

Because science has nothing to do with living a better life.

Originally posted by Digi
What's the point of dressing ideas in philosophical or spiritual garb when a less fancy understanding of the ideas will bring more clarity. How is it different than an entirely secular self-help book that says things like "Do good, be loving, find peace, use reason, pursue happiness" and similar common sense advice?

Ritual! We chant to the Gohonzon. Humans need more then abstract concepts. Ritual is the key to a better life.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, of course not all religions believe in a god. But we're speaking in generalities sometimes here. If I'm making a point about religion, I can't cater it to just your religion. I'm glad we're more on the same page now, though.

If you are making a generalization about religion, then it must be true for all religions. Otherwise it would not be true. Like religions are populated with humans. Sense other animals do not (as far as we know) practice religion, this would be a true generalization.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You used the phrase "Scientific Method".
Definition = a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The scientific method has nothing to do with gravity or math. So, perhaps you used the wrong phrase.

I've used a few terms interchangeably. Basically, if we're being absolute, "the truths elucidated by our understanding of science." 2+2, gravity, etc. They're the same for aliens as they are for us. No religion needed.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Science history is a gigantic subject that cannot be covered here.
Basically, at the beginning of scientific history there was no division between science religion and philosophy. The Greeks where the first (as far as we know) separate philosophy from religion.

But the idea that it "came" from religion is still ridiculous. You're talking about history. Yes, there was considerable overlap at one point. But scientific truths would have been discovered slowly in ANY religious - or non-religious - historical setting. It didn't come from religion, it just happened to coincide with religion for a while. What I think you're saying is that religion was necessary for the discovery of scientific methods and truths. And that's just not the case.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? I never said that. I said the Nichiren believed in reincarnation. It is a fact that he believe that way, just like it is a fact that I believe in reincarnation.

Misread; apologies. Anyway, why do you - or most Nichiren - believe in reincarnation?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because science has nothing to do with living a better life.

Fair point. It doesn't, by and large. But for all of its strengths - and it has several - I don't see Buddhism as any better than a reasonably helpful secular self-help book at my corner book store. Nor, more to the point, any better than figuring out how to live a better life of your own rational faculties, instead of an outside source. Again, no religion is needed for these things.

Also, as mentioned, it's not really a religion at that point. It's just heavily standardized self-help. If there's nothing that disagrees with science and reason, that's great, and I can probably endorse much of it. But it's also just some tips for being happier, decorated up as ancient art or teachings.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ritual! We chant to the Gohonzon. Humans need more then abstract concepts. Ritual is the key to a better life.

I was raised Catholic and I work for an organization with an initiation Ritual. The draw of ritual is undeniable. It is not, however, necessary for a better life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you are making a generalization about religion, then it must be true for all religions. Otherwise it would not be true. Like religions are populated with humans. Sense other animals do not (as far as we know) practice religion, this would be a true generalization.

Well, now we're getting a bit pedantic. If I make a statement about something that is obviously a Christian or Western value or belief, it's understood that that's what I'm talking about. Nothing I've said has been terribly hard to understand, given its context. Show me a confusing statement I've made if you think otherwise.

Originally posted by Digi
I've used a few terms interchangeably. Basically, if we're being absolute, "the truths elucidated by our understanding of science." 2+2, gravity, etc. They're the same for aliens as they are for us. No religion needed.

You keep putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Digi
But the idea that it "came" from religion is still ridiculous. You're talking about history. Yes, there was considerable overlap at one point. But scientific truths would have been discovered slowly in ANY religious - or non-religious - historical setting. It didn't come from religion, it just happened to coincide with religion for a while. What I think you're saying is that religion was necessary for the discovery of scientific methods and truths. And that's just not the case.

Like I said before, this is not what I learned about science history. You just believe differently then the academic world I was exposed too.

Originally posted by Digi
Misread; apologies. Anyway, why do you - or most Nichiren - believe in reincarnation?

Nicheren was a product of his society. In 13 century futile Japan almost everyone believed in reincarnation.

I don't believe in reincarnation. I believe in simultaneous incantation. I believe that reincarnation is a flawed attempt to described simultaneous incantation. The theory of 3000 realms in one moment is closer to simultaneous incantation.

