4 ms·

Dogmatism is incompatible with civilisation. > The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion You haven't gone far back enough in

by gxt 4y ago

Dogmatism is incompatible with civilisation. > The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. > A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people. I have heard this my whole life. I have been struggling to understand this folly my whole life, because to me eyes, it is fundamentally a misunderstanding of correlation and causation. Generally ethical peoples focused on bettering themselves produced the democracies that led to this mad sentence. Now decades/century later people look at it at face value and fail to choose to better themselves, they only see their ego and call themselves the best, they say that's all there will ever be. It's false, it's a lie, and unchecked will lead to another dark age. We must choose, I choose to look at myself and see the good without forgetting the bad, I choose to improve upon myself, be inspired by others, sieve cultures, emulate the good, and learn for the terrible so as to never repeat it. Would I to fail to do this, I fear I will never understand existence, and would be a crime against the universe. Claiming to know what it is, is a lie, nobody knows. What we must do is figure it out. No religion will ever achieve that.

_8j50 4y ago
> ... and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. This is categorically untrue. The people you claim questioned religion merely questioned mainstream religion, galileo and newton were very very religious(as in organized!) and I could name many more. The Arab world and Chinese civilization contributed manu things that were foundational to western developments from mathematics to gunpowder and those people were very religious. I don't care what you believe and that is precisely my point. The madness I see and the source of so many modern problems is that people like you could not be bothered to convince your fellow voters of your beliefs. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate eventually is true. You don't believe people's beliefs should be represented by their govenrment unless that belief is correct according to you. Meet the old boss,same as the new boss? It is your line of thinking that has led to anti-vaxx people, flat earthers and climate change deniers because of the arrogance with which you demand you are right because of science and religion or anything not conforming to your correct view is madness. Your dismiss others and try to find any way to achieve your goals except to convince those who disagree with you because they are after all mad? Because it takes too long and too much effort? Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? Not so different from catholics and manifest-destiny american Christians are you now, except they convinced enough people to carry through with their objectives? I am not trying to convince you about the plus side if religion but that the end or how correct you are is irrelevant. Short of civil wars and dictatorships you will just have to convince people and the government will just have to represent the beliefs of its people whatever the end maybe so long as the rights of the minority is respected.
- gxt 4y ago
  I don't think a dichotomy of options between respecting every fringe idea and civil war is all there is. The fabric of society has been weakened by leaving others behind, I agree and it is frustrating to me as well since it is the cause of preventable harm. The population explosion hasn't helped as well. Like many disasters it is the fruit of a combination of factors. We need institutions closer to the people, we need to be able to converse with our neighbors, we need to be able to have a voice with our institutions and never being able to even meet with our elected representatives is a major problem to which there are solutions. >This is categorically untrue. Yes. I meant in Europe. >those people were very religious Yes. However I don't think they had a choice. > Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? That's not my intention, however if beliefs cannot be questioned there's a bigger problem at hand. If questionning beliefs results immediately in being perceived as insulting there's either a communication problem, or a misunderstood/ununderstandable morals problem. Edit: contemporary science has a lot of problems too.. to me it's just a heap of papers from citation mills. Using that for any purpose is a very delicate act.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    > I don't think a dichotomy of options between respecting every fringe idea and civil war is all there is. Yes but extremism leads to either extremes. You don't respect a belief because you agree with it, to take the classic atheist strawman of a "sphagetti monster" of course that is ridiculous but if people in my area all believe in that and elect such a believer then I better move or get busy trying to convince those people (my neighbors) otherwise. > We need institutions closer to the people... Can't agree with you more. The technology both for communication and transport exists to have many more legislative representatives and more frequent election cycles. > However I don't think they had a choice. Perhaps they wouldn't have an option to contradict the church at the time in public but they didn't have to display and document their piery and dedication to their fairh either. Many even believed their work was an extension of their faith not s contradiction of it. > That's not my intention, however if beliefs cannot be questioned there's a bigger problem at hand I was refering to actual insults not anything you said. You can question a persons beliefs if they are willing to have that discussion with you. But you shouldn't publicly mock them or insult them or their belief beyond a respectful discourse between willing participants.
tsol 4y ago
>You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. This is patently false and a myth. Speak to any historian-- the reason it's called the Dark Ages is because there are so few writings from that time, not because of religion. It's funny out people are okay with spreading misinformation if it's the right kind
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  We will never know where would have been if it wasn’t for the iron grip of the Christian church on western civilization for 1200+ years, but the secularization of society in the last 200 does indicate that we made rapid progress in medicine, human rights and science/technology when no longer were bound by the control structures of the church.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Why might Western Europe have advanced faster than other cultures that weren't "under the iron grip of the Christian church"? Islamic civilization, in particular, made crucial contributions during that time. Newton couldn't have invented modern physics without hundreds of years of preparation by Islamic mathematicians (including Arabic numerals, algebra, and trigonometry). And it was really Rome, not Christianity, that was responsible for the stagnation in the west. The Romans were great at practical application but contributed very little new theoretical knowledge even before they converted to Christianity. What progress was made during the six hundred years between Aristotle and Constantine?
    - randomhodler84 4y ago
      What did the Roman’s ever do for us? :-) I agree with what you are saying.
    - 4y ago

