Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
List of religion's tangible accomplishments and advances for humanity (Original Post) Eliminator Dec 2011 OP
I see your 1 and advance you a minus one. Total score: MarkCharles Dec 2011 #1
Good luck with this list. I asked for the same a few weeks ago, and got two things; Jack and Shit. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #2
What would a world without religion have looked like? rrneck Dec 2011 #3
How did we get rid of burning people at the stake? MarkCharles Dec 2011 #4
We didn't supress all the stuff you mentioned rrneck Dec 2011 #7
Probably like this Eliminator Dec 2011 #5
So rrneck Dec 2011 #8
Our collective outrage at The Last Airbender movie. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #9
Okay, that would do it. rrneck Dec 2011 #10
I think it would look almost the same as our world Taverner Dec 2011 #13
Michelangelo would STILL have been one of the greatest artists of all time. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #14
But we never would have known who he was Taverner Dec 2011 #32
Perhaps, but will never know for sure. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #50
Not necessarily. rrneck Dec 2011 #39
Right. Unfortunately, we wouldn't have heard of him Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #56
You cannot know that. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #64
Of course not, but most likely he would have been unknown Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #66
You should see this... cleanhippie Dec 2011 #15
I'm familiar with it. rrneck Dec 2011 #21
Where would women have fit in? deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #23
Where would women have fit in? rrneck Dec 2011 #46
Your second paragraph would be more compelling if human pair bonding was always Leontius Dec 2011 #53
Well it is just a message board post. rrneck Dec 2011 #58
After reading this post and a more careful rereading of the other post Leontius Dec 2011 #60
No worries. Good talking to you. rrneck Dec 2011 #61
Sure, and then moved past it. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #51
"Moved past" might not be the right phrase. rrneck Dec 2011 #54
Your appeals to emotion, while powerful, prove nothing. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #65
Well actually rrneck Dec 2011 #68
Deus ex Machina! tama Dec 2011 #69
Well said. Right on the money. Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #57
Thanks. rrneck Dec 2011 #59
Nice tama Dec 2011 #43
No need to mention Leontius Dec 2011 #67
like this... deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #18
Meditation and other religious, mind-altering practices. nt ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #6
I disagree (with that post, not the other one, screw M. Night!) deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #12
Meditation was invented by Hindus for religious purposes. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #47
how strange... deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #11
how strange.... cbayer Dec 2011 #16
you'll forgive me (I think you have to) deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #17
You make the mistake of conflating those that have used religion cbayer Dec 2011 #19
used religion to liberate and embrace? deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #20
So often believers can't grasp a simple concept "you don't need religion to do it, you never didyo" MarkCharles Dec 2011 #22
That's because, as you have so often pointed out, believers are really intellectually cbayer Dec 2011 #24
speaking of which deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #26
The American Civil Rights Movement for African Americans cbayer Dec 2011 #28
am I to understand that was brought to us by religion? n/t deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #29
Are you going to deny the role that religion and religious institutions played cbayer Dec 2011 #30
I didn't elaborate very well deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #36
And a lovely new year to you as well. cbayer Dec 2011 #38
Are you going to deny the role that socialists and communists institutions played mr blur Dec 2011 #62
Absolutely not. There were many parties involved. cbayer Dec 2011 #63
Agreed. That's one. Eliminator Dec 2011 #33
I agree. cbayer Dec 2011 #35
Silly me I thought the major impetus of the african slave trade was money and power . Leontius Dec 2011 #55
All people are equal, that's a simple concept, too! MarkCharles Dec 2011 #31
Do those simple people fall into any groups? Because, unless I read this cbayer Dec 2011 #34
"The only people who I can imagine would be offended by a nativity scene that included gay.......... MarkCharles Dec 2011 #40
Exactly right. Homophobic bigots. cbayer Dec 2011 #41
Evidently the idea of belief in Christ or a god had no effect MarkCharles Dec 2011 #48
Is any of this getting through?? Did you really just say that? cbayer Dec 2011 #49
Of course, anyone could (and should) work for social justice. cbayer Dec 2011 #25
I accept your apology deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #27
Anyone could oppress, murder and enslave certain groups, you don't need religion to do it, Leontius Dec 2011 #37
Because I'm staying on topic deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #42
In the former thread tama Dec 2011 #44
There might have been confusion about the modern meaning of those terms as MarkCharles Dec 2011 #45
I explained tama Dec 2011 #52
 

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)
1. I see your 1 and advance you a minus one. Total score:
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:22 PM
Dec 2011

Well, I'm sure even people who went to public school, (not religious school) can add and subtract.

Those that went to religious school are, of course, more well schooled and advanced than those of us in public schools, so they will total up 1 minus 1 faster.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
2. Good luck with this list. I asked for the same a few weeks ago, and got two things; Jack and Shit.
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:23 PM
Dec 2011

And jack had already left town.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
3. What would a world without religion have looked like?
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:25 PM
Dec 2011

And if it is such a bad thing, how will we get rid of it?

 

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)
4. How did we get rid of burning people at the stake?
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:36 PM
Dec 2011

How did humankind suppress the Spanish Inquisition? How did geo-centrism and divinely-inspired slavery find its way to the trash heap of outdated "beliefs"?

Humanity evolves in thoughts, and the children lead the way.

Ask the children, look at the youth of today, who will fight the intellectual wars 30 years from now, (if they don't get killed off in another senseless Bush-like war of "regime change" somewhere).

It's probably best we not try to "get rid of it", it's probably best that we just shine a critical light upon it.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
7. We didn't supress all the stuff you mentioned
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:51 PM
Dec 2011

we just did it to other people in other ways.

Truth to tell, I don't expect humanity to enjoy the continued progress of rational thought as much as it has benefited mankind so far. Science runs on oil, a resource that has about run its course as a viable energy source. If science wants to continue its progress it better get busy finding another way to keep the lights on, and fast. Otherwise we will be back to dunking stools and human barbeques before we know it. All the signs point to an ugly fight over natural resources in the not too distant future. I expect a pretty grim next couple of hundred years although I'm not known for my optimism.

I agree that religion will never go away. We seem to be able to turn anything into a religion although I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. We should certainly shine a critical light on it as a social institution and as a personal proclivity.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
9. Our collective outrage at The Last Airbender movie.
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:00 PM
Dec 2011

One of the best TV shows turned into a crap fest by M. Night Shyamalan.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
13. I think it would look almost the same as our world
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:26 PM
Dec 2011

As much as religion impeded progress in some places, it sped up progress in others.

You'd have to say good bye to Michelangelo, but Galileo never would have had to recant...

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
14. Michelangelo would STILL have been one of the greatest artists of all time.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:33 PM
Dec 2011

with or without religion.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
32. But we never would have known who he was
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:58 PM
Dec 2011

The Medicis and Borgias who financed him did so to leave an indelible mark on the Vatican. With no Vatican to decorate, no need to hire him

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
39. Not necessarily.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:13 PM
Dec 2011

Art has two basic parts - form and content. Form is anything you can point at like line, shape, color, value, edge, surface or texture. Content is what it means or why it was made.

Religion is an expression of cultural content. While Christianity has perpetrated its share of moral outrages it also supported some of the greatest cultural advances in human history. I'm not an anthropologist, but I suspect that the creation of a monotheistic deity created a personal connection to the divine which represented a great leap forward in our ability to understand why we and those around us do the things we do.

Art made in oppressive, totalitarian cultures in invariably stilted and lifeless. A culture that cannot produce good art is a culture in decline.







When art is confined to the service of some utilitarian ideal rather than an exploration of what might experienced beyond the utilitarian needs of a person or regime it wilts into banality. I am often asked for a definition of art. The simplest definition I have come up with so far is that art is cultural R&D.

The vast majority of images people in the United States see are of the same utilitarian nature and are equally lifeless expressions of a culture in decline.



Art, like a scientific hypothesis, is intended to explore possibilities. It is a tool used for "another way of knowing" ourselves.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
56. Right. Unfortunately, we wouldn't have heard of him
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:34 PM
Dec 2011

Do you find no redeeming qualities in religion or our religious heritage.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
64. You cannot know that.
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 10:12 AM
Dec 2011

One cannot just assume that an artist of his caliber would have never been famous for anything else.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
66. Of course not, but most likely he would have been unknown
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:51 AM
Dec 2011

Name me one artist of his time who was not patronized by the church.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
21. I'm familiar with it.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:06 PM
Dec 2011

And without that black strip, we would have gotten here a whole lot quicker:





Religion is just a tool like a gun. It can be used to bring out the best and worst in people. Not only do I think there is no way to avoid having people create and practice some sort of religion, without it we would not be able to cooperate for the survival of the species. We have had some sort of religious practice for our entire history so it must have some sort of evolutionary utility. The secret is to use it for the purpose for which it is intended which, in too small a nutshell, is to foster a sense of understanding and empathy for those around us. Without that, the degradations of technological advance would have, and will, continue to accelerate to the ruin of the entire human race.

