Doer
Well-Known Member
So, you know Greek? You know what Socrates would make of the modern meaning?
Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Greatest I am
Active Member
I agree.
That does not take way from the fact that religions are harmful to society at large and that if good people, --- religious or not, --- who do not fight the more evil tenets and beliefs of religions, are shirking their duty to society.
Regards
DL
Doer
Well-Known Member
It does not take away from the fact religion are the great and only creators of the very society you speak of.
In fact without religion we would have never conquered agriculture. It is religion of the time that told when to plant, by shamanistic practices based on Obervation. The shaman was the "scientist."
So, Science has lately taken their Emperors Clothes, from the very basis of civilization.
But, who can be opposed to Mystery? We know we don't know. Religion has a firm hold on civilization based on the mystery of existence that science cannot explain.
In fact the more a religion is shunned the stronger it gets. It just takes one "act of God" to be interpreted to a be a "sign" to kill those that oppose the religion. This is the history of mankind.
Last edited:
Greatest I am
Active Member
I do not think the meaning has changed from what he thought it meant.
Note that what you thought I meant is third on the list while the way I use it is one and two.
ar·gu·ment .
: a statement or series of statements for or against something
: a discussion in which people express different opinions about something
: an angry disagreement
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Active Member
I see no evidence of that as the Goddesses ruled for 20 thousand years before the Bronze Age and agriculture.
Even if they did invent it, are they worth having around given the Dark Ages and Inquisition?
Not to even mention I.S. and all the holy wars mankind has had to tolerate because some religion thinks it has God's ear.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Active Member
Some do not and are more like atheists. That is in the East.
In the West, since it is almost entirely Abrahamic cults, Christians, Catholics and Muslims, I have no argument against your view.
Regards
DL
Doer
Well-Known Member
An atheist religion? Please explain.
Greatest I am
Active Member
http://www.churchoffreethought.org/
We need to recognize that basically, religions are small or large tribal groups whose adherents are there too appease their need for culture, tradition and tribal natures.
If the atheist do not create a place for their children to appease that instinct, many will be lost to religion.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Active Member
Doer
Doer
Well-Known Member
So, you know Greek? You know what Socrates would make of the modern meaning?
dialegomai = to discuss
epicheíri̱mai = to argue
Do you really know? No. You do not.
Doer
Well-Known Member
This is why there is no such thing as debate or argument on RIU.
All that is proposed is by and large, Fallacies of Logic. "Like Socrartes" <tisk, tisk>
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/academic/fallacies.html
Fallacies of Authority
...related to debaters and audiences
All that is proposed is by and large, Fallacies of Logic. "Like Socrartes" <tisk, tisk>
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/academic/fallacies.html
Fallacies of Authority
...related to debaters and audiences
- subjectivism: asserting a proposition as true simply because one wishes it to be true.
- appeal to authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam) citing an authority, who is incompetent or non-objective, in an attempt to gain support an argument, or citing an authority when the issue is not technical.
- quoting out of context: manipulating a quote either from an authority or from one's interlocutor in such a way that the original meaning of the statement is altered.
- ad personam: appealing to the misrepresented self-interest of those one is trying to convince.
- appeal to the people: (argumentum ad populum) relying on the emotional passion of the crowd in making an argument.
- appeal to numbers: (argumentum ad numerum) asserting (implicitly or explicitly) that the acceptance of an idea by a large number of people is reason to believe it.
- cultural fallacy: taking one's own culture as the standard of good by which all cultures should be judged.
Greatest I am
Active Member
Yes but that does not take away the tribalism aspect. Many of the Eastern religions look for enlightenment and not some God. They try not to idol worship it by not describing enlightenment or Nirvana and say that all must describe it only to themselves, so to speak, when they find it.
They value enlightenment and thought while all the Abrahamic cults want is blind obedience.
Regards
DL
Correct. I use the usual interpretation and that is why I gave Webster's.
If you wish to go by older interpretations, go ahead. It matters not.
Regards
DL
Doer
Well-Known Member
You invoked the older definition, not I. Nice try, Sophist. You have no idea what Socrates said or thought. So you tapped danced around that.