Why do I believe in simultaneous incantation? Well, lets meet in a nice pub, and I will explain over a few pints of beer. The topic is personal, and not suitable for the forum.

Originally posted by Digi
Fair point. It doesn't, by and large. But for all of its strengths - and it has several - I don't see Buddhism as any better than a reasonably helpful secular self-help book at my corner book store. Nor, more to the point, any better than figuring out how to live a better life of your own rational faculties, instead of an outside source. Again, no religion is needed for these things. Also, as mentioned, it's not really a religion at that point. It's just heavily standardized self-help. If there's nothing that disagrees with science and reason, that's great, and I can probably endorse much of it. But it's also just some tips for being happier, decorated up as ancient art or teachings.

It's a point of view difference between you and I. You rigidly separate religious activities from regular life. From my point of view, picking up a self-help and really trying to apply it in your life is a religious activity. Why should I conform to your beliefs?

Originally posted by Digi
I was raised Catholic and I work for an organization with an initiation Ritual. The draw of ritual is undeniable. It is not, however, necessary for a better life.

I disagree, but that is probably because I see things that people do every day as being ritual. Ritual is not always connected to religion.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, now we're getting a bit pedantic. If I make a statement about something that is obviously a Christian or Western value or belief, it's understood that that's what I'm talking about. Nothing I've said has been terribly hard to understand, given its context.

I still see it as being wrong.

We've moved the goalposts pretty far in our debate. I'm not even sure we're arguing anymore on certain topics. But you wanted to steer us toward your version of Buddhism, so I happily followed. Let's try to work this back around to something resembling atheism...because I feel like the last couple posts have been mostly you bringing up tangential ideas to discuss, ones that I don't necessarily have qualms with but have somehow found myself debating.

It's not a knock - you debate what you know, and some of our discussion ahs been interesting - but, like, we started this conversation talking about the merits (or lack thereof) of falsely attributing ideas to the Bible, and their potential negative repercussions in society.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You keep putting words in my mouth.

Extrapolate. it's hard to know what I said that was wrong, or what you actually think, with ambiguous statements like this.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Like I said before, this is not what I learned about science history. You just believe differently then the academic world I was exposed too.

I don't think this is the voluminous topic you believe it to be. Why am I wrong?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nicheren was a product of his society. In 13 century futile Japan almost everyone believed in reincarnation.

I don't believe in reincarnation. I believe in simultaneous incantation. I believe that reincarnation is a flawed attempt to described simultaneous incantation. The theory of 3000 realms in one moment is closer to simultaneous incantation.

Why do I believe in simultaneous incantation? Well, lets meet in a nice pub, and I will explain over a few pints of beer. The topic is personal, and not suitable for the forum.

Simultaneous incantation produced some Harry Potter links when I googled it. Mind giving me the cliff's notes version? You don't have to go into your personal story, just an overview. Because I doubt we live close enough to have a beer, but we do have an online discussion forum.

{edit} ok, I did find the 3000 realms: http://www.sgi.org/buddhism/buddhist-concepts/three-thousand-realms-in-a-single-moment-of-life.html

I find the summation interesting at the bottom: The practice developed by Nichiren and carried out within the SGI encourages people to make ceaseless efforts to manifest the limitless potential of their own life, to confront and overcome the obstacles to happiness both within themselves and in society and thereby, beginning where they are now, to make the world a better place.

Self-help, under the guise of religion. Don't get me wrong; those are awesome end goals. I'm happy for you if this is how you find strength, purpose, peace, etc. It's as valid a path as many others. But it's also no more "right" than any other path to the same basic, common sense goals. And is, essentially, secular in that it brings no supernatural beliefs with it. You can call it religion, that's fine...just understand that there are societal preconceptions of that term that will cause confusion about your beliefs and practices.

It's the same reason many atheists identify as humanist or free thinkers. It's to escape the idea that atheism needs to be its own religion, or that it's "against" religion. Atheism is the lack of a belief. Nothing else.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's a point of view difference between you and I. You rigidly separate religious activities from regular life. From my point of view, picking up a self-help and really trying to apply it in your life is a religious activity. Why should I conform to your beliefs?