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)
23. Where would women have fit in?
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:13 PM
Dec 2011

Without world religions tirelessly opressing women, their advancment could have changed our own signifigantly. Perhaps the images you present above are a bit more indicitive of MANkind running rampent, untempered by our female counterparts due to religious oppression of thier education, employment, and social status.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
46. Where would women have fit in?
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:34 PM
Dec 2011

Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Like I said, religion is a tool than can be used for good or ill. I think it is a mistake to lay all of the depredations the human race has perpetrated against the planet and itself at the feet of males.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_03.html
How did bonobos, which live in humid forests south of the Zaire River, evolve such a different social structure from chimpanzees since the two species split about 2 million years ago? Male dominance plays a big role in chimp society. Disputes are often resolved by threatening displays or by fighting. Female chimps lead a life much more solitary than that their bonobo cousins, and are sometimes harassed by the much larger males. Sex is strictly about reproduction, and reproductive tactics can include infanticide -- the killing of offspring unrelated to a male chimp. Infanticidal individuals remove potential competitors to their own offspring, and the mother, without an infant to care for, will become available for mating again much sooner.

...

Why, then, have chimps not evolved this social structure? The answer may lie in the history of the habitats they occupy. Both species of primates live in tropical forests along the Zaire River -- chimps north of the river, bonobos to the south. Their environments seem to be quite similar today. But about 2.5 million years ago, there seems to have been a lengthy drought in southern Zaire that wiped out the preferred food plants of gorillas and sent the primates packing. After the drought ended, the forests returned, but the gorillas did not.

Chimpanzees in this environment south of the river had the forest to themselves, and could exploit the fiber foods that had previously been eaten by gorillas -- foods that are still eaten by gorillas to the north. With this additional food to tide them over between fruit trees, they could travel in larger, more stable parties, and form strong social bonds. They became bonobos.

On the north side of the river, the chimps had to share their niche with gorillas, which eat the fiber foods. The chimps have to compete for fruit, and occasionally meat, food resources that tend to be widely scattered. Female chimps disperse into the forest with their infants to find enough to eat, and cannot spend time together to forge strong bonds. The changes in social behavior that occurred in response to this environmental factor may be what led chimps down a different evolutionary path, toward a society more prone to violence.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinct.html
After nearly going extinct 150,000 years ago, humankind split into small groups—living in isolation for nearly a hundred thousand years before "reuniting" and migrating out of Africa, a new gene study says.

"The population size was driven down to probably as low as 2,000 individuals, perhaps—just a few hundred individuals in each population," Wells added.

"We were on the brink of extinction."

Once the rough climatic conditions let up, the populations apparently expanded and ultimately moved out of Africa—perhaps helped by the new tools and technologies of the late Stone Age.



It may be that without the size, strength and aggressive tendencies of males the human race may not have survived at all. I wonder how much fighting occurred when all those separate bands of humans began to interact again? It's not hard to imagine evolution selecting for male possessive aggression for the survival of the species. The idea of "my woman" to continue "my bloodline" isn't a far cry from "my property".

It doesn't seem surprising to me that feminism in the United States blossomed in the sixties and seventies, a time of wealth and easy access to resources. I may be wrong and I certainly haven't made a study of it, but it may be that in times of scarcity women are treated as chattel and only in times of plenty do they enjoy greater freedom. Living in our highly technological age physical prowess and aggression are not necessarily required for survival. A woman can work at a computer terminal just as well, or probably better, than a man, advantages that benefit both genders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity
Traditional avenues for men to gain honor were that of providing adequately for their families and exercising leadership.[24] The traditional family structure consisted of the father as the bread-winner and the mother as the homemaker. During World War II, women entered the workforce in droves to replace the soldiers who were sent overseas. While some returned home to resume their positions as homemakers if their husbands survived the war, and others remained in the workplace. Over the decades since, women have risen to high political and corporate positions. This shift has caused an increase in women becoming the primary income-earners and men the primary care-givers[24] --a process author Jeremy Adam Smith calls "the daddy shift" in his 2009 book of that title.[25] As of 2007, 159,000 dads were primary care-givers and this number is increasing.[26] Dubbed stay-at-home dads, these men are performing duties in the home which are not being done by women. Regardless of age or nationality, men more frequently rank good health, harmonious family life and good relationships with their spouse or partner as important to their quality of life.[27]


