This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

religion brings progress!

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. religion brings progress!

User Info: VirtuosaBaby420

VirtuosaBaby420
3 years ago#71
InfiniteOpening posted...
Also, I don't appreciate your condescending tone. At least listen to people and consider their viewpoints before lashing out. I have considered each of the viewpoints of Bahamut, and I simply do not agree at all.


You must be new around here. A word of advice, you'll find that going against the hivemind of a few posters here will result in being branded a troll and invite the slings and arrows of the board. You'll end up attacked whenever you post, slandered on a personal level, and moderated for things the sacred cows here get away with regularly. Even when you're right, you'll just be shouted down by the same handful of posters. This is the state of discourse on 261. Just let it happen, this board is an echochamber for a select few people to pat each other on the back for being smug, nothing more.
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

User Info: Robin_Mask

Robin_Mask
3 years ago#72
VirtuosaBaby420 posted...
InfiniteOpening posted...
Also, I don't appreciate your condescending tone. At least listen to people and consider their viewpoints before lashing out. I have considered each of the viewpoints of Bahamut, and I simply do not agree at all.


You must be new around here. A word of advice, you'll find that going against the hivemind of a few posters here will result in being branded a troll and invite the slings and arrows of the board. You'll end up attacked whenever you post, slandered on a personal level, and moderated for things the sacred cows here get away with regularly. Even when you're right, you'll just be shouted down by the same handful of posters. This is the state of discourse on 261. Just let it happen, this board is an echochamber for a select few people to pat each other on the back for being smug, nothing more.


It gets to the point where you can actually think they tip their fedoras after every reply.
KI: Fulgore/Orchid, USFIV: Bison/Evil Ryu/Makoto

User Info: FunWithAFryPan

FunWithAFryPan
3 years ago#73
Jimayo posted...
FunWithAFryPan posted...
Jimayo posted...
FunWithAFryPan posted...
I think you misunderstood me. My point is that in the absence of religion people aren't more or less likely to wage war, or at the very least this is a specious claim and isn't falsifiable.


And I'd have to disagree. You wouldn't be able to pull off the crusades without religion. That's less war right there.


Well, as per the point I was making, it's entirely likely that in a world with no religion people would have just waged some other war during that same period of time. Consider the political and geographical reasons for the Crusades. You didn't even provide a good example from actual history.


And I think that would of been better, because I know what was happening then, and I know why the pope started the crusades. The people would definitely have risen against the depredations of the young nobles and that would have been a good thing.


I thought we were talking about religion and how it (doesn't) make people more or less violent than they otherwise would be.
He who strikes with meaning is killed by meaning.

User Info: JuliusSaci

JuliusSaci
3 years ago#74
Religion is something that should eventually be dropped down completely for the good of society, not through an armed revolution like Karl Marx wanted but through the gradual education and enlightenment of society. It might take maybe 20, 40 years, but efforts must be taken to encourage kids to have atheist believes and a skeptical approach to the world. More Socrates, less Jesus.
Veni, Vidi, Vici

User Info: FunWithAFryPan

FunWithAFryPan
3 years ago#75
JuliusSaci posted...
Religion is something that should eventually be dropped down completely for the good of society,


What is religion doing to society that's so bad? People are still going to fight over territory regardless of what god supposedly tells them.
He who strikes with meaning is killed by meaning.

User Info: ForsakenHermit

ForsakenHermit
3 years ago#76
JuliusSaci posted...
Religion is something that should eventually be dropped down completely for the good of society, not through an armed revolution like Karl Marx wanted but through the gradual education and enlightenment of society. It might take maybe 20, 40 years, but efforts must be taken to encourage kids to have atheist believes and a skeptical approach to the world. More Socrates, less Jesus.


State atheism is bad. I want to live under a secular government not one that promotes irreligion much less atheism.
"Tyranny of all kinds is to be abhor'd whether it be in the hands of the one, or the few, or the many."-James Otis
the final bahamut 3 years ago#77
InfiniteOpening posted...

