Teaching liberals why we have religion:[W:792, 2336]

[ataraxia]

So long as there are some bounds or limits on such power of consensus it works but, absent that, it becomes tribalism.

Not really. Not all ways of doing things is the same, and if people remain rational, some consensus can be generally reached. There is some universality to rationality. That was the premise behind the separation of church and state in the Constitution of this country.

Tribalism comes when each tribe ascribes its own most current system of morality to its own deities and otherworldly entities, thus putting it completely out of reach of any rational discussion, debate, trying to understand other points of view or entirely new ones, compromise, negotiation, etc...

If someone's only argument for doing things their way is "Because God said so that's why", how are you going to rationally debate its pros and cons?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The multiple sects or cults are one of my main problems with Christianity.

THE RULES:

#1 There are no hard and fast rules.

#2 (see #1)


It is the problem of trying to counter national, cultural or tribal differences with any "one true way" edcit even if labeing that as Christianity, Islam, Judism, multiculturalism or secularsim. Absent some untiing but flexible (are they truely opposites?) principles can be accepted by all then things will remain a mess.

Tribalism, Culture and the Nation-State > Rebecca Bynum

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not really. Not all ways of doing things is the same, and if people remain rational, some consensus can be generally reached. There is some universality to rationality. That was the premise behind the separation of church and state in the Constitution of this country.

Tribalism comes when each tribe ascribes its own most current system of morality to its own deities and otherworldly entities, thus putting it completely out of reach of any rational discussion, debate, trying to understand other points of view or entirely new ones, compromise, negotiation, etc...

If someone's only argument for doing things their way is "Because God said so that's why", how are you going to rationally debate its pros and cons?

THE RULES:

#1 There are no hard and fast rules.

#2 (see #1)


You make good points but in order to have a culture it must have a means of stabilizing (defending?) itself. If you are living alone and then simply by deciding to add a roommate (or worse yet a few just show up and refuse to leave) you were forced to re-decide everything on a mutual and equal basis you would soon see problems.

Tribalism, Culture and the Nation-State > Rebecca Bynum

 

[nota bene]

Start at page 1 and observe the person who started this whole nearly year-long thread.

"The person" means one person, and I said in real life.

 

[ataraxia]

THE RULES:

#1 There are no hard and fast rules.

#2 (see #1)


You make good points but in order to have a culture it must have a means of stabilizing (defending?) itself. If you are living alone and then simply by deciding to add a roommate (or worse yet a few just show up and refuse to leave) you were forced to re-decide everything on a mutual and equal basis you would soon see problems.

Tribalism, Culture and the Nation-State > Rebecca Bynum

True. But rational discussion, compromise, negotiation, empathy, rational debate, and openness to new ideas are going to be your only hope for bringing different cultures together. I know it's not perfect, but that's often because one or both sides think that any compromise or openness to new ideas is betraying the will of their God. Each side ascribing its most current opinions to their respective gods and holy books is no foundation for anything other than warfare and stagnation.

 

[ataraxia]

"The person" means one person, and I said in real life.

It's all over real life. People think atheists are less moral than even Muslims!

"Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism, morality is up for grabs."
https://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality

 

[zyzygy]

It's all over real life. People think atheists are less moral than even Muslims!

Muslims are not moral? That will come as a shock to my Muslim friends.

 

[ataraxia]

Muslims are not moral? That will come as a shock to my Muslim friends.

Sometimes a tone of sarcasm does not come through very well on these written exchanges.

 

[ttwtt78640]

True. But rational discussion, compromise, negotiation, empathy, rational debate, and openness to new ideas are going to be your only hope for bringing different cultures together. I know it's not perfect, but that's often because one or both sides think that any compromise or openness to new ideas is betraying the will of their God. Each side ascribing its most current opinions to their respective gods and holy books is no foundation for anything other than warfare and stagnation.

Yep, that is why separate nation states with fixed territorial boundaries, sovereign control within them and a non-aggression pact between them is likely the best we can hope for.

 

[nota bene]

It's all over real life. People think atheists are less moral than even Muslims!

And people are just walking up to other people and calling them immoral? As I say, this has never been my experience.

 

[nota bene]

It's all over real life. People think atheists are less moral than even Muslims!

And people are just walking up to other people and calling them immoral? As I say, this has never been my experience.

 

[Paralogic]

so? did somebody tell you all students learn the 10 commandments well and obey them???? Christ died for our sins not for our good deeds. isn't learning the basics astounding?

Millions upon millions of people have died or been tortured and died throughout human history, in wars, in social conflicts, in all kinds of situations. People are dying now under the pretense that they have to die and religious people on the side of the killers, are accepting it with no opposition. Why do people think the death of one single person, in the history of unaccountable deaths in the human history, is of any importance whatsoever?

 

[Paralogic]

God did not allow or interfere in any of mankind's genocides. Your concept of God is 100% and perfectly illiterate.

Of course your god allowed the genocides! If he didn't want them, he would have stopped them! It's the Epicurean Paradox from 350 BC!

 

[zyzygy]

Of course your god allowed the genocides! If he didn't want them, he would have stopped them! It's the Epicurean Paradox from 350 BC!

These believers want to have their cake and eat it.

 

[calamity]

These believers want to have their cake and eat it.

"Believers" believe only what they want to believe. That's why most rational people look at them and laugh when they spout out stupid crap like what was written in the post P-logic replied to.

 

[soylentgreen]

The bible, like the constitution or any set of laws is both changed and reinterpreted. The bible (OT) did not change and yet religions (said to be based on it) no longer preach the virtues of properly beating your slaves.

You make my argument, time and circumstances change our morality. Not what is written must be eternal.
Yet we have conservative christians who will insist on upholding outdated beliefs and morals. Same sex marriage is a good example of that. As time moves on there is less grounds for holding to a morality of marriage only between the two sexes yet christians refuse to let go. Their only claim left is because the bible says so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You make my argument, time and circumstances change our morality. Not what is written must be eternal.
Yet we have conservative christians who will insist on upholding outdated beliefs and morals. Same sex marriage is a good example of that. As time moves on there is less grounds for holding to a morality of marriage only between the two sexes yet christians refuse to let go. Their only claim left is because the bible says so.

Nope, that is not the only claim. The purpose of marriage was not originally about taxation status or fringe benefit qualification - what changed were not only the rules of marriage but its very purpose. Once the government gets into the picture then secondary things become the driver for the changing of primary things.

 

[ataraxia]

Yep, that is why separate nation states with fixed territorial boundaries, sovereign control within them and a non-aggression pact between them is likely the best we can hope for.

Most nations of the world today, even after all the divisions that have been made so far, are still ethnically and religiously very diverse. For example, look at the conflicts between Muslims and Buddhists currently in Myanmar. Look at all the religious and ethnic clashes in what I thought it was a fairly homogeneous country like the former Yugoslavia. I was surprised to learn that even Iran is highly ethnically diverse, with Persians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, Jews, all sorts of different nomadic tribes, etc.... living there.

I don't think continuing to divide up territories further and further is going to help. We can keep dividing until we all or small nuclear families living separated from each other ad a bunch of hermit cave dwellers. And even that would not be a guarantee against Further conflict. Even people as homogeneous as Mormons have lawsuits against each other and divorces.

For me, I think the best we can do is promote a culture that is better educated on basic social skills, Learning to live with other people, empathy, and tolerance.

 

[James972]

I think the best we can do is promote a culture that is better educated on basic social skills, Learning to live with other people, empathy, and tolerance.

that would rule out liberalism since it is about identity groups and encouraging each to rip the other off and ultimately civil war. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

Their only claim left is because the bible says so.

wrong of course, their claim is that history and evolution are correct. We have dominant same sex marriage because of evolution and as believers in science we must act accordingly

 

[James972]

Of course your god allowed the genocides!

obviously god does not interfere with the good and bad things that happen here, so the assumption that he "allows" or "disallows" things is 100% absurd. If he existed and/or controlled things he could make us all stones or make earth heaven, but only the perfectly illiterate would think of our God in those terms.

 

[Quag]

that would rule out liberalism since it is about identity groups and encouraging each to rip the other off and ultimately civil war. Do you understand?

Actually that kind of behavior you see in extreme right wing religious zealots.
You know there is one of those who actually started a thread about Republicans being White nationalists and Democrats being Hispanic nationalists.

 

[Quag]

wrong of course, their claim is that history and evolution are correct. We have dominant same sex marriage because of evolution and as believers in science we must act accordingly

Seriously typos are one thing but this isn't even comprehendible. Perhaps you are one of those illiterate liberals I keep hearing about

 

[blarg]

obviously god does not interfere with the good and bad things that happen here, so the assumption that he "allows" or "disallows" things is 100% absurd. If he existed and/or controlled things he could make us all stones or make earth heaven, but only the perfectly illiterate would think of our God in those terms.

isnt the bile filled with god interfering with things?

your pretty much admitting your god allows everything here to

 

[blarg]

wrong of course, their claim is that history and evolution are correct. We have dominant same sex marriage because of evolution and as believers in science we must act accordingly

you mean
let people marry some one of the gender they want

and most of the time will be between men and women?