Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For instance, religion was a huge factor for the Puritans in Boston. However, religion was not a factor for the Dutch who settled in NY. The Dutch were more tolerate of other religions. As a result, religious minorities settled in New Amsterdam.
Were the colonies relationships with Native Americans and Africans better with the Dutch vs. Puritans? How much of a factor was religion?
If you are proposing a theory, you should be able to test it. Has there been a society where science replaced religion? Were people treated better or worse? Was it more of the same?
I will give you points for what is happening in Gaza now. It is beyond the pale - we are complicit in genocide and the world is watching and will hold us responsible.
Well then at least we can agree about one thing...
There are a great many histories and sub-histories we can consider on any given day in all variety of contexts, and as a real fan of reading history, I am well aware of the many influences that have caused the many conflicts that make up our history going back to the beginning. My focus here has been only on where and how religion has played a significant part. Doing so should not be confused with any notion that there are not a good many other cases of friction and violence that have little or nothing to do with religious influence.
This is the sad truth about human nature as well. We need little reason to kill one another, but not to recognize how religion has played a significant part in far too many cases is simply disingenuous at a minimum.
I am not testing a theory. I am pointing at the history and drawing obvious conclusions that most historians have little trouble recognizing. There is no way to test a theory as you suggest, because there are no examples where religion has not been a part of society in one way or another. Or our history as humans in one form or another. More often than not a significant part. At best we might be able to note where a more secular approach to dealing with our differing beliefs has proven the preferred way. As promoted to a large extent here in America, though even still the influence of religion continues to be very strong and consequential.
Please don't get me started on Gaza and even about that too how religion and "tribalism" in America continues to play a major roll. Please...
Well then at least we can agree about one thing...
There are a great many histories and sub-histories we can consider on any given day in all variety of contexts, and as a real fan of reading history, I am well aware of the many influences that have caused the many conflicts that make up our history going back to the beginning. My focus here has been only on where and how religion has played a significant part. Doing so should not be confused with any notion that there are not a good many other cases of friction and violence that have little or nothing to do with religious influence.
This is the sad truth about human nature as well. We need little reason to kill one another, but not to recognize how religion has played a significant part in far too many cases is simply disingenuous at a minimum.
I am not testing a theory. I am pointing at the history and drawing obvious conclusions that most historians have little trouble recognizing. There is no way to test a theory as you suggest, because there are no examples where religion has not been a part of society in one way or another. Or our history as humans in one form or another. More often than not a significant part. At best we might be able to note where a more secular approach to dealing with our differing beliefs has proven the preferred way. As promoted to a large extent here in America, though even still the influence of religion continues to be very strong and consequential.
Please don't get me started on Gaza and even about that too how religion and "tribalism" in America continues to play a major roll. Please...
I agree with you. Look at the Aztec religion with their religious sacrifices. Some religions are invented out of thin air because humans have some basic need for religion. At times, it seems the bloodier the religion the better.
Where I disagree is science isn't a substitute for religion. I wish there was another option.
I agree with you. Look at the Aztec religion with their religious sacrifices. Some religions are invented out of thin air because humans have some basic need for religion. At times, it seems the bloodier the religion the better.
Where I disagree is science isn't a substitute for religion. I wish there was another option.
I'm not sure I would use the word "substitute" when it comes to what I try to explain or promote by way of these Ten Truths. It's not an all or nothing sort of option. I am mostly highlighting the scientific method as one that tends to promote the most objective, fact-based, path toward recognizing the universal truths we can all generally agree upon without the sort of friction, conflict and even violence that tends to go with religion.
There are a good many paths toward making peaceful progress, and as also mentioned in these truths, there is the positive about religion too. It's the negatives about religion that people need to recognize and "substitute" with something else. Much like the scientific method is designed to be self-correcting. Validating. To the extent religion can do the same, fine! Problem with most religions, however, they don't work the same way. They don't serve the same purpose, and they certainly don't promote the same things.
Science, history, psychology, religion, personal experience, and all sources of learning should be considered, evaluated and judged accordingly. Not so one can substitute another. That's not even realistic from a practical standpoint. Rather than any be substituted by another, we should simply adopt "best practices," and avoid the sorts of beliefs and unnecessary conflicts that religion has a history of bringing to a boil.
I'm not sure I would use the word "substitute" when it comes to what I try to explain or promote by way of these Ten Truths. It's not an all or nothing sort of option. I am mostly highlighting the scientific method as one that tends to promote the most objective, fact-based, path toward recognizing the universal truths we can all generally agree upon without the sort of friction, conflict and even violence that tends to go with religion.