I think that it's not hard to imagine that most of the men that died in some horrible war of aggression and conquest died to defend a woman and child back home. Compassion, tenderness and nurturing are sometimes luxuries we cannot afford. While women have certainly been the victims of such a lack, it has been men who have been forced to relinquish most of what makes us human just to stay alive. In the end, I think it's a two way street with a lot of twists and turns with no clear end or destination.
 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
53. Your second paragraph would be more compelling if human pair bonding was always
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:45 PM
Dec 2011

about agression and dominance of the male, it's not that simple, not that one dimensional. I see the point you are trying to make and it makes some sense but it's too simple to really explain what you are proposing.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
58. Well it is just a message board post.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:50 PM
Dec 2011

I have found that if you type more than two hundred words or so people just don't read it. You are right, it is incredibly complicated. Hence the remark about a two way street.

The physics of the matter remain. If you don't live long enough to reproduce, you lose and so does your DNA. A hard world demands hard people. Have you ever noticed that a lot of girls who like "bad boys" really like boys who are bad to everyone but them? Of course sometimes they make a mistake and marry an abusive asshole. And how many women have you heard say that they watch how a man treats wait staff at a restaurant when out on a date? Of course under those circumstances, when servers (servants) are bringing you food at issue is much more about social status than survival. People eat at restaurants when times are good.

Armchair anthropology to be sure and I of course have no research or data to support it. But does it sound at all fair to blame the male gender for all the bad shit humanity has done? Is the female gender really the font of all that is truly good in the human species? Does that make sense? Or is it possible that we are all human, male and female, and the exigent circumstances that surround our existence play a decisive role in how we treat each other in order to survive?

How many men do you know who really care what kind of kitchen faucet they have? I can't think of a single one of my acquaintances who gives a rip about the aesthetics of kitchen hardware. So why is there an entire "wall of faucets" at Home Depot? And drawer handles? And doorknobs? And rugs? And paint colors? As Rita Rudner said once, "men are just bears with furniture". So why did we make all that stuff? To make the women happy so we will get laid.

The horrible injustice of illegal abortion or rape is that women have the right to choose with whom they have sex and whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Those choices are their right as females. Thus, aggression in the interpersonal relationships between mates has no place at all. Hence all the fancy home furnishings. Making a nice place for the woman means the man is investing time and energy in the relationship, an indication he will stick around to help rear the child. (Please note the last block quote from Wiki.) Aggression in defense of the home is another investment.

Sure, men have done horrible violence for any number of reasons and will continue to do so. But I sometimes wonder how many of our environmental problems would be solved if women (although men are certainly not blameless here) decided they didn't need all the affectations of modern living.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
60. After reading this post and a more careful rereading of the other post
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:35 PM
Dec 2011

I misunderstood your point and realize that I focused on that one paragraph and connected with another posters comment just before yours and lost what you were really trying to say by that combination. Sorry for that unfounded jump to conclusion I made .

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
54. "Moved past" might not be the right phrase.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:58 PM
Dec 2011

Moved it where we couldn't see it might be more accurate.

Amazon rainforest




http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
“In 3 years, the Obama administration has built a vast drone/killing operation”; it describes the complete secrecy behind which this is all being carried out and notes: “no president has ever relied so extensively on the secret killing of individuals to advance the nation’s security goals.” Here is the first beautifully revealing passage:

Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists. It is a measure of the extent to which the drone campaign has become an awkward open secret in Washington that even those inclined to express misgivings can only allude to a program that, officially, they are not allowed to discuss.


Drone attack casualty (there are surprisingly few images of them)



http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Technology/story?id=1479506#.Tv4yMYG5-BM
The average computer monitor contains more than five pounds of lead. Computers can also contain mercury and cadmium. When you multiply that by the millions of outdated computers and monitors, you've got lots of toxins that you don't want to put back into the earth.

