3 ms·

> Humans are always religious, no exception. You should get out more.

by justin66 11mo ago

rayiner 11mo ago
It’s true. The supposedly “secular people” I know are always prattling about “human dignity” and stuff that sounds very religious. They don’t think of humans as walking meat like a non-religious person would.
- wtfwhateven 11mo ago
  Are you being satirical?
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- justin66 11mo ago
  > stuff that sounds very religious Sounds very religious? Oh well then, you've clearly put some serious thought into this. > They don’t think of humans as walking meat like a non-religious person would. What a truly weird thing to write.
- diego_moita 11mo ago
  > “human dignity” and stuff that sounds very religious. Even bonobo monkeys and elephants understand empathy for others. Should we then assume that monkeys and elephants are very religious, too? > like a non-religious person would. Oh, I see you took a lot of care in trying to understand what a "non-religious person" is. Are all church people this smart, too? /s
  - rayiner 11mo ago
    > Even bonobo monkeys and elephants understand empathy for others. Empathy is an emotion. Emotions are real. You can see emotions in brain scans. But anger, desire for revenge, disgust, in-group affinity, etc., are also real emotions! It's rational to use people's emotions to guide what society should do. But most putatively secular people disagree with that approach! They're constantly telling people to put aside their emotions in favor of supposed universal principles that sound suspiciously similar to religious beliefs.
    - diego_moita 11mo ago
      > They're constantly telling people to put aside their emotions in favor of supposed universal principles Yeah, sure! Those evil "putatively secular people" that burned tens of thousands of women during the witch hunt in Europe, killed hundreds of thousands of other people during the Crusades and the European religious wars of the 17th and 18th century, that condoned with the fascist and authoritarian regimes in Argentina, Spain and Portugal because they were against the scourge of communism, that blessed the slavery of Latin American indigenous peoples because it was meant to spread the blessing of Christianity... that was all made by "putatively secular people", like the Catholic Church, right? I am so impressed by how well and deep you know and understand "putatively secular people"... Are all church people smart like that? /s
      - rayiner 11mo ago
        But what’s your non-religious basis for saying that those actions were bad? You pointed to empathy above. But empathy in humans is mainly directed to one’s own community. Animals and humans alike will happily take over the territory of rival clans. Which is why empathy didn’t prevent Europeans from colonizing the indigenous people of America. So what’s your basis for saying that, e.g., colonization was bad?
        diego_moita 11mo ago
        > empathy in humans is mainly directed to one’s own community. Speak for yourself. I won't confuse empathy with tribalism, as you do. I'll take humanism [1], the notion that every person is equal in rights. This is my moral basis. > humans alike will happily take over the territory of rival clans. Tribalism, again. You don't get past that, do you? > Which is why empathy didn’t prevent Europeans from colonizing the indigenous people Yep, but neither did religion and those countries were very, very Christian. And, btw, even today the U.S. is the most religious among rich countries and, at the same time, the most imperialist. If religion is so good how come the most Christian country is so bad to the rest of the world? (I am from South America, btw). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

> Humans are always religious, no exception. You should get out more.

It’s true. The supposedly “secular people” I know are always prattling about “human dignity” and stuff that sounds very religious. They don’t think of humans as walking meat like a non-religious person would.

wtfwhateven 11mo ago
Are you being satirical?
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
justin66 11mo ago
> stuff that sounds very religious Sounds very religious? Oh well then, you've clearly put some serious thought into this. > They don’t think of humans as walking meat like a non-religious person would. What a truly weird thing to write.
diego_moita 11mo ago
> “human dignity” and stuff that sounds very religious. Even bonobo monkeys and elephants understand empathy for others. Should we then assume that monkeys and elephants are very religious, too? > like a non-religious person would. Oh, I see you took a lot of care in trying to understand what a "non-religious person" is. Are all church people this smart, too? /s
- rayiner 11mo ago
  > Even bonobo monkeys and elephants understand empathy for others. Empathy is an emotion. Emotions are real. You can see emotions in brain scans. But anger, desire for revenge, disgust, in-group affinity, etc., are also real emotions! It's rational to use people's emotions to guide what society should do. But most putatively secular people disagree with that approach! They're constantly telling people to put aside their emotions in favor of supposed universal principles that sound suspiciously similar to religious beliefs.
  - diego_moita 11mo ago
    > They're constantly telling people to put aside their emotions in favor of supposed universal principles Yeah, sure! Those evil "putatively secular people" that burned tens of thousands of women during the witch hunt in Europe, killed hundreds of thousands of other people during the Crusades and the European religious wars of the 17th and 18th century, that condoned with the fascist and authoritarian regimes in Argentina, Spain and Portugal because they were against the scourge of communism, that blessed the slavery of Latin American indigenous peoples because it was meant to spread the blessing of Christianity... that was all made by "putatively secular people", like the Catholic Church, right? I am so impressed by how well and deep you know and understand "putatively secular people"... Are all church people smart like that? /s
    - rayiner 11mo ago
      But what’s your non-religious basis for saying that those actions were bad? You pointed to empathy above. But empathy in humans is mainly directed to one’s own community. Animals and humans alike will happily take over the territory of rival clans. Which is why empathy didn’t prevent Europeans from colonizing the indigenous people of America. So what’s your basis for saying that, e.g., colonization was bad?
      - diego_moita 11mo ago
        > empathy in humans is mainly directed to one’s own community. Speak for yourself. I won't confuse empathy with tribalism, as you do. I'll take humanism [1], the notion that every person is equal in rights. This is my moral basis. > humans alike will happily take over the territory of rival clans. Tribalism, again. You don't get past that, do you? > Which is why empathy didn’t prevent Europeans from colonizing the indigenous people Yep, but neither did religion and those countries were very, very Christian. And, btw, even today the U.S. is the most religious among rich countries and, at the same time, the most imperialist. If religion is so good how come the most Christian country is so bad to the rest of the world? (I am from South America, btw). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism