Kingkool wrote:I believe that you need something to congregate people, like a common philosophy or religion, in order to start a society. However, if a country is greatly influenced by a religion, would a fear of god(s) slow progress? I believe the answer is yes. Anyone who is atleast a little religious will do things based on their beliefs. If god told Adam and Eve not to seek knowledge, should we do the same and burn books?

Kingkool wrote:

Invictus_88 wrote:

Kingkool wrote:I believe that you need something to congregate people, like a common philosophy or religion, in order to start a society. However, if a country is greatly influenced by a religion, would a fear of god(s) slow progress? I believe the answer is yes. Anyone who is atleast a little religious will do things based on their beliefs. If god told Adam and Eve not to seek knowledge, should we do the same and burn books?

What about a common need to eat, drink, and stay warm and safe? Might that suffice?

that would create a nomadic tribe of hunter-gatherers. I'm talking about a civilization. But peoples' definitions of civilization may vary.

Kingkool wrote:

Wooden shoe wrote:Hello Kingkool, you wrote:
I believe that you need something to congregate people, like a common philosophy or religion, in order to start a society.

This is putting the cart before the horse.
All the evidence supports that religions were invented after agriculture made it practical for people to settle in an area, usually in river valleys, where agriculture was the easiest.
As settlements grew some order was required, powerful men became leaders and nature worship was transferred to some type of deity fashioned on the model of an earthly despot.
The earliest records which exist are more than 6000 years old, from Egypt, where the conditions were right for preserving things which we can study today.
It has been argued that the dark ages in western Europe were the result of christianity, but it would be unfair to give it all the blame.
The Islamic world definitely was much more enlightened from about 600 to the 1500 with the Ottoman empire being the longest lasting nation in Europe's history.

You would still need a group of people to come together and say "we all think that food is very important, and hunting in groups will improve the outcome" the way I see it, people who think that logically would start to say, "maybe we can raise our food and domesticate animals" and then philosophers appear, some become religious leaders, others disagree with religious leaders, disputes over whether or not there are indeed people in the sky or if we become new people after we die start to appear. Then they get violent, and a war breaks out. One side wins, and either restores the nation, or destroys it.

Obviously there are many other things that can happen, but in the end philosophy unites people, then destroys them.

eyesofastranger wrote:The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Kingkool wrote:

Invictus_88 wrote:

eyesofastranger wrote:The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Cool story. Got a reference for that one?

That's not really a fact that can be proven. Unless by reference you mean something out of a holy book.

Kingkool wrote:

Invictus_88 wrote:

eyesofastranger wrote:The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Any sort of coherent grounding for that statement at all then, maybe? Anything?

Well, if you truly have faith in a religion, then your actions are affected by it. And you cannot change what you believe in.

In Full Metal Alchemist, a false preist was using a science called alchemy to create false miracles. He used this to make the people do what he wanted because he claimed he was a messenger of god. These miracles included making statues walk, and healing injuries.

An intersting thing he did was tell one of his disciples he could bring her dead boy freind back to life. He knew he couldn't actually do that. Is this woman a slave to the religion because she thinks if she follows the rules she will get her dead loved one back? I think no, but it is a loose example of how religion can become slavery.

Belinda wrote:Invictus, the real life horror story in the news now is worse than the fiction as told by Eyes of a stranger. The story about this Congolese religion in the news yesterday and today includes similar psychological manipulation by priests of religion who do really recommend killing, murder and torture to their flocks in order to purify witches in their midst. And those same priests making a lot of money for themselvesn thereby. It is true that religion when it is perpetrated upon ignorant, slavishly credulous people by amoral priests is dangerous and ugly.

Belinda wrote:Invictus, it is a matter of the magnitude of the 'slavery' use to which the would-be powerful harness our religious instincts. It is safe to claim that too much of human misbehaviour is caused by militant fatwas, religious terrorists, militant anti-abortionists [...] ignorance and prejudices perpetuated by some religious teachers, and this latest horror to emerge into the public view the African witchcraft religion which now apparently flourishes in holes and corners in Britain

eyesofastranger wrote:I apologize Parrot. and to everyone else offended by my words. I live my life by a difficult code for this stuff to pass. Very much like Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit from the book the Demon haunted world. Of course there are church goers that turn Atheist. I was raised as 啊Catholic church goer. I began exploring pseudo beliefs and found religions effect to be hallmark pseudo. From there I was lost to the slave owners. Reliability needs tested repeated results, I think this is fair, evidence is required, then confirmation of evidence, i believe this is fair given the structure of the human mind. Don't get angry with me I think these requirements are reasonable. I believe I live in a universe that would understand my reasoning. And not arbitrarily punish me for not being slave to reason.

Belinda wrote:

Invictus_88 wrote:

Belinda wrote:Invictus, it is a matter of the magnitude of the 'slavery' use to which the would-be powerful harness our religious instincts. It is safe to claim that too much of human misbehaviour is caused by militant fatwas, religious terrorists, militant anti-abortionists [...] ignorance and prejudices perpetuated by some religious teachers, and this latest horror to emerge into the public view the African witchcraft religion which now apparently flourishes in holes and corners in Britain

Erm, those things are the misbehaviour, rather than they are the cause of it. But still, still after all these words typed, nobody has given any credible support to the assertion that "the original idea behind X is slavery".

Can we now, finally, accept that the statement is untenable?

Yes, those are examples of the misbehaviour. However I wrote that the misbehaviour is 'use to which the powerful harness our religious instincts'. The spur that is used by those malevolent religious teachers is fear, as in slavery.

I don't see that we should insist upon exactitude of utterance when people are trying to get at truths.

