If evolution had been known all along...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
It would be nice if more atheists respect the beliefs of religious people, that's all.

But, that won't happen in this millenium.

It will never happen, because the beliefs are no more worthy of respect than the belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the world or that there is an invisible pink unicorn behind the Moon. The only reasons to believe in a creator are irrational, and irrationality is not worthy of respect.

[Blaupanzer]

Don't be picking on the invisible pink unicorn. You can't prove it doesn't exist! You've gone too far!

[Blaupanzer]

Both atheists and religious people feel sorry for the other because the lost do not know the truth. Of course, if either side gets turned loose they create concentration camps and burn at the stake those deemed to be incorrect. The odds that either side will respect the views of the other seem rather low in that light.

[GePap]

Why is it that "religious people" are all lumped as one? Hindus and Buddhists are religious, but they do not accept the concept of a singular sentient omnipotent creator 'God.'

And even when religious folks agree on how many deities there are, they then disagree about what exactly these or this deity wants us humans to do in the world.

As I have said before, this utter inability of the religious after 5500 years of writings to agree on even basic principles is some of the best evidence about why all of them are wrong nad basing all their beliefs on nothing more than blind faith.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
As I have said before, this utter inability of the religious after 5500 years of writings to agree on even basic principles is some of the best evidence about why all of them are wrong nad basing all their beliefs on nothing more than blind faith.

Also, given humanity's continuing political and cultural disagreements, we should all be anarcho-primitivists.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


Also, given humanity's continuing political and cultural disagreements, we should all be anarcho-primitivists.

Cultural differences are a function of distance and environment, while political disagreements have direct material causes. They aren't metaphysical disagreements based on nothing but someone's opinion.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Cultural differences are a function of distance and environment

As opposed to religious disagreements, which are somehow not?

while political disagreements have direct material causes.

In the U.S. at least, the causes of political disagreements are rarely direct or material.

They aren't metaphysical disagreements based on nothing but someone's opinion.

So philosophy's all a pile of bull**** too? Just so you're consistent.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap




Cultural differences are a function of distance and environment, while political disagreements have direct material causes. They aren't metaphysical disagreements based on nothing but someone's opinion.

Environment, eh? While not always the case, specific types of religious beliefs or customs actually can arise from the environment.

Note the prevalence of the flood stories for example from ancient Near East and Egyptian religions. Reason for this was that Egyptian, Sumerian and other civilizations in this region obviously relied on river systems and their flooding patterns.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok
So philosophy's all a pile of bull**** too? Just so you're consistent.

Much of it is, but logic is also philosophy, as is science.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


As opposed to religious disagreements, which are somehow not?

They most certainly aren't. What was the cultural difference between early christians and the jews around them in Roman Judea? Between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq in 680 AD? Between Siddharta and the other Hindu princes who lived at the same time?

In the U.S. at least, the causes of political disagreements are rarely direct or material.

Last time I checked the US comprises only 5% of the world's population and 6.5% of the world's land area. We are talking here about universal issues.

So philosophy's all a pile of bull**** too? Just so you're consistent.

Can you tell me which philosopher is correct, cause I can't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MrFun


Environment, eh? While not always the case, specific types of religious beliefs or customs actually can arise from the environment.

Note the prevalence of the flood stories for example from ancient Near East and Egyptian religions. Reason for this was that Egyptian, Sumerian and other civilizations in this region obviously relied on river systems and their flooding patterns.

Flood myths (or any ohter particular story) do not equal a "Religion".

[MrFun]

Those stories form a part of a religion. I wasn't saying those stories are the entirety of such religions.

duh

[Boris Godunov]

Re: If evolution had been known all along...

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
What would civilization be like? Brutal? Peaceful? Would we be more advanced or less advanced?

Something tells me we would be more brutal and less advanced.

More brutal because we would recognise that we are all there are, there's nothing to aspire to.

Religion opened up mathematics, engineering, war - which lead to important inventions, the printing press, it even opened up our minds to imagine in that which doesn't exist.

You claim we'd be more brutal without religion, but then state that Religion "opened up" war? What's more brutal than war, particularly as it was practiced in, say, Biblical times?

I don't think you thought this through very clearly...

[Elok]

Re: Re: If evolution had been known all along...

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't think you thought this through very clearly...

Probably the single most insightful comment in this thread so far.

GePap: Are you saying differing religious traditions are NOT products of distance and environment? I say "in the US" because it's the only politics I have experience with and begin to understand; also, if we're talking about universals, a small exception is a challenge to the supposed universality of one's claims.

Lastly, if philosophers did not think they were in some sense correct, they would hardly bother to argue. And argue they have for thousands of years. They have not often killed each other over these differences--political philosophies excepted--but I would say that's more a reflection of philosophy's irrelevance. It's too trivial to fight and die over.

The main distinction between the Theory of Forms and a religion is that, even if the ToF is 100% correct, we have no reason to give a damn. The Form of Largeness didn't die for our sins or what-have-you. Nor does the layperson have any reason to care if existence precedes essence or if the universe is essentially monist, dualist, both or neither. Ug the Sumerian farmer has declining crop yields to worry about. Praying to Ishtar might help. Contemplating the epistemological implications of this and that won't do squat regardless. Philosophy is an idle man's game. And that's the only significant difference.

[GePap]

Elok:

Given that I prefer not to get tied up with your attempts at interpreting my statement, I will lay out the basis for my initial claim.

Religions, specifically organized sets of beliefs that claim to answer basic fundamental metaphysical questions and set down moral codes (as opposed to folklore and unorganized myths), all claim that they can do so because they have come to understand the fundamental truths of the universe. They make claims not only about purely human things like how families or tribes should function, but also claim to know how the universe came into existance and how the material world functions.

Disagreements and controversies about how human societies should organize themselves will always exist because which answers are best depend on the material conditons those societies find themselves in and their aims. The same is not true about supposed answers to fundamental universal things. The answer to "how did the world begin" should be the same no matter when and where you are.

One would think that after so long, even if different religious tradtions haven't been able to agree on how many people can be included in a marriage, they would at least have come up with a basic common answer to these universal questions. They haven't. Those that have sought answers not through faith but empirical observation and experimentation can disagree but eventually they do come up with single answers, and in far less time than five millenia.

If the answer to "is there a God, gods" is such a clear one, then people all around the world should have reached it, because that is a question whose answer should not be tied to anything material in the world. That reasonable and intelligent human beings throughout history haven't been able to come up with anything close to an answer should tell is that there is a problem with the question.