5 ms·

> Why do people still have to attack religion? Because religions are still dangerous animals, if you would indulge this metaphor. Just because we managed to de

by bmn__ 5y ago

> Why do people still have to attack religion? Because religions are still dangerous animals, if you would indulge this metaphor. Just because we managed to declaw and tame one (values of Enlightenment supplanting values of Christianity), it does not mean that we can treat all of them imprudently. I suggest that you are arguing from the point-of-view that "my $ANIMAL is well-behaved and has not and would not hurt anyone". Is that true?

tekknik 5y ago
> Because religions are still dangerous animals With all but one preaching peace, and not hate, please explain.
- bmn__ 5y ago
  There is a vast gulf between what is preached and what adherents do or don't do. Knowing human nature, I think all religions have suffered abuse in the form of having peace on paper, but inciting hate through opportunists.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    > There is a vast gulf between what is preached and what adherents do or don't do. Oh ffs evidence plz.
    - bmn__ 5y ago
      30 year war, Ahlam Tamimi bombing, wars of suppression against Bön
      - tekknik 5y ago
        > 30 year war Hmm yes that's a time the catholics created that most don't agree with. It's widely considered a time when evil ruled the religions. And biblically there will be religions that do not follow what is preached. Which is what I said. Nowhere in Catholicism or Christianity does it preach hate or war. Now how people interpret things are up to them. > Ahlam Tamimi bombing This would be that one religion preaching that if people don't convert, kill them. > wars of suppression against Bön I have not read the Bonop canon, so can't speak for this. This could either be a group not listening to their faith, or yet another preaching hate.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    And as I mentioned to you earlier: non-religious have been even (and is) even worse. Just because you aren't evil doesn't mean the rest of us will happily accept that you can argue from a position where everything bad a religious person said or did is held against us while simultaneously nothing bad that non-religious people did can be held against you. Choose one option. I know this is hard but this isn't young atheists debate club. We are real humans and some of us have experienced too much good to just let you or others try to tear it apart.
skinkestek 5y ago
I defend almost all religions, just not mine. Removing religion completely has been tried in a larger scale experiment in the Soviet Union and the results were very much worse than the most barbaric religions. When arguing about religion one shouldn't forget that they have a number of good attributes as well. Otherwise you are just fighting against a straw man and then it is no wonder why you win every single time : ) Besides: > Just because we managed to declaw and tame one (values of Enlightenment supplanting values of Christianity) This is putting the cart before the horse. It wasn't enlightenment that ended blood revenge, brought herbs and fruits and medicine and and and to Europe. It was monks. Enlightenment grew out of the fertile soil of literacy and surplus and relative peace and quiet that this created, not the other way around.
- bmn__ 5y ago
  > Removing religion completely has been tried in a larger scale experiment in the Soviet Union and the results were very much worse than the most barbaric religions. What am I supposed to say here? "Good thing I'm not Stalin"? Just because he's against religion, too, does not mean I want to use his methods. > When arguing about religion one shouldn't forget that they have a number of good attributes as well. I've heard that often, but that argument isn't very good. When the $ANIMAL mauls the offspring, one does not reminisce about how well it plays fetch, this does not counter-weight or undo the damage. It is entirely possible to have the good attributes (let's say social cohesion or introspective peace of mind) entirely divorced from the gods-and-religion business (let's say by joining the local ping-pong club or taking up a meditative practice). I posit there is no attribute that uniquely belongs to religion and cannot be had otherwise. > [monks] ended blood revenge, brought herbs and fruits and medicine and and and to Europe. That result is a function of smart and persuasive people, not a function of belief in and worship of Yahweh. Mentally substitute the monks for hypothetical missionaries adhering to Voltaire/Smith/Kant &c., we could imagine the result is similar, just without the gods-and-religion business. > Enlightenment grew out of the fertile soil of literacy and surplus and relative peace and quiet that this created, not the other way around. I did not say that this fertile soil grew out of Enlightenment. I said that values of Enlightenment supplanted values of Christianity.

by bmn__ 5y ago

tekknik 5y ago

> Because religions are still dangerous animals With all but one preaching peace, and not hate, please explain.

bmn__ 5y ago
There is a vast gulf between what is preached and what adherents do or don't do. Knowing human nature, I think all religions have suffered abuse in the form of having peace on paper, but inciting hate through opportunists.
- tekknik 5y ago
  > There is a vast gulf between what is preached and what adherents do or don't do. Oh ffs evidence plz.
  - bmn__ 5y ago
    30 year war, Ahlam Tamimi bombing, wars of suppression against Bön
    - tekknik 5y ago
      > 30 year war Hmm yes that's a time the catholics created that most don't agree with. It's widely considered a time when evil ruled the religions. And biblically there will be religions that do not follow what is preached. Which is what I said. Nowhere in Catholicism or Christianity does it preach hate or war. Now how people interpret things are up to them. > Ahlam Tamimi bombing This would be that one religion preaching that if people don't convert, kill them. > wars of suppression against Bön I have not read the Bonop canon, so can't speak for this. This could either be a group not listening to their faith, or yet another preaching hate.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  And as I mentioned to you earlier: non-religious have been even (and is) even worse. Just because you aren't evil doesn't mean the rest of us will happily accept that you can argue from a position where everything bad a religious person said or did is held against us while simultaneously nothing bad that non-religious people did can be held against you. Choose one option. I know this is hard but this isn't young atheists debate club. We are real humans and some of us have experienced too much good to just let you or others try to tear it apart.

skinkestek 5y ago

I defend almost all religions, just not mine. Removing religion completely has been tried in a larger scale experiment in the Soviet Union and the results were very much worse than the most barbaric religions. When arguing about religion one shouldn't forget that they have a number of good attributes as well. Otherwise you are just fighting against a straw man and then it is no wonder why you win every single time : ) Besides: > Just because we managed to declaw and tame one (values of Enlightenment supplanting values of Christianity) This is putting the cart before the horse. It wasn't enlightenment that ended blood revenge, brought herbs and fruits and medicine and and and to Europe. It was monks. Enlightenment grew out of the fertile soil of literacy and surplus and relative peace and quiet that this created, not the other way around.

bmn__ 5y ago
> Removing religion completely has been tried in a larger scale experiment in the Soviet Union and the results were very much worse than the most barbaric religions. What am I supposed to say here? "Good thing I'm not Stalin"? Just because he's against religion, too, does not mean I want to use his methods. > When arguing about religion one shouldn't forget that they have a number of good attributes as well. I've heard that often, but that argument isn't very good. When the $ANIMAL mauls the offspring, one does not reminisce about how well it plays fetch, this does not counter-weight or undo the damage. It is entirely possible to have the good attributes (let's say social cohesion or introspective peace of mind) entirely divorced from the gods-and-religion business (let's say by joining the local ping-pong club or taking up a meditative practice). I posit there is no attribute that uniquely belongs to religion and cannot be had otherwise. > [monks] ended blood revenge, brought herbs and fruits and medicine and and and to Europe. That result is a function of smart and persuasive people, not a function of belief in and worship of Yahweh. Mentally substitute the monks for hypothetical missionaries adhering to Voltaire/Smith/Kant &c., we could imagine the result is similar, just without the gods-and-religion business. > Enlightenment grew out of the fertile soil of literacy and surplus and relative peace and quiet that this created, not the other way around. I did not say that this fertile soil grew out of Enlightenment. I said that values of Enlightenment supplanted values of Christianity.