Never asked you to conform to my beliefs, but meh.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree, but that is probably because I see things that people do every day as being ritual. Ritual is not always connected to religion.

Ok, cool. But I can probably find people to whom ritual - religious or everyday activities - is an anathema to happy living. Ritual can help. But it's not a prerequisite for happiness. Just one potential tool.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I still see it as being wrong.

Extrapolate. I still don't even know which quote(s) you've been referring to with these statements.

Originally posted by Digi
We've moved the goalposts pretty far in our debate. I'm not even sure we're arguing anymore on certain topics. But you wanted to steer us toward your version of Buddhism, so I happily followed. Let's try to work this back around to something resembling atheism...because I feel like the last couple posts have been mostly you bringing up tangential ideas to discuss, ones that I don't necessarily have qualms with but have somehow found myself debating.

That is because I don't know how to communicate my thoughts on atheism outside of the frame work of Buddhism. I apologize for my inadequacies.

Originally posted by Digi
It's not a knock - you debate what you know, and some of our discussion ahs been interesting - but, like, we started this conversation talking about the merits (or lack thereof) of falsely attributing ideas to the Bible, and their potential negative repercussions in society.

There is nothing for us to talk about there. I am in complete agreement with you on this point.

Originally posted by Digi
Extrapolate. it's hard to know what I said that was wrong, or what you actually think, with ambiguous statements like this.

You didn't really say anything wrong. I was just frustrated by us talking past each other. Don't worry about it, because I don't even remember without going back.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't think this is the voluminous topic you believe it to be. Why am I wrong?

Its not a big deal.

Originally posted by Digi
Simultaneous incantation produced some Harry Potter links when I googled it. Mind giving me the cliff's notes version? You don't have to go into your personal story, just an overview. Because I doubt we live close enough to have a beer, but we do have an online discussion forum.

I think I spelled it wrong.

Simultaneous Incarnation is like reincarnation, but it is not linier in time. Basically, my past and future lives are being lived now through out time. This is a very old belief, that some new age people have drug back up, and of course I don't agree with most of them.

Originally posted by Digi
{edit} ok, I did find the 3000 realms: http://www.sgi.org/buddhism/buddhist-concepts/three-thousand-realms-in-a-single-moment-of-life.html

I find the summation interesting at the bottom: The practice developed by Nichiren and carried out within the SGI encourages people to make ceaseless efforts to manifest the limitless potential of their own life, to confront and overcome the obstacles to happiness both within themselves and in society and thereby, beginning where they are now, to make the world a better place.

SGI is a great organization, and I am a member. I suggest reading more, but it is all up to you.

Originally posted by Digi
Self-help, under the guise of religion. Don't get me wrong; those are awesome end goals. I'm happy for you if this is how you find strength, purpose, peace, etc. It's as valid a path as many others. But it's also no more "right" than any other path to the same basic, common sense goals. And is, essentially, secular in that it brings no supernatural beliefs with it. You can call it religion, that's fine...just understand that there are societal preconceptions of that term that will cause confusion about your beliefs and practices.

I think you have it backward. My religion is secular, and I don't believe in supernatural beliefs.

Simultaneous Incarnation is not a supernatural belief to me. I simple believe that it is a superposition of our lives. In other words, the pattern of my life is entangled with all other lives. I am one of those people who believe that Quantum Mechanics does apply to the macro-world. Now, I will always couch that as a belief, but it isn't supernatural.

Originally posted by Digi
It's the same reason many atheists identify as humanist or free thinkers. It's to escape the idea that atheism needs to be its own religion, or that it's "against" religion. Atheism is the lack of a belief. Nothing else.

I see part of the problem. I am not an advocate of atheism becoming a religion. I am warning you that it is becoming a religion. If it becomes a religion, we are in for a world of hurt.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, cool. But I can probably find people to whom ritual - religious or everyday activities - is an anathema to happy living. Ritual can help. But it's not a prerequisite for happiness. Just one potential tool.

I believe in many paths up the mountain. Do you get it?

Originally posted by Digi
Extrapolate. I still don't even know which quote(s) you've been referring to with these statements.

