96
   

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

 
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 07:53 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Man is the measure of all things. - PROTAGORAS
That is correct if you don’t know God. God left a much more extensive record that was more authoritative than Protagoras. Unfortunately as this thread states, nobody interprets it 100% correctly. Mainly because it encompasses the entire universe and our limited intelligence and extensive pride along with Satans deception is hindering the interpretation. I think the biggest reason is religious leaders are fearful to use the latest science as a reference to guide them in their religious beliefs and vice a versus.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 08:33 am
@Setanta,
Nurse !....he's out of bed again! Laughing
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 08:49 am
@najmelliw,
Of course there is no definitive answer to a nebulous question like 'religion right or wrong ?'. I am merely arguing for the dichotomy to be looked at in sociological terms rather than in terms of futile debate about 'evidence' for divine entities. If you follow that, you get my point.

(The accusation of 'aggression' by this forum's 'king of beligerence' is of course merely a text book case of Freudian projection).
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 10:49 am
@Setanta,
Hey, when you’re right you’re right.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 11:57 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
... so I put to him the question I've always asked and he has never answered,


You and your partners in deception, farmerman, Olivier, ... , are all grand masters in hypocrisy, Setanta.

Remember that question that I have pointed out many times that you have failed to address?
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 12:06 pm
@Setanta,
Set, please believe me when I say that I respect you greatly, but...
You too have a tendency to lash out against people who irritate you, or at least that's how it comes across for me.

As far as fresco goes, could you please explain clearly (or more clearly, perhaps) what you mean with the sentence in question? I am still unsure how to interpret it, tbh.

camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 12:26 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
I am merely arguing for the dichotomy to be looked at in sociological terms rather than in terms of futile debate about 'evidence' for divine entities.


Doesn't that get you into a quagmire of equal proportions, fresco?

And since there is no evidence for divine entities anymore than there is evidence for unicorns, isn't this all a rather futile argument/discussion?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 12:41 pm
@najmelliw,
I could not for a moment tell you what he meant, or thought he meant by that sentence.

As "a tendency to lash out" that you impute to me, when I came here just over 15 years ago, I suppose I could have been characterized as naïve. So after more than 15 years of people lashing out at me--such as Fresco's completely unproportionate attack on me for merely asking "whence the languagers?"--I think that my behavior is understandable, and justified. If it is not OK for me to act that way, then it was never OK for the people who made wild and baseless accusations, who sneered, who personally vilified me. People who don't treat me that way are not treated that way by me. Many people here disparage Oralloy, usually for his extreme right-wing views. I don't care for his politics, but I am more contemptuous of his inability to admit that he was ever wrong. I have never called him any names, nor altered his screen name in an insulting manner precisely because he has never done that to me.

I don't recall that I was ever rude to you in that manner, and if ever I have been, you have my sincere apology. For the rest of the knobs at this site--you get out of life what you put into a situation, and I will always repay people in their own coin.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 01:04 pm
@Setanta,
That is your biggest crock of sour owl manure ever, Setanta. You totally lack the ability for personal introspection.

Quote:
"I suppose I could have been characterized as naïve"


That is a nice touch but it is still sour owl manure.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 01:44 pm
@najmelliw,
Okay...I'll rephrase that last sentence for you.
The stringing of opaque words (verbiage) involved in describing a religious 'system' (parochial rationality) is irrelevant to the question of whether religion is 'right or wrong'.

(The religionists here have tended to interpret 'wrong' as a challenge to their version of 'religious truth'. My argument here and elsewhere is the pragmatists one that 'truth' is 'what works' NOT 'what is the case'. I take 'wrong' to be 'proven tendency for social perniciousness' from a global perspective. That perniciousness involves in group power structures and inter-group tribalism with the added elements of 'divine authority' countering dissent.)
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 01:47 pm
@najmelliw,
Okay...I'll rephrase that last sentence for you.
The stringing of opaque words (verbiage) involved in describing a religious 'system' (parochial rationality) is irrelevant to the question of whether religion is 'right or wrong'.

(The religionists here have tended to interpret 'wrong' as a challenge to their version of 'religious truth'. My argument here and elsewhere is the pragmatists one that 'truth' is 'what works' NOT 'what is the case'. I take 'wrong' to be 'proven tendency for social perniciousness' from a global perspective. That perniciousness involves in-group power structures and inter-group tribalism with the added elements of 'divine authority' countering dissent. Your claim that 'people are ultimately responsible for their own actions is blatantly psychologically naive as it takes no account of the socialization process.)
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 01:51 pm
@camlok,
A Devil's advocate would delight in evoking 'quagmires' ! Wink
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 03:02 pm
@Setanta,
No, you have never lashed out in any way at me. As a matter of fact, I have always found your answers to my posts, as far as they merited it that is (when I asked questions, mainly) to be detailed and in depth, and most importantly, informative.

