4 ms·

Spare me the personal jab. It's a discussion about organised religion, in which I am criticising it specifically, it doesn't mean I think religion is the lone o

by ehnto 5y ago

Spare me the personal jab. It's a discussion about organised religion, in which I am criticising it specifically, it doesn't mean I think religion is the lone offender. Perhaps my using the word "blame" in the grandparent wasn't very clear. I mean blame it specifically for the issues it specifically creates, and not just let it go blame-free because humans would have had wars anyway. Issues such as evangelism in African countries creating religious tensions that wouldn't otherwise exist. To your more reasonable paragraph, of course it can apply to other ideologies. I am just pointing out that religion is quite a bit more organised than most ideologies, hence it's centuries of success. To be super duper clear, I said more organised than most, this doesn't mean I think other ideologies can't be organised in the same ways.

rglullis 5y ago
There is a country with over 1 billion people that sorta-kinda breaks your argument. Its leadership is staunchly anti-religion, and I heard they are quite organized. (They are also responsible for a large number of contemporary violations of human-rights and atrocities going on in the world)
- ehnto 5y ago
  Which is evidence toward the idea that organized groups can do great evil, which was my point about religion. I am not saying that organized religion is the only ideological method to organized people into wrongdoing, just that it is one of them, and it's one of the most effective ones so far.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > organized groups can do great evil, which was my point about religion. If your point can be made by replacing "religion" with anything that can characterize a group or society, your point is not about religion. You are trying to make a particularization based on a generality. That is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, it is also the kind of thing that leads to biases, prejudices and "othering", which ironically enough is one of the things that do lead to one of the most effective ways to lead people into polarization and conflicts based on segregation of individuals.
rglullis 5y ago
> Issues such as evangelism in African countries creating religious tensions that wouldn't otherwise exist. Wars and conflict arise whenever there is a dispute for resources and a power imbalance. You are basically claiming that the different nations and tribes would not get into conflict if it were not for religion? This reeks of "Noble Savage" fallacy. Also, how many tensions were solved because of evangelism and a shift in cultural/moral values? Can you quantify those?
- ehnto 5y ago
  No I'm not claiming that, you're putting words in my mouth and you're misconstruing my arguments. I have been extremely clear. As I've had to painstakingly clarify for you, just because I have commented on one thing, does not mean I am subtly making comments about other things. I am being very explicit, very clear. Please read my comments, because I'm not one to bury my lede. A better way to approach this discussion may have been to ask me questions instead of just assuming answers. You could have asked, "Do you not believe they would have gone to war for other reasons?" to which I would have replied "Of course they likely would have! But it was over religion in this instance."
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > it was over religion And as I've already put in another comment: it's not because religion was the justification for a conflict that we should attribute it to religion. Many disputes and fights were had over beautiful women. Should we start claiming that women are a problem?
- Retric 5y ago
  Plenty of purely religious wars have happened. If you want to defend religion you also need to defend the totality of religion including Aztec human sacrifice, the crusades etc. The issue with religious justification is it’s effectively random, the only thing you can say is practices that are counterproductive to propitiate a religion die out over time. IE the shakers prohibiting reproduction for everyone not just priests is probably why their not around anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Celibacy_and_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Celibacy_and_children

by ehnto 5y ago

rglullis 5y ago

There is a country with over 1 billion people that sorta-kinda breaks your argument. Its leadership is staunchly anti-religion, and I heard they are quite organized. (They are also responsible for a large number of contemporary violations of human-rights and atrocities going on in the world)

ehnto 5y ago
Which is evidence toward the idea that organized groups can do great evil, which was my point about religion. I am not saying that organized religion is the only ideological method to organized people into wrongdoing, just that it is one of them, and it's one of the most effective ones so far.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > organized groups can do great evil, which was my point about religion. If your point can be made by replacing "religion" with anything that can characterize a group or society, your point is not about religion. You are trying to make a particularization based on a generality. That is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, it is also the kind of thing that leads to biases, prejudices and "othering", which ironically enough is one of the things that do lead to one of the most effective ways to lead people into polarization and conflicts based on segregation of individuals.

rglullis 5y ago

> Issues such as evangelism in African countries creating religious tensions that wouldn't otherwise exist. Wars and conflict arise whenever there is a dispute for resources and a power imbalance. You are basically claiming that the different nations and tribes would not get into conflict if it were not for religion? This reeks of "Noble Savage" fallacy. Also, how many tensions were solved because of evangelism and a shift in cultural/moral values? Can you quantify those?

ehnto 5y ago
No I'm not claiming that, you're putting words in my mouth and you're misconstruing my arguments. I have been extremely clear. As I've had to painstakingly clarify for you, just because I have commented on one thing, does not mean I am subtly making comments about other things. I am being very explicit, very clear. Please read my comments, because I'm not one to bury my lede. A better way to approach this discussion may have been to ask me questions instead of just assuming answers. You could have asked, "Do you not believe they would have gone to war for other reasons?" to which I would have replied "Of course they likely would have! But it was over religion in this instance."
- rglullis 5y ago
  > it was over religion And as I've already put in another comment: it's not because religion was the justification for a conflict that we should attribute it to religion. Many disputes and fights were had over beautiful women. Should we start claiming that women are a problem?
Retric 5y ago
Plenty of purely religious wars have happened. If you want to defend religion you also need to defend the totality of religion including Aztec human sacrifice, the crusades etc. The issue with religious justification is it’s effectively random, the only thing you can say is practices that are counterproductive to propitiate a religion die out over time. IE the shakers prohibiting reproduction for everyone not just priests is probably why their not around anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Celibacy_and_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Celibacy_and_children