by gxt 4y ago

_8j50 4y ago

> ... and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. This is categorically untrue. The people you claim questioned religion merely questioned mainstream religion, galileo and newton were very very religious(as in organized!) and I could name many more. The Arab world and Chinese civilization contributed manu things that were foundational to western developments from mathematics to gunpowder and those people were very religious. I don't care what you believe and that is precisely my point. The madness I see and the source of so many modern problems is that people like you could not be bothered to convince your fellow voters of your beliefs. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate eventually is true. You don't believe people's beliefs should be represented by their govenrment unless that belief is correct according to you. Meet the old boss,same as the new boss? It is your line of thinking that has led to anti-vaxx people, flat earthers and climate change deniers because of the arrogance with which you demand you are right because of science and religion or anything not conforming to your correct view is madness. Your dismiss others and try to find any way to achieve your goals except to convince those who disagree with you because they are after all mad? Because it takes too long and too much effort? Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? Not so different from catholics and manifest-destiny american Christians are you now, except they convinced enough people to carry through with their objectives? I am not trying to convince you about the plus side if religion but that the end or how correct you are is irrelevant. Short of civil wars and dictatorships you will just have to convince people and the government will just have to represent the beliefs of its people whatever the end maybe so long as the rights of the minority is respected.

gxt 4y ago
I don't think a dichotomy of options between respecting every fringe idea and civil war is all there is. The fabric of society has been weakened by leaving others behind, I agree and it is frustrating to me as well since it is the cause of preventable harm. The population explosion hasn't helped as well. Like many disasters it is the fruit of a combination of factors. We need institutions closer to the people, we need to be able to converse with our neighbors, we need to be able to have a voice with our institutions and never being able to even meet with our elected representatives is a major problem to which there are solutions. >This is categorically untrue. Yes. I meant in Europe. >those people were very religious Yes. However I don't think they had a choice. > Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? That's not my intention, however if beliefs cannot be questioned there's a bigger problem at hand. If questionning beliefs results immediately in being perceived as insulting there's either a communication problem, or a misunderstood/ununderstandable morals problem. Edit: contemporary science has a lot of problems too.. to me it's just a heap of papers from citation mills. Using that for any purpose is a very delicate act.
- _8j50 4y ago
  > I don't think a dichotomy of options between respecting every fringe idea and civil war is all there is. Yes but extremism leads to either extremes. You don't respect a belief because you agree with it, to take the classic atheist strawman of a "sphagetti monster" of course that is ridiculous but if people in my area all believe in that and elect such a believer then I better move or get busy trying to convince those people (my neighbors) otherwise. > We need institutions closer to the people... Can't agree with you more. The technology both for communication and transport exists to have many more legislative representatives and more frequent election cycles. > However I don't think they had a choice. Perhaps they wouldn't have an option to contradict the church at the time in public but they didn't have to display and document their piery and dedication to their fairh either. Many even believed their work was an extension of their faith not s contradiction of it. > That's not my intention, however if beliefs cannot be questioned there's a bigger problem at hand I was refering to actual insults not anything you said. You can question a persons beliefs if they are willing to have that discussion with you. But you shouldn't publicly mock them or insult them or their belief beyond a respectful discourse between willing participants.

tsol 4y ago

>You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. This is patently false and a myth. Speak to any historian-- the reason it's called the Dark Ages is because there are so few writings from that time, not because of religion. It's funny out people are okay with spreading misinformation if it's the right kind

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
randomhodler84 4y ago
We will never know where would have been if it wasn’t for the iron grip of the Christian church on western civilization for 1200+ years, but the secularization of society in the last 200 does indicate that we made rapid progress in medicine, human rights and science/technology when no longer were bound by the control structures of the church.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Why might Western Europe have advanced faster than other cultures that weren't "under the iron grip of the Christian church"? Islamic civilization, in particular, made crucial contributions during that time. Newton couldn't have invented modern physics without hundreds of years of preparation by Islamic mathematicians (including Arabic numerals, algebra, and trigonometry). And it was really Rome, not Christianity, that was responsible for the stagnation in the west. The Romans were great at practical application but contributed very little new theoretical knowledge even before they converted to Christianity. What progress was made during the six hundred years between Aristotle and Constantine?
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    What did the Roman’s ever do for us? :-) I agree with what you are saying.
  - 4y ago