Most people will understand that you are only talking about Christianity, but I get a bent nose when you do that. It is really just my problem that I am venting to you about. No big deal.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2013/12/is-god-dying/

Posting for future discussion, but I don't have time to do a writeup on it atm. Anyone can feel free to start us up, but I'll be back to write something longer about it.

Originally posted by Digi
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2013/12/is-god-dying/

Posting for future discussion, but I don't have time to do a writeup on it atm. Anyone can feel free to start us up, but I'll be back to write something longer about it.

So anyway, I don't think this is anything new per se, but I see it as a positive trend. Homogenization of beliefs in the world (or non-belief) will decrease the influence of theocracies, as well as religious-based xenophobia. Religion doesn't need to go away to create a relatively peaceful coexistence between religions on the planet, but I do think the lessening of large majorities to create more of a global melting pot WILL help. And the "nones" as the article calls them, are among the last to be invited to the party in some countries, so the slow increase is a positive, even if it doesn't speak to the "Death of God" as the article melodramatically calls it.

The death of spirituality isn't in itself a good thing for humanity, but eroding the power base of these thousand plus year old religions would benefit social freedom and human rights all over the world. It may be slow in coming but already in the US and Europe, subscribing to something other than mainstream religion is becoming more common. However, in Murica we'd vote for a Muslim president before an areligious one according to some polls, indicating that a significant majority still hold -some- kind of faith as better than none.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The death of spirituality isn't in itself a good thing for humanity

This needs justification, but ok. Although, of note, the article says nothing about spirituality. Even the "nones" it cites could still be intensely spiritual, which is why I'm always a bit cautious about atheist groups or writers co-opting the "nones" as their own.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
but eroding the power base of these thousand plus year old religions would benefit social freedom and human rights all over the world. It may be slow in coming but already in the US and Europe, subscribing to something other than mainstream religion is becoming more common. However, in Murica we'd vote for a Muslim president before an areligious one according to some polls, indicating that a significant majority still hold -some- kind of faith as better than none.

This is most definitely the case. Atheists are the most mistrusted religious minority in America, and there is ample evidence and numerous studies to support this. Briefly after 9/11, Muslims replaced them at the top, and every now and then a particular cultural group overtakes atheists at the top of most mistrusted in polls (notably, Tea Party-ers a few years back). But each one's reign is short-lived before giving way.

To clarify, spirituality in itself is largely harmless. A personal viewpoint or even a yearning for or belief in something beyond what we can empiracly verify. Organized religion and dogma, especially that built on mulitple books and sources from ages ago written and compiled by human agents is another thing entirely. It's a very real fact that larger religons thrive because they are advocated by the state as a means of control or direction.

No one would today know or follow Christianity or Islam if not for the likes of militant warchiefs or emperors pushing the belief as gospel.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
To clarify, spirituality in itself is largely harmless. A personal viewpoint or even a yearning for or belief in something beyond what we can empiracly verify. Organized religion and dogma, especially that built on mulitple books and sources from ages ago written and compiled by human agents is another thing entirely. It's a very real fact that larger religons thrive because they are advocated by the state as a means of control or direction.

No one would today know or follow Christianity or Islam if not for the likes of militant warchiefs or emperors pushing the belief as gospel.

👆

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
To clarify, spirituality in itself is largely harmless. A personal viewpoint or even a yearning for or belief in something beyond what we can empiracly verify. Organized religion and dogma, especially that built on mulitple books and sources from ages ago written and compiled by human agents is another thing entirely. It's a very real fact that larger religons thrive because they are advocated by the state as a means of control or direction.

No one would today know or follow Christianity or Islam if not for the likes of militant warchiefs or emperors pushing the belief as gospel.

****, I had really hoped not to get into another one of these, but I have to take issue with this.

How does this explain Judaism? As far as I know there has never really been a Jewish state.

Also, perhaps I'm just under-informed, but as far as I know, Rome was the first empire to fully support Christianity, but by the time it did it was so popular that I can't see how an emperor not backing it would have made any difference in its longevity. Islam and what I know in that area has similar circumstances, though the religion gave rise to the empire and not vice versa as you seem to claim.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
****, I had really hoped not to get into another one of these, but I have to take issue with this.

How does this explain Judaism? As far as I know there has never really been a Jewish state.