There are a good many paths toward making peaceful progress, and as also mentioned in these truths, there is the positive about religion too. It's the negatives about religion that people need to recognize and "substitute" with something else. Much like the scientific method is designed to be self-correcting. Validating. To the extent religion can do the same, fine! Problem with most religions, however, they don't work the same way. They don't serve the same purpose, and they certainly don't promote the same things.
Science, history, psychology, religion, personal experience, and all sources of learning should be considered, evaluated and judged accordingly. Not so one can substitute another. That's not even realistic from a practical standpoint. Rather than any be substituted by another, we should simply adopt "best practices," and avoid the sorts of beliefs and unnecessary conflicts that religion has a history of bringing to a boil.
That's all...
We seek the same result, LearnMe, but you seem to have misidentified religion as the culprit, IMO. The culprit is our innate hubris about "being right" and fear of "being wrong" whatever the issue or venue when doing the above evaluating and judging "best practices." This forum has been an education about such "substitutions." I don't see such hubris or fear being "substituted" for in our human nature any time soon. I have identified agape love as the "best practices" solution and an exemplar in Jesus, but I am weary of the enigmatic resistance to it.
We seek the same result, LearnMe, but you seem to have misidentified religion as the culprit, IMO. The culprit is our innate hubris about "being right" and fear of "being wrong" whatever the issue or venue when doing the above evaluating and judging "best practices." This forum has been an education about such "substitutions." I don't see such hubris or fear being "substituted" for in our human nature any time soon. I have identified agape love as the "best practices" solution and an exemplar in Jesus, but I am weary of the enigmatic resistance to it.
No. I can't agree with your assessment or characterization here at all. Almost as if you are trying not to understand me or very much wanting to misrepresent what I've been trying to explain here. A little frustrating to keep correcting these sorts of comments that are well off the mark...
I don't finger religion "as the culprit."
Again and again I have only commented about the "good, bad and ugly" related to the sources of learning available. In particular to compare and contrast science and religion in these regards. I am simply describing the different sources of learning available to all of us. For all humanity, and noting the "strengths and weaknesses" where they should be noted. In the case(s) where religion can be viewed "as the culprit," so it should be noted. To judge what is right or wrong, better or worse, along these lines, in an objective critical thinking manner is part of what I call "the slow maturing of man."
The "culprit" in too many cases is religion, but religion is not the one and only culprit in all cases. Of course not. Please don't "put words in my mouth." If we want to talk culprit as it seems you wish, religion is not entirely guilty or innocent, and I can think of a good many other "culprits" when it comes to our many short-comings as human beings. Which again all too often religion capitalizes upon in ways the scientific method simply does not.
I agree with you. Look at the Aztec religion with their religious sacrifices. Some religions are invented out of thin air because humans have some basic need for religion. At times, it seems the bloodier the religion the better.
Where I disagree is science isn't a substitute for religion. I wish there was another option.
Ah..."invented out of thin air"...like christianity?
No. I can't agree with your assessment or characterization here at all. Almost as if you are trying not to understand me or very much wanting to misrepresent what I've been trying to explain here. A little frustrating to keep correcting these sorts of comments that are well off the mark...
I don't finger religion "as the culprit."
Again and again I have only commented about the "good, bad and ugly" related to the sources of learning available. In particular to compare and contrast science and religion in these regards. I am simply describing the different sources of learning available to all of us. For all humanity, and noting the "strengths and weaknesses" where they should be noted. In the case(s) where religion can be viewed "as the culprit," so it should be noted. To judge what is right or wrong, better or worse, along these lines, in an objective critical thinking manner is part of what I call "the slow maturing of man."
The "culprit" in too many cases is religion, but religion is not the one and only culprit in all cases. Of course not. Please don't "put words in my mouth." If we want to talk culprit as it seems you wish, religion is not entirely guilty or innocent, and I can think of a good many other "culprits" when it comes to our many short-comings as human beings. Which again all too often religion capitalizes upon in ways the scientific method simply does not.
I guess we are too much at loggerheads to find an agreement despite our best efforts. The bold kind of belies your denials of identifying religion as the culprit instead of our human nature. Your assertions about the scientific method and the reality of the science venue as impacted by that same human nature (particularly access to peer-reviewed publications) are on the naive side, IMO.
Perhaps, the Aztec, Old Norse and various pagan religions.
The New Testament is true. Although, some Christian demoninations are pretty weird.
It's a hard subject to theorize about online.
In my line of work, we call these conclusory assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Ah...you do understand that billions of people around the world don't believe in the Old Testament??? Or the New Testament either???
We all know the New Testament stopped being true when they rolled out the Quran. And then somewhere along the line we realized that LaVeyan Satanism is the one true faith, may the memory of Howard Stanton Levey be a blessing.
Last edited by ElijahAstin; 01-27-2024 at 05:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
