4 ms·

> We now live in the most peaceful time in human history. I would say we live in the most widespread Uneasy Peace in human history. And unlike religious peace

> We now live in the most peaceful time in human history. I would say we live in the most widespread Uneasy Peace in human history. And unlike religious peace which had occasional conflicts, a break in the peace now would mean annihilation. Is general peace, risk of annihilation better than occasional petty wars without annihilation? > And just to be clear, we're contrasting this time of unprecedented peace with entities that have killed in spasms of violence with no apparent public casus belli than "my book is better than your book and it told me to do so?" I quoted The Washington Post's opinion, which is hardly the number most favorable to religious causes. Plus, older books had higher numbers than newer scholarship. https://apholt.com/2019/02/19/modern-scholars-on-the-casualty-rates-for-participants-of-the-first-crusade/ https://apholt.com/2019/02/19/modern-scholars-on-the-casualt... https://apholt.com/2019/01/30/death-estimates-for-the-crusades/ https://apholt.com/2019/01/30/death-estimates-for-the-crusad... > NAZI 'DIVINE RIGHT' TO RULE ASSERTED; Dr. Ley Says Reich's 'Mission' to Dominate Other Nations Is Among War Aims WOULD WIPE OUT BRITAIN 'Annihilation' of Obstacle to German Destiny Demanded by Labor Front Head Well, considering that they murdered priests and pastors in their camps, were they really friendly to religion? Particularly Catholic Priests, who represented 94% of the clergy they executed. > Or, doctrines like "Manifest Destiny" that were religious in origin and preached in church? Let's not confuse Protestant fundamentalism motivated by political ends with religion in general. > The only way to end the cycle of violence is by embracing the scientific method, rationality, and empathy. Anything else is a step to madness. So said the French Revolution. They did everything they could to break away from religion - they even invented a new calendar starting at year 0 because... anyway. Didn't go so well, there were a few smaller revolutions afterward to get to modern France.

LexiMax 3y ago
> Let's not confuse Protestant fundamentalism motivated by political ends with religion in general. This is the rule, not the exception. Throughout history, instances where religious war was waged or religious atrocities occurred, there was often an underlying political logic to them. Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is, and their interpretation can be...flexible. > So said the French Revolution. What followed the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars was one of the most peaceful 99 years on the European continent since Pax Romana.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > What followed the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars was one of the most peaceful 99 years on the European continent since Pax Romana. Yeah... on the continent. They were merciless to indigenous populations across the globe during that century. Big improvement there - instead of fighting each other, we'll invade everyone else with the full takeover of India in 1858, and the New Imperialism of the 1870s which added 8.8 million square miles of land to European possession. > This is the rule, not the exception. Throughout history, instances where religious war was waged or religious atrocities occurred, there was often an underlying political logic to them. Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is, and their interpretation can be...flexible. Nah, ask a historian. The history of Europe over the last 1500 years or so is long, but you can only name a few incidents and examples. And even then, you can't show of a change where one thing was widely unacceptable and became acceptable to this day. The Catholic Church, for example, still condemns premarital sex and always has.
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    > Nah, ask a historian. I did. They call it "Pax Britanica," and there's loads of things you can read about that outline why historians put this period of history in the same category as Pax Americana and Pax Romana.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      You answered the wrong question. I said to ask a historian regarding the unfounded assertion that "Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is, and their interpretation can be...flexible." Prove that. You can name a few examples where there was a widespread spirit in the air (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition [even though the death count was only about 14 executions per year]), but you can't show an example where Christians ever believed premarital sex was OK, or Muslims ever believing you could eat pork one morning. You can show plenty of flexibility of Protestantism though, but that's unique to that religion which rejects centralized authority or the importance of traditional views for scriptural interpretation.
areoform 3y ago
Before I begin, I believe that everyone has the right to believe and (if they choose to do so) worship and pray as they want. The reason why I wrote the above language, quite explicitly, is because religions, in the long-term, do not agree with such co-existence. Eventually, there's a reversion to the mean, or a splintering that spreads fundamentalism and decries other groups. > I would say we live in the most widespread Uneasy Peace in human history. And unlike religious peace which had occasional conflicts, a break in the peace now would mean annihilation. Is general peace, risk of annihilation better than occasional petty wars without annihilation? When was this religious peace? Here's a graph of human history, could you kindly tell me when you think this religious peace lies in this graph? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGL9VKKXkAAVhwB.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGL9VKKXkAAVhwB.jpg As far as I can tell, this peace we experience is truly un-precedented in the original sense of the word, i.e. there is no prior precedent. > Well, considering that they murdered priests and pastors in their camps, were they really friendly to religion? Particularly Catholic Priests, who represented 94% of the clergy they executed. They believed that they were the true chosen people of god and everyone else was less. Their persecution of jewish people was (partly, not completely) driven by the belief that they were the ones who killed god. Expanding on this, with the following statement, > Let's not confuse Protestant fundamentalism motivated by political ends with religion in general. That's the problem. Whose book and under what interpretation and rules? You can't just say, "these events wouldn't occur under my doctrine. My religion is the only religion and the others aren't." When you create rules by fiat, "X is Y because I/holy book/prophet said so." Then is it surprising that others will make rules by fiat as well? What makes their rules more valid than yours? You believe that you have god's mandate. Well, so do they. They're both equally absurd claims with equal validity to an outside observer. The point of the enlightenment is to look towards something more concrete; ideals that have been honed via debate and examination of history. Ideals that are subject to change as we learn more. Ideals that are more real, because they become real in their execution. You may say, well, that's religion as well, but I am not aware of any religion where things are subject to true debate (can you even question the existence of the deity?), or religious groups that are open to changes in their fundamental philosophies.

LexiMax 3y ago

> Let's not confuse Protestant fundamentalism motivated by political ends with religion in general. This is the rule, not the exception. Throughout history, instances where religious war was waged or religious atrocities occurred, there was often an underlying political logic to them. Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is, and their interpretation can be...flexible. > So said the French Revolution. What followed the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars was one of the most peaceful 99 years on the European continent since Pax Romana.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
> What followed the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars was one of the most peaceful 99 years on the European continent since Pax Romana. Yeah... on the continent. They were merciless to indigenous populations across the globe during that century. Big improvement there - instead of fighting each other, we'll invade everyone else with the full takeover of India in 1858, and the New Imperialism of the 1870s which added 8.8 million square miles of land to European possession. > This is the rule, not the exception. Throughout history, instances where religious war was waged or religious atrocities occurred, there was often an underlying political logic to them. Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is, and their interpretation can be...flexible. Nah, ask a historian. The history of Europe over the last 1500 years or so is long, but you can only name a few incidents and examples. And even then, you can't show of a change where one thing was widely unacceptable and became acceptable to this day. The Catholic Church, for example, still condemns premarital sex and always has.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  > Nah, ask a historian. I did. They call it "Pax Britanica," and there's loads of things you can read about that outline why historians put this period of history in the same category as Pax Americana and Pax Romana.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    You answered the wrong question. I said to ask a historian regarding the unfounded assertion that "Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is, and their interpretation can be...flexible." Prove that. You can name a few examples where there was a widespread spirit in the air (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition [even though the death count was only about 14 executions per year]), but you can't show an example where Christians ever believed premarital sex was OK, or Muslims ever believing you could eat pork one morning. You can show plenty of flexibility of Protestantism though, but that's unique to that religion which rejects centralized authority or the importance of traditional views for scriptural interpretation.

areoform 3y ago

Before I begin, I believe that everyone has the right to believe and (if they choose to do so) worship and pray as they want. The reason why I wrote the above language, quite explicitly, is because religions, in the long-term, do not agree with such co-existence. Eventually, there's a reversion to the mean, or a splintering that spreads fundamentalism and decries other groups. > I would say we live in the most widespread Uneasy Peace in human history. And unlike religious peace which had occasional conflicts, a break in the peace now would mean annihilation. Is general peace, risk of annihilation better than occasional petty wars without annihilation? When was this religious peace? Here's a graph of human history, could you kindly tell me when you think this religious peace lies in this graph? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGL9VKKXkAAVhwB.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGL9VKKXkAAVhwB.jpg As far as I can tell, this peace we experience is truly un-precedented in the original sense of the word, i.e. there is no prior precedent. > Well, considering that they murdered priests and pastors in their camps, were they really friendly to religion? Particularly Catholic Priests, who represented 94% of the clergy they executed. They believed that they were the true chosen people of god and everyone else was less. Their persecution of jewish people was (partly, not completely) driven by the belief that they were the ones who killed god. Expanding on this, with the following statement, > Let's not confuse Protestant fundamentalism motivated by political ends with religion in general. That's the problem. Whose book and under what interpretation and rules? You can't just say, "these events wouldn't occur under my doctrine. My religion is the only religion and the others aren't." When you create rules by fiat, "X is Y because I/holy book/prophet said so." Then is it surprising that others will make rules by fiat as well? What makes their rules more valid than yours? You believe that you have god's mandate. Well, so do they. They're both equally absurd claims with equal validity to an outside observer. The point of the enlightenment is to look towards something more concrete; ideals that have been honed via debate and examination of history. Ideals that are subject to change as we learn more. Ideals that are more real, because they become real in their execution. You may say, well, that's religion as well, but I am not aware of any religion where things are subject to true debate (can you even question the existence of the deity?), or religious groups that are open to changes in their fundamental philosophies.