"Eighty percent of all the scrap electronics in the United States end up offshore and usually in Third World countries," said Bob Glavin of Chicago, who runs one of the biggest recycling plants in the country.





cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
65. Your appeals to emotion, while powerful, prove nothing.
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 10:17 AM
Dec 2011

Who is to say that that 500 year black hole is not the reason we now do all of this crazy stuff? Maybe if progress had not been oppressed and thwarted by religion, our sense of greed and power may have developed differently.

What I do know is that had we continued on the path without interference from religion (and survived it) we could very well be traveling to the stars by now.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
68. Well actually
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 02:06 PM
Dec 2011

nobody could know that. And your prognostication regarding the stars is also an understandable appeal to emotion. I don't think religion would have kept us from exploiting oil as an energy resource. But since we're just imagining here, as it stands now it's a fact that there is no replacement for oil and it's running out fast. Without that gap, we would have hit peak oil much sooner and at this point we would most likely be struggling to emerge from another dark age. And it would be a dark age caused by the exploitation of natural resources to drive technology, which depends on science. It could well be argued that the twentieth century was the most barbaric in human history. Those wars were fought for natural resources, as was almost every imperial conquest in history. Most of the time religion was just along for the ride as an excuse.

If purely rational thinking were the panacea that would lift the human race to the stars we would all be speaking Greek right now. If rational social organization and efficient government were the best solution for the vagaries of the human spirit I would be writing this in Latin. The devastation in the images above was not caused by religion. There was no religious crusade destroying rain forests, shipping tons of garbage to the third world, or burning children's faces. That devastation is caused by the need for natural resources to fuel science based technology. Religion is contributing to it because it uses technology. But religion didn't build all this shit, it just uses it just like everybody else believer and atheist alike. If atheists were as purely rational as we would like to think we are we'd be the biggest Luddites around.

It seems to me that both religion and science are working the same scam. Religion says, "Don't worry, heaven is your reward." and science says, "Don't worry, we'll get it figured out." All the while both of them are getting rich and anybody who isn't lucky enough to get with the program gets the shit kicked out of them.

I personally don't have a problem with religion or science. I think they are both vital to our survival as a species. It seems to me that the problem with religion begins when god gets property and the problem with science begins when ideas become property. When that happens people begin to identify more with their systems of thinking than with each other. And that's when the fighting begins because you have to dehumanize someone to brutalize them.

After the fall of the Roman empire religion did exactly what it was supposed to do. It reestablished relationships with people in proximity with each other. It was a difficult and ugly process and after a while god got property and everyone else got human barbeques. The twentieth century was a century of "isms". Capitalism, communism, and fascism fought it out across the entire planet, and in the end all we got out of it were more human barbeques.

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
69. Deus ex Machina!
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 02:23 PM
Dec 2011

technology as religion, control over nature (lat. supra natura). Technocracy and theocracy, same'o same'o...

Please, Something Else...

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
57. Well said. Right on the money.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:38 PM
Dec 2011

I love your comment about not being the known as an optimist. You can be really funny and very astute

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
59. Thanks.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:58 PM
Dec 2011

I think, as much as we disagree, we agree quite well on this. I make a living fixing other peoples stuff and the more I do it the less I like all that stuff. And I never did think too much of it.

I keep looking for people and all I see is mountains of stuff and reams of ideology. Where the hell are all the people?

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
43. Nice
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:12 PM
Dec 2011

And what does science say about social/biological/evolutionary phenomena showing exponential growth? Peak&Gaussian?

By this I'm not saying that the graph above should be taken seriously - e.g. algebra and chemistry (<-alchemy) are Arabic loanwords from the time when Islamic science was thriving...

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
67. No need to mention
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:07 PM
Dec 2011

the Franks, the Vandals, the Huns, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Avars, the Norse, the Mongols, the Black Death, brigands running rampant, the collapse of large scale agriculture, the rise of petty warlords and their constant warfare and raids, the collapse of civil government in most of Europe, climate change, more epidemics and plagues, the retraction of trade and commerce, etc, etc let's just make the infantile claim that is was all the fault of religion, Christianity in paticular,, let's just let antireligious bigotry rule the day , let's just alow prejudice win out over the factswe need to ignore to push that agenda.

