Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not apologizing for history. I'm not even talking about history aside from the mention of the origin of the Big Bang Theory.

Funny how everyone trying to poke holes in my assertions are digging back hundreds of years for the counter-examples.

My answer to all those assertions is that if it were truly what the religion says, and not merely a bad interpretation of what the religion says, then it would still be going on. It's not, and the religion is still around. So those practices are not a part of the religion, they were appropriated by bad actors to use the power structure of religion to accomplish their own ends.

Humans are prone to all kinds of savagery with and without religion.

[Poopadoop]

Funny how everyone trying to poke holes in my assertions are digging back hundreds of years for the counter-examples.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/op...ion-again.html

My answer to all those assertions is that if it were truly what the religion says, and not merely a bad interpretation of what the religion says, then it would still be going on.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/op...ion-again.html

So because this was a few years ago now, it counts as 'no longer going on'?

Humans are prone to all kinds of savagery with and without religion.

Who is arguing with that?

[MadMojoMonkey]

So because this was a few years ago now, it counts as 'no longer going on'?

No, that's not why.
The why it doesn't count is because that's not the widespread message of the religion. It's a bad interpretation of the religion by a relatively small group who do not represent the entire religion.

Who is arguing with that?

The assertion that religion causes people to act like savages is not compelling to me. People act like savages with and without religion.

[Poopadoop]

No, that's not why.
The why it doesn't count is because that's not the widespread message of the religion. It's a bad interpretation of the religion by a relatively small group who do not represent the entire religion.

This is one thing where the evidence is overwhelming and still there are people willing to dispute it (and argue it shouldn't be taught) because it contradicts their religious beliefs. If that isn't religion fucking up progress made by science I don't know what is.

The assertion that religion causes people to act like savages is not compelling to me. People act like savages with and without religion.

Nobody is asserting that; that was the point of my question.

First, the argument was made that religion is a source or moral guidance for people who would otherwise be dicks.

The rebuttal to this was offered that religion is also a source of immorality for people who would otherwise not be dicks.

Your statement is fine, it's just that no-one is arguing with you and you keep repeating it as if they were.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is one thing where the evidence is overwhelming and still there are people willing to dispute it (and argue it shouldn't be taught) because it contradicts their religious beliefs. If that isn't religion fucking up progress made by science I don't know what is.

Again, idiots and bad actors claiming religion is the reason they're acting a certain way isn't indicative that they are acting that way because of religion.

If it were truly the religion that was causing them to act that way, then the entire religion would be acting that way. They're not, which demonstrates that the people claiming the religion is their motivation are wrong. Those people's motivation is not the religion, they are merely appropriating the religion to give a false weight to their paper thin arguments.

[...]Your statement is fine, it's just that no-one is arguing with you and you keep repeating it as if they were.

My bad.

[Poopadoop]

Again, idiots and bad actors claiming religion is the reason they're acting a certain way isn't indicative that they are acting that way because of religion.

You think the people in Kansas are not really believers but are just pushing the Bible for some other reason? Come on.

If it were truly the religion that was causing them to act that way, then the entire religion would be acting that way.

No, being part of a religion does not make one a carbon copy of every other member of that religion.

Those people's motivation is not the religion, they are merely appropriating the religion to give a false weight to their paper thin arguments.

Some of them aren't motivated by the religion but are appropriating it. Others are fanatics, plain and simple, and truly believe their paper thin arguments.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You think the people in Kansas are not really believers but are just pushing the Bible for some other reason? Come on.

No. I'm not questioning their whole belief system, only the attribution of this one belief to be part and parcel of the rest.

No, being part of a religion does not make one a carbon copy of every other member of that religion.

This is thin ice you're on.

To the limit that they're all individuals, yeah, obviously you're right. To the extent that they all gather together in a unified profession of faith, you're not right. It's the fact that they all claim to the same teachings by the same prophet that makes their religion the same.

Ugh. That's too tight a band. Obviously Christianity has plenty of varying sects, some of whom are not too cozy with each other.
I mean within the sects, they agree. To the extent that they all call themselves Christians they agree.

The "carbon copy" phrase doesn't help us in this conversation.

Some of them aren't motivated by the religion but are appropriating it. Others are fanatics, plain and simple, and truly believe their paper thin arguments.

Yeah. This is what I'm saying.

[wufwugy]

First, the argument was made that religion is a source or moral guidance for people who would otherwise be dicks.

Was that me? I certainly didn't intend on saying that. It's even in the OP title. It's the idea that a moral framework that is adhered to for emotional reasons can be good (can also be bad). Given the natural state of savagery of humankind, it might be on net better to construct those good moral frameworks.

[Poopadoop]

Was that me? I certainly didn't intend on saying that.

It's the idea that a moral framework that is adhered to for emotional reasons can be good (can also be bad). Given the natural state of savagery of humankind, it might be on net better to construct those good moral frameworks.

Sorry but that sounds very much a paraphrasing of the argument I attributed to you.