"I see and mean it more as offering arguments for or against a proposition. More like Socrates would view the word argue."
Another fallacy of logic. Losing at your own game.
"I see and mean it more as offering arguments for or against a proposition. More like Socrates would view the word argue."
Another fallacy of logic. Losing at your own game.
Skuxx
Well-Known Member
He has spent too much time on genesis and a few other parts of the bible, and christian bashing (perhaps molested as a child) to know about much of anything else I suppose.
Greatest I am
Active Member
Thanks all.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
Doer
Well-Known Member
Hey, bonehead, you see no evidence of it though you see evidence of it? The Worship of Deity preceded agriculture and you make my point.
Mankind has tolerated this? What toadstool do you sit on, oh King of Nothing?. There is no "mankind" or "this world" that can act in concert to tolerate. We don't tolerate it, WE CANNOT STOP IT.
So, are religions worth it? Of course, that got us here. And it did it with it's sister org, the War Cult. All religions (and I see I have delved much deeper in this) have their basis in war, somehow. And it goes like this.
Lau Tsu - China 2500 BC - In the time called the "Troubles of Warlords" he wrote the Tao Te Ting. i.e The Way. In this, is the first denotation in history, of Oneness. All are part of Heaven (God)
These ideas came West into the Indus Valley around 2500 BC, as the Aryans (Persians before they move south a bit later) pushed in Eastward, and bringing to the Vedic, pre-hindus, the idea of One God.
From the collision of these two ideal Allness and Oneness, we get the Krishna story for the Hindu and the Buddha story, also. But, both are based on the existing Indus tradition of Vedas that the Aryans conquered, it is not known which really came first, the roots of Buddhism or the roots of Krishna Hindu.
At about 2000 BC, Abraham hears of the Eastern Tradition of One God and builds his War Cult from that. God's Chosen People was formed as the Aryans also spread south into what is now Iran.
By, the time the comet appears in 0 AD, the Greeks have embraced the idea of Allness and Oneness and called that Chistos.
John the Baptist was executed for spreading that around, and so was Stephanos. Stephanos was dragged out the synagog by the Jews and hacked to death right then and there for preaching Baptism (he is the Jesus myth) The Pizo family in the Roman Senate had a hand in protecting Herod and coming up with a person to blame, that was against the Jews. The Pizo had an interest in "don't blame the Jews" (of course, that is why the Jews are blamed for everything) The Pizo plot backfired and the Jews got all the blame from the Christians, who were supposed to just be eaten by Lions, etc.
Paul of Tarses witnessed the slaying of Stephanos, and he and Peter formed the Jewish Cult of the Way.
Peter was eventually executed for telling the Women of Rome not to lay with their husbands, but to come and serve his sect.
Constantine in 400 AD noticed that people had superstition of this Cult of Christ, so he had the symbol, the Egyptian Ank (looped headed cross) painted on his War Cult shields. He won. So he had a monk, take all the stories and throw out a lot, like the dead sea scrolls stuff , the Essene writings and what ever other weird stories about the made up man. that did not fit the Power Structure he wanted.
Then in 600 AD a dude named Mohammed said, screw it, I can play this game, so he made Islam. And the Muslims laid waste to the Hindus and tortured gurus to death and created another religion. Sikhs, around 1500.
In 1529, Rome declared Martin Luther was a Heretic so Protestantism was born and they went on, to form their own war cult, the USA.
In 1531, King Henry VIII declared Rome was not above him and the Church of England was born, and formed a War Cult.
Every single religion in the North Hemi, is based on Lau Tsu and the mystery of Allness and Oneness. In the South Hemi it is not possible to walk around the entire world to spread the War, so those cults died out.
Finally we come to Mormon, who began by burning down a news paper they didn't like and went to war with Christians, and made an Islamic type, misogynistic religion with harem around 1830.
After that we have Scientology which is rewrite of Hindu mythology by a Science Fiction writer.
Situation Normal, All Fucked Up
Last edited:
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Very interesting TED Talk, I've never thought this through to this extent. Good post...