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)
12. I disagree (with that post, not the other one, screw M. Night!)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:04 PM
Dec 2011

There's plenty of meditation outside religion, and the mind altering practices they offer are mostly brainwashing at best, something that could also be found outside of religion though granted, on a much much smaller scale.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
47. Meditation was invented by Hindus for religious purposes.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:34 PM
Dec 2011

To deny meditation as a religious practice demonstrates anti-religious bias, as opposed to critical thinking. The fact nonreligious people can enjoy meditation does not take away from the fact it is a tangible accomplishment and advancement for humanity.

If meditation is brainwashing, then every human experience is brainwashing.

The prolonged ritual dancing invented by religious shamans for religious purposes is not brainwashing either, but it is mind altering.

Ritual-sexual practices, invented by different religious people in different cultures, is also mind altering, but not brainwashing.

The existence of brainwashing is extremely controversial for sociologists. In my Sociology of Religion class, we read peer-reviewed articles both for and against the existence of brainwashing. They can't figure it out because there is no hard evidence for it.

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)
11. how strange...
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:01 PM
Dec 2011

Whenever there's a thread that vaguely implies that relgion is the best thing in the world, a small cadre of flag-wavers stand on it and announce that it's good, healthy, not historically destructive, or counter-productive to our species...

HOWEVER, whenever specific examples of it's posative contributions are asked for, the cadres is silent.

Perhaps we could drum up more responce by splitting the topic in two.

On one hand, open up the discussion of religions contributions to history, the species, and the planet, but don't make it sound as though they need to be POSATIVE things, that way we can include the massive list of negative contributions is has to offer up.

Then, when the inevitable cries of "NAZIS AND COMMIES WERE ATHEISTS!!!" starts up, you can add a caviot to the first question. Asking someone to offer up a POSATIVE act that theists have or even could do than an Atheist has not or could not. Then ask to provide an example of wicked acts that a theist has done that an atheist has not or would not.

One of those lists get pretty long pretty fast...

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
16. how strange....
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:36 PM
Dec 2011

Whenever there's a thread that is a contentless bashing of religion or people who hold religious beliefs, there is a small cadre of flag-wavers that stand on it and slap each other's backs over how clever they are.

HOWEVER, whenever those who hold religious beliefs post specific examples of positive contributions by the religious community (say the building and rebuilding of a GLBT embracing nativity scene), this same cadre is silent.

Oh, wait. no they aren't. They also also go and stand on that and and slap each other's backs.

Instead of posting things that are only meant to inflame the other sides, why don't we have some thoughtful and respectful conversation about how and why people see the world differently?

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)
17. you'll forgive me (I think you have to)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:44 PM
Dec 2011

You'll fogive me if I'm unimpressed when GLBT nativity scenes are built by representatives of religions that have worked for thousands of years to oppress, murder, and enslave certain groups. So now they'd like to apolagize by altering thier stance, and working these previsouly persicuted groups into thier religious imagery. I'm not gay myself but I would not be flattered I'd be further insulted to think any of those people believed thier apology would be accepted so easily.

Not to menion what a pathetic example that is to submit.

"Name one thing religion has provided the world in the way of posative advancment"

"Well we keep building the same old out-dated, dogmatic, and historically innaccurate shrines and idols we've always built, only now we exclude less people..."

(golf clap)

A single tear rolls down my cheek, I'm moved by how much less some small pockets of worshipers are retarding our progress as a people.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
19. You make the mistake of conflating those that have used religion
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:47 PM
Dec 2011

to oppress and enslave with those that have used religion to liberate and embrace. The very essence of bigotry is to ascribe the characteristics of some members of a group to anyone who may be a member of that group.

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)
20. used religion to liberate and embrace?
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:53 PM
Dec 2011

Anyone could liberate and embrace, you don't need religion to do it, you never did. I have indeed focused on the past evils, instead of the present goods, because I will not be told to forget, not by name calling, or cries of persecution from the majority. You have no right to forget what organized religion has done to this world and I do not buy for one second the completely flase reality that you try to portray around here, as religions suddenly being altruistic and pure.

 

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)
22. So often believers can't grasp a simple concept "you don't need religion to do it, you never didyo"
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:10 PM
Dec 2011

It really is very simple.

Yet so many think religious beliefs are an essential part of their altruism, part of their humanity, part of their good works.