I'm just making a statement about the tone of some of your answers to other posters on the site. Of course, since I don't now your history with them, I am in no means in a position to judge, nor do I want to be. But I felt it was an observation I had to make, because fresco, too, has never been anything but helpful to me in the past.

And the second part of my post was directed at fresco, I'm sorry for not making two separate posts, or address it with @fresco. Both would have been better.

0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 03:09 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Okay...I'll rephrase that last sentence for you.
The stringing of opaque words (verbiage) involved in describing a religious 'system' (parochial rationality) is irrelevant to the question of whether religion is 'right or wrong'.

(The religionists here have tended to interpret 'wrong' as a challenge to their version of 'religious truth'. My argument here and elsewhere is the pragmatists one that 'truth' is 'what works' NOT 'what is the case'. I take 'wrong' to be 'proven tendency for social perniciousness' from a global perspective. That perniciousness involves in-group power structures and inter-group tribalism with the added elements of 'divine authority' countering dissent. Your claim that 'people are ultimately responsible for their own actions is blatantly psychologically naive as it takes no account of the socialization process.)



Thank you for the explanation.

Yes, I concur that I didn't account for existing social and cultural conditions in my remark, and I will certainly acknowledge that those play a very large part in how people will respond to any certain situation (including the question whether a/their religion is 'wrong' or 'right'.) Still, I do believe that people are responsible for their own actions: they are the actors, and if they know their actions will be harmful to others(as is the case with the social perniciousness you mentioned), then they should certainly be held accountable for them, although mitigating circumstances should also be taken into consideration.

'Do not do unto others what you would not wish them do unto you', isn't that the proper saying?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 03:34 pm
@najmelliw,
If only moral decisions were as simple as that ! Alas, 'morality' tends to shift with circumstances, ...warfare being an extreme example. Joseph Heller's Catch 22 lampoon of an Army Chaplain (being ordered to 'pray for a tight bomb pattern') well illustrates that. The point is surely that when the chips are down, ranks are closed against perceived 'outsiders'. and 'brotherly love' flies out of the window. The scenario of priests blessing their respective armies before they attempt to slaughter each other could be the most succinct answer to the o.p !
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 05:20 pm
@fresco,
Excellent point! That also goes for school sports events.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 06:35 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
'morality' tends to shift with circumstances


It does seem to be that way. I do understand that morality is subjective just as with all other concepts but morality seems to be a concept that does not get the respect that other concepts have been given. We have come to a general Consensus on the logical consistency that other concepts have, such as colors, sounds and so forth. We have "so to speak," being I can not give a more coherent explanation at the moment, "mapped out colors and sounds but no moral map consisting of logical consistency that I know of. If we can do it with colors even though we have people who have vision problems and we can do it with sound even though we have people who have hearing problems I would think we should be able 2 accomplish the same with morality even though we have people who have high traits of psychopathy and or cluster b disorders.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2018 09:22 pm
I was wondering what my Christian friends thought about this.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2018 01:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, 'sport' is a type of substitute 'warfare'. As a young teacher doing referee duty for a kids soccer match I remember being verbally abused by parents from either side when I made a decision in favour of the opposition!

Humans, like their primate relations show all aspects of tribalism and hierarchical aggression. Add the element of complex human language and these inherited traits can be played out both internally, or at distance using emergent shared structures bound by a shared vocabulary, like 'leagues', 'nations' and 'religions'. These historical structures are self perpetuating and persistently reify their 'legitimacy' in the minds of their members. (...consider the obsession with 'The Word'' by religionists).

najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2018 02:08 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Yes, 'sport' is a type of substitute 'warfare'. As a young teacher doing referee duty for a kids soccer match I remember being verbally abused by parents from either side when I made a decision in favour of the opposition!

Humans, like their primate relations show all aspects of tribalism and hierarchical aggression. Add the element of complex human language and these inherited traits can be played out both internally, or at distance using emergent shared structures bound by a shared vocabulary, like 'leagues', 'nations' and 'religions'. These historical structures are self perpetuating and persistently reify their 'legitimacy' in the minds of their members. (...consider the obsession with 'The Word'' by religionists).


It's not that I disagree with what you say, fresco. Yes, almost all of human society and the way we identify with others comes from social constructs we have created for ourselves, be it the shared camaraderie of the footie fans, or the very existence of 'England' or 'The Netherlands' as countries. But within those social structures, you can still agree upon, and apply a set of moral rules and restrictions. A proper way to behave (I think that too, is an inherited trait from 'mammals' used to functioning in herds or larger groups).

I'm probably going to get flak for this, but I ask you to apply what you say to the group of investment bankers, whose risky investment strategies in order to maximize profit margins might at least be partially to blame for the recent economic crisis. These individuals lived by their own set of rules it seemed: everything was allowed as long as the profits would keep on coming in, and the system couldn't fail.

But then it did. So would you argue that they can't be held accountable, to at least a certain degree?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/22/2019 at 08:00:10