Read the Bible. Jews existed as a homogeneous people in ancient times, and their leaders and judges perpetuated their beliefs as they waged war against other Middle Eastern tribes and attempts to find a place in the world. They weren't themselves a dominant empire akin to say Rome or Byzantine or a Caliphate, but they were inextricably tied to Christianity because the latter is a branch of Judaism and eventually became the scapegoat of Christian hatred because of the "they killed Jesus, even though he wanted to die anyways" concept which is found even today. Judaism is well known not because they necessarily dominated but because they were targets of dominant religious powers and survived thousands of years of persecution.

But to be honest, I rarely take issue with Jews because I've never really been told I'm a bad person by a Jew, and they generally care more about me being a good non-Jew than being an adherent to their faith. My comment is most accurate in depicting the rise of Islam and Christianity, both of which were perpetuated by ruling elites and the sword.

Also, perhaps I'm just under-informed,

The internet is at your fingertips. Educate yourself. There's no reason to take exception to something you don't understand fully yourself without researching the position first.

but as far as I know, Rome was the first empire to fully support Christianity, but by the time it did it was so popular that I can't see how an emperor not backing it would have made any difference in its longevity.

Christianity was persecuted before then, and legitimized after and actually made the state religion, thus forcing conversions on behalf of citizens and state elite. Read about it, or watch a special on it.

Islam and what I know in that area has similar circumstances, though the religion gave rise to the empire and not vice versa as you seem to claim.

Islam was conquering people with the sword before Muhammed died, and his successors went on to conquer most of the lands we now consider Arabian, even if only culturally not ethnically. This includes parts of Asia Minor and Africa. Read about the history of Islam sometime. Islam did not have serious opposition in their part of the world because they quickly began killing and subjugating the fractured opposition that existed. The only time they ran into serious problems (aside from infighting over who was really Muhammed's successor from time to time) was the Iberian peninsula and later the Crusades.

I see. If this is the case then I think you're just taking far too many liberties with what you can truly know and what you just guess, while also ignoring certain rights that people have to self defense.

I'm also questioning your interpretation of events surrounding the spread of Christianity into Rome and Islam into the nearby Persian/Turkish lands to the north and the African and Egyptian lands west.

That's all I really wanted to say, though.

Fun fact: the Kingdom of Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as an official religion.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Read the Bible. Jews existed as a homogeneous people in ancient times, and their leaders and judges perpetuated their beliefs as they waged war against other Middle Eastern tribes and attempts to find a place in the world. They weren't themselves a dominant empire akin to say Rome or Byzantine or a Caliphate, but they were inextricably tied to Christianity because the latter is a branch of Judaism and eventually became the scapegoat of Christian hatred because of the "they killed Jesus, even though he wanted to die anyways" concept which is found even today. Judaism is well known not because they necessarily dominated but because they were targets of dominant religious powers and survived thousands of years of persecution.

But to be honest, I rarely take issue with Jews because I've never really been told I'm a bad person by a Jew, and they generally care more about me being a good non-Jew than being an adherent to their faith. My comment is most accurate in depicting the rise of Islam and Christianity, both of which were perpetuated by ruling elites and the sword.

The internet is at your fingertips. Educate yourself. There's no reason to take exception to something you don't understand fully yourself without researching the position first.

Christianity was persecuted before then, and legitimized after and actually made the state religion, thus forcing conversions on behalf of citizens and state elite. Read about it, or watch a special on it.

Islam was conquering people with the sword before Muhammed died, and his successors went on to conquer most of the lands we now consider Arabian, even if only culturally not ethnically. This includes parts of Asia Minor and Africa. Read about the history of Islam sometime. Islam did not have serious opposition in their part of the world because they quickly began killing and subjugating the fractured opposition that existed. The only time they ran into serious problems (aside from infighting over who was really Muhammed's successor from time to time) was the Iberian peninsula and later the Crusades.

A person who has Viktor as his avatar definitely cannot be wrong. Like...ever.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I see. If this is the case then I think you're just taking far too many liberties with what you can truly know and what you just guess, while also ignoring certain rights that people have to self defense.