I will grant organized religion some points for helping to organize people into groups to help other people out. They do that, but again, "you don't need religion to do it". Often times, that's all that's available in many places, but often times, what these religious groups have organized for was to build their own temples, literally, to worship themselves and their imagined god figure{s}.

Travels of the world, particularly Europe, but also Asia, will reveal marvelous architectural wonders, most of which are either palaces or houses of worship, and often the palaces are less ornate, less of an architectural wonder than the houses of worship close by. Notre Damme, The Taj Mahal, St Peter's the list goes on and on.

While a manger on church property with figures representing contemporary life is the USA is very nice, it is, after all, done on church property, to remind church members of oh how liberated and "welcoming" they, themselves are. It's almost like boasting. I'm happy they are so welcoming, but why the boasting? Why not have that manger scene INSIDE the church, where (presumably)no one would find it offensive.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
24. That's because, as you have so often pointed out, believers are really intellectually
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:16 PM
Dec 2011

inferior to non-believers.

Really?

The only people who I can imagine would be offended by a nativity scene that included gay and lesbian couples are homophobic bigots.

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)
26. speaking of which
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:24 PM
Dec 2011

I'd like to point out that if you really had examples of posative contributions, you could have rather handily dealt with the OP and myself in one sweep. Simply post the "specific examples of positive contributions" in a reply to the OP. then I look foolish for prematurely calling the game a check-mate, the OP is put in his place, and all the back-slapping is silenced...

Instead you don't reply to the OP with "specific examples of positive contributions", you list one, very weak, very small example of a good thing being done by good people and credit it to religion, due only to the context of the act. Instead you come to the thread not to address the OP at all but to address the back-slapping and to throw around words like "biggotry", it's not productive.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
28. The American Civil Rights Movement for African Americans
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:28 PM
Dec 2011

I agree that much of what is happening in this thread is not productive.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
30. Are you going to deny the role that religion and religious institutions played
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:47 PM
Dec 2011

in this movement?

If your goal is to shoot down anything that is submitted (which has been established as a pattern in this group), then why would anyone offer anything up?

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)
36. I didn't elaborate very well
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:07 PM
Dec 2011

as it is getting late where I am, and I've lost the vinegar to carry on this admittedly unproductive exchange.

Ironic that your second example was almsot exactly like the first one. Giving religion credit for ultimately undoing a dispicable wrong that it was largely if not solely responsible for in the first place... are they not merciful.

I'll leave it at that, since you obviously do not wish to be questioned, or asked to explain anything. Religion is a topic that does not stand up to peer review and in fact, historically doesn't tolerate it. If you would prefer to go back to posting nothing with the rest of the cadre, we can go back to patting ourselves on the back over how clever we are.

Good night, and have a lovely new year as I shall not see any of you until it is 2012!

(I'd put that wavey smiley thing here, but I don't know how and deeply despise smilies anyway)

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
38. And a lovely new year to you as well.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:11 PM
Dec 2011

FWIW, I am part of no cadre here (except possibly with my father, who I adore). And I do love to be questioned when the questioner is honestly interested in the response and not just waiting for a "gotcha".

I look forward to engaging with you in 2012. We don't need vinegar to do that, I hope.

(I would put that wavey thing here, but I won't out of respect for your deep hatred of smilies!).

 

mr blur

(7,753 posts)
62. Are you going to deny the role that socialists and communists institutions played
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:05 PM
Dec 2011

in this movement?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
63. Absolutely not. There were many parties involved.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:09 PM
Dec 2011

I never meant to imply that it was purely a religious movement, only that religious groups played a role (and a very important one, imo).

 

Eliminator

(190 posts)
33. Agreed. That's one.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:00 PM
Dec 2011

Of course, the fact that religion played the major part in enslaving African Americans in the first place cannot be neglected. I suppose it's only befitting that religion undo its own wrong.

 

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)
31. All people are equal, that's a simple concept, too!
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:56 PM
Dec 2011

It's just that some people fail to grasp simple concepts.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
34. Do those simple people fall into any groups? Because, unless I read this
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:02 PM
Dec 2011

completely wrong, you made the statement that "So often believers can't grasp a simple concept". That would seem to associate failure to grasp simple concepts with a certain group of people.