Belinda wrote:

Invictus_88 wrote:

Belinda wrote:

Invictus_88 wrote:

Belinda wrote:Invictus, it is a matter of the magnitude of the 'slavery' use to which the would-be powerful harness our religious instincts. It is safe to claim that too much of human misbehaviour is caused by militant fatwas, religious terrorists, militant anti-abortionists [...] ignorance and prejudices perpetuated by some religious teachers, and this latest horror to emerge into the public view the African witchcraft religion which now apparently flourishes in holes and corners in Britain

Erm, those things are the misbehaviour, rather than they are the cause of it. But still, still after all these words typed, nobody has given any credible support to the assertion that "the original idea behind X is slavery".

Can we now, finally, accept that the statement is untenable?

Yes, those are examples of the misbehaviour. However I wrote that the misbehaviour is 'use to which the powerful harness our religious instincts'. The spur that is used by those malevolent religious teachers is fear, as in slavery.

I don't see that we should insist upon exactitude of utterance when people are trying to get at truths.

I don't know how you'll get at much truth if what you say doesn't correspond with the world we live in.

For example, it's holding you back from stating the very clear truth that the original statement I quoted is untenable.

It is up to you to show that the correspondence theory of truth is the best theory of truth. I did not say 'truth' I said 'truths'.
The position that an utterance is untenable unless it is couched in some particular version of English is too positivistic let alone too uncharitable for my preference. It is a useful mental exercise for the receiver of an utterance to at least try to get at the intended meaning of the transmitter. To extend my advice to a real life emergency may make the difference between life and death; think of the last message from the Titanic.

eyesofastranger wrote:I can't answer invictus as I don't know what he is trying to convey. If I am blinded to a wider view perhaps some description of that comprehensive deep distended universe would help.

Xris wrote:I judge men by their actions not their proclamations. Christians for nearly two thousand years have not exactly stood out as righteous or humane. It is only recently with secular morals taking the forefront in improving human ethics do we see Christians trying to claim the high ground. christianity burned witches, heretic, executed homosexuals and adulterers. Supported tyrannical princes and fought christian wars killing millions in the name of their god. Supported slavery and assisted in the exploitation of any who did not believe in christ. They still live in grand palaces drinking fine wines while the poor go without. Support contraception and by so doing condemn thousands to a lingering death.They even supported fascism in Europe given them authority.Today they want to control primary schooling so they can infect our young before they are capable of freedom of choice.Why should I ever believe christian morality is better than mine?

Belinda wrote:I personally prefer plain Anglo Saxon four letter words , Invictus. However philosophy relies upon Latin and Greek for much of its lexicon. I could explain to you the good reason for this choice of lexicon, but my explanation would be factual, and therefore unsuited to a philosophy discussion.

Xris wrote:Invictus, slavery is carried out by the religous. It is acceptable in many Islamic cultures simply because Mohamed kept slaves. You can not place the blame of slavery on a secular belief system. Slavery was condoned by christian leaders for centuries and they even took part in it. If any one officially opposes slavery that opposition comes from secular organisations.

Xris wrote:

Invictus_88 wrote:

Xris wrote:Invictus, slavery is carried out by the religous. It is acceptable in many Islamic cultures simply because Mohamed kept slaves. You can not place the blame of slavery on a secular belief system. Slavery was condoned by christian leaders for centuries and they even took part in it. If any one officially opposes slavery that opposition comes from secular organisations.

Secular leaders currently are ignorant even of the existence of slavery today, let-alone that more human beings are bought and sold in the 21st century than were in the 16th!

For this reason, I reject the use of slavery as a stick with which to beat Christianity, as you were doing. It is hypocritical and astonishingly ignorant of the fact of things.

Who said I was beating modern Christians? I emphasized religous. Muslims are the culprit for the majority of slavery in the 21c. As for the past, did not the pope sanction slavery. Did we not see christian bishops branding slaves? I am against religion and all it's crimes not just christianity. Secular leaders are not ignorant of these facts they are just powerless to stop it. St Paul or Christ did not condemn slavery. Why not, I may ask, they condemned most other sins. Simply because it was much too much to expect. We then see the result of that omission. The church condones the act of slavery and even our most respected historic figures keep slaves. Religion has never driven moral improvements and even now it refuses to alter it's damaging dogmas.

Belinda wrote:

Invictus_88 wrote:

Xris wrote:Invictus, slavery is carried out by the religous. It is acceptable in many Islamic cultures simply because Mohamed kept slaves. You can not place the blame of slavery on a secular belief system. Slavery was condoned by christian leaders for centuries and they even took part in it. If any one officially opposes slavery that opposition comes from secular organisations.

Secular leaders currently are ignorant even of the existence of slavery today, let-alone that more human beings are bought and sold in the 21st century than were in the 16th!

For this reason, I reject the use of slavery as a stick with which to beat Christianity, as you were doing. It is hypocritical and astonishingly ignorant of the fact of things.

William Blake described 'mind-forged manacles'. Slavery is commonly used as a metaphor for entrapment in some state of unpleasant servitude to other people. This entrapment is caused directly by repressive laws as for instance Wahabi laws against women in Saudi Arabia, and also by dearth of opportunities for social mobility as a tendency of Conservative regimes.The three Abrahamic religions are Conservative by nature, the more fundamentalist, the more Conservative.
Actual slavery that includes direct exchange of money in return for total ownership of another human being is outlawed in most urbanised Western countries. Some Christian doctrine is particularly bad for promoting actual slavery because of the teaching regarding other- worldly rewards for suffering experienced in this world.