I'm also questioning your interpretation of events surrounding the spread of Christianity into Rome and Islam into the nearby Persian/Turkish lands to the north and the African and Egyptian lands west.

That's all I really wanted to say, though.

And I think a knee-jerk reaction without sufficient evidence or at least coherent argumentation to back it up is premature. I'm not advocating my opinion as if it's unchallengable, but it would be nice to see some familiarity with the topic at hand or a source to counter my own argument. Just saying "I disagree with you" or "I think you're taking liberties" is focusing too much on me and not enough on my argument. I'm challenging you to bring some sources to the table, or at least some clear argumentation I can address.

To restate: my assertion was that religion, specifically Christianity and Islam, came to be dominant in the world today because they could be adopted and utilized by states to manipulate people or make them more homogeneous then they really are, crossing ethnic and linguistic lines. Both major religions I singled out are notorious for campaigns to compel others to convert or be destroyed.

It also eventually creates a larger community answerable to leaders who work in concert with or at the behest of kings and emperors. There's a reason why Latin was the lingua franca of the Age of Antiquity and also the adopted language of the original Christian church, as a means of bringing people together and making them less unique. If we're all Latin-speaking followers of Christ, what difference does it make if I'm a Frisian and the Pope is Italian? Likewise, Islam is a primarily Arabic language religion and in places where it spread, Arabic is the dominant tongue and it was spread by the sword mostly.

In fact, I'd say your point about Judaism, in retrospect, is a bit misleading; Jews account for a very very small fraction of religious people worldwide, while Christians and Muslims account for more than half of the people on the earth:

[list]The CIA's World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.59% (of which Roman Catholic 18.85%, Protestant 8.15%, Orthodox 4.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.2%, Hindu 15.0%, Buddhist 7.1%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.2%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01%. (2010 est.).[/list]

^ As you can see, the largest religions are those accepted by and in some cases utilized by states, empires, what-have-you and arguably become a tool of uniting people under the banner of a lord that they may not share ethnic,linguistic, or geographical bonds with otherwise. Hinduism is another example which has even less proliferation and actually has existed in the Indian subcontinent since the Aryans dragged their cattle that far east.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A person who has Viktor as his avatar definitely cannot be wrong. Like...ever.

Would anyone else like to be heard?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And I think a knee-jerk reaction without sufficient evidence or at least coherent argumentation to back it up is premature. I'm not advocating my opinion as if it's unchallengable, but it would be nice to see some familiarity with the topic at hand or a source to counter my own argument. Just saying "I disagree with you" or "I think you're taking liberties" is focusing too much on me and not enough on my argument. I'm challenging you to bring some sources to the table, or at least some clear argumentation I can address.

I don't need sources to point out that your view suggests that an awful lot of people had the same exact thought process. Insinuating that every chief, emperor, king or man in charge used religion to enforce control over his people is outrageous.

Beyond that you're manipulating the facts. Certainly some in charge used religion to promote unity and expand their influence, but some just did it to promote unity for the sake of making the world a little better of a place. There are some good people every once in a while you know.

My point about Judaism is just fine. While it may be a minority as far as religions go, it has certainly persisted without ultimately being some means of control. In fact, it might be possible that Judaism is the best example of a religion not being manipulated towards negative means.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I don't need sources to point out that your view suggests that an awful lot of people had the same exact thought process. Insinuating that every chief, emperor, king or man in charge used religion to enforce control over his people is outrageous.

Beyond that you're manipulating the facts. Certainly some in charge used religion to promote unity and expand their influence, but some just did it to promote unity for the sake of making the world a little better of a place. There are some good people every once in a while you know.

My point about Judaism is just fine. While it may be a minority as far as religions go, it has certainly persisted without ultimately being some means of control. In fact, it might be possible that Judaism is the best example of a religion not being manipulated towards negative means.

The control that it offered was never absolute, and it was almost always disguised by a veneer of something more relatable and ostensibly meaningful--values, ethics, lifestyles etc. But the control was there. It just controlled everybody, even the enforcers.

@Lord Lucien I hope you are not saying that all control is a byproduct of religion.

I think religion and control are two different things that often in the past were entangled. I think if you got rid of all religions, it would have no effect of control. Governments would just find another way to control people.