 

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)
40. "The only people who I can imagine would be offended by a nativity scene that included gay..........
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:26 PM
Dec 2011

The only people who I can imagine would be offended by a nativity scene that included gay and lesbian couples are":

People like this:




Ted Haggard Bashing Gays - from JESUS CAMP the Movie ON DVD



"Jeffress: Gays Can't Be Monogamous"


"Pastor Joel Osteen: Homosexuality is "a sin"; Elton John is a sinner"

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/24/pastor-joel-osteen-homosexuality-is-a-sin-elton-john-is-a-sinner/

Putting up a stick figure representing gay couples at a manger scene on the lawn of a church in a liberal college town in Southern California does little for the message of hatred being spread in the name of religious believers worldwide.

I'm sorry, symbolic lip service to the cause of equality for all human beings is a rather tepid response to the vociferous world of hatred and ignorance around in churches worldwide.
 

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)
48. Evidently the idea of belief in Christ or a god had no effect
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:37 PM
Dec 2011

upon these people.

They even use their religious beliefs as a justification for their homophobia and, worse, they use their position within the structure of religion to spread their hatred and ignorance.

In other words, clearly, THEY USE RELIGION TO SPREAD HATRED, MISTRUST, AND IGNORANCE!

Is any of this getting through? Wooden figures on a religious manger scene in a small Southern California college town, symbolically "welcoming" GLBT folks... not really doing an effective job in fighting against these worldwide religious wars of hatred and ignorance against the rights of minorities, now, is it?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
49. Is any of this getting through?? Did you really just say that?
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:44 PM
Dec 2011

Anyway, you are absolutely correct. They have used religion to spread hate and ignorance. It's been done forever and will continue to be done, no doubt.

As it is unlikely that I will ever be elected into a position of great power, I have come to realize that we each have to change the world in the ways that we can. This involves small, sometimes symbolic, actions. The important thing is to use them when we have the opportunity.

Like voting or registering people to vote. Like taking stand with bigots or bullies of all stripes whenever one encounters them. And, yes, by putting up images, bumper stickers or icons that support the civil liberties of other humans.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
25. Of course, anyone could (and should) work for social justice.
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:21 PM
Dec 2011

Religion is not needed at all to do that.

There have been both religious based and non-religious based movements that have moved mankind in a positive direction. Just as there have been both types of movements that have wreaked destruction and inhumanity.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
37. Anyone could oppress, murder and enslave certain groups, you don't need religion to do it,
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:10 PM
Dec 2011

you never did. But you do seem to chose to forget this little fact of the ascent of man, why is that, because it doesn't fit the narrative you chose to run with, just wondering?

deacon_sephiroth

(731 posts)
42. Because I'm staying on topic
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:36 PM
Dec 2011

Did I somewhere deny that bad things have happened in the absence of religion? Please point out to me where exactly I misrepresented the world as a perfect and altruistic place without religion. There are still wicked people abound, always have been, but I happen to agree with Steven Weinberg.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. "


(again I'm out for the night, for real this time) Though I'd like to point out that you ALSO failed to answer the OP and instead would rather complain about me pointing out that very fact. I invite you to actually join the discussion while I'm gone.

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
44. In the former thread
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:18 PM
Dec 2011

I mentioned, among others, Academy and Museum as specific religious cults from Greek antiquity, as roots of modern science. That post got no reply nor attention from the need to "prove" a point.

 

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)
45. There might have been confusion about the modern meaning of those terms as
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:27 PM
Dec 2011

opposed to their roots in ancient Greek religious thought and ways of categorizing the quest for knowledge.

While it is true that, for most of the history of mankind, religious institutions of ALL sorts have been associated with humankind's desire for categorizing and imparting SOME seeds of knowledge, there are as many instances wherein religion squelched the desire for pursuit of knowledge, accusing such figures of all forms of religious blasphemy along the way, executing some, imprisoning others, and burning the written "scientific" records of even more.

I would hardly lay claim that academic learning, nor the archiving of knowledge and discovery in museums really has deep religious causation and universal support.

But then there's those creation museums, of course.

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
52. I explained
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:33 PM
Dec 2011

quite carefully that the original Plato's Academy and the Museion of Alexandria were officially Greek religious cults. Those two religious institutions were the primary foundations of Western science, hence the modern meanings, and most of what we know about their contributions has been preserved by monks copying books in monasteries.

Claims about "no examples given" have no merit.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»List of religion's tangib...