I'm a Ch'an Buddhist with sympathies towards Zurvanism and other forms of Zoroastrianism.

Almost all Ch'an Buddhists say either remain celibate or have a monogamous relationship with infrequent sex. Sex should not be the focal point of a relationship because it creates more attachments to the body and "style".


Good for you. Now why do you think your hokey religion is an argument?

Everything that is a reaction to the status quo is not a true revolution within my (anti-)ideology which is based off the teachings of figures like Hsu Yun and J. Krishnamurti.


Who in turn reacted to the status quo around them.

Revolution is an always has been a game of thesis and antithesis hopefully creating a synthesis. Although sometimes it's just antithesis killing or subjugating everyone who's into thesis, or vice versa. That sucks when revolution is like that.

By the same logic, I must join wars to understand the nature of PTSD and killing someone.


Not necessarily but you can't insulate yourself from soldiers - both those who are pro-war and those who are anti-war - to understand the impact of going to war or the nature of PTSD. Likewise, if you just stick with anti-war people you'll never hear the arguments in favour of war and you won't be able to actually judge whether or not you disagree with the pro-war people or whether you were just disagreeing with the image being painted of them on the anti-war side, or the other way around.

Also, by the same logic of "broadening one's horizon", I must swap wives in order to be "open-minded".

Again not necessarily. But if you never take someone who does wife swap seriously, then how can you have a wellformed idea of what wife swapping is actually about?

I don't really like you. You're not a critical thinker or open-minded at all.

Said the guy who'd rather be insular and dead than be given life-saving treatment by a someone who doesn't share his views on monogamy.


Have you read a single book on Zoroastrianism or Persian history?


Yes, I have. And again, I could point you to Scandinavia where Norse gods are still well known and still very visible in art, folklore and language, but the people of Scandinavia are still culturally Christian Europeans, not Norrøn.

I think that part of what you don't understand here is that cultures die differently than people do. And as I said, they can be revived.
Faciendere id pro RAVz.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.
the final bahamut 3 years ago#78
You've traveled but never outside your biases. Respect people's value no matter how "archaic" it may feel. There is no progress in the way you sociologically deem it.

And how, precisely, am I disrespecting your values by admitting the truth that for a long time Persian culture dead? Am I "disrespecting" your values by not automatically kowtowing to your beliefs on monogamy?



How many relationships have you destroyed or moved in the direction of dissolution with your hedonistic behavior?


None. I don't make a move on people I know to be in a relationship.
But hey, keep making wrong assumptions about me. It'll make you look smarter. At least you won't look like you're close-minded and have all this prejudice about what I must be like as a person just because I don't share your view on monogamy.


I could likewise say the fact you never settled down and took the time to bond/self-surrender with someone in a monogamous relationship (e.g., like a Bhakti meditation towards one's single lover), means you are missing out some things in life too. I would die for my wife and children, but I wouldn't die for you, let alone hug you.

That's a shame, because I'd hug you and risk my life for you. Because you're a human being and everyone deserves life. I'd risk my life for your wife and children too, again simply because they're alive and as a simple baseline deserve to remain that way.

I could of course talk about my bond with my family or my friends whom I am deeply devoted to. But you're also right, there are definitely things about a monogamous relationship that I'm missing out on. Just like you miss out on a lot of things about the non-monogamous lifestyle. That's just the way it goes: By having one experience you're automatically excluded from some other experience. You can't be a kid growing up in a metropolis and also have grown up on a small farmstead in the country.

I have no issue with your behavior as long as you don't impose it as a cultural standard for well-being. That is the issue I see here. Monogamy is an important part of a ethos, and you have no place in challenging it in a half-***** manner.

So "You have no place imposing your values because I'm busy imposing mine"? Hell, where do you even get the idea that anyone's imposing anything?
Faciendere id pro RAVz.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.

User Info: InfiniteOpening

InfiniteOpening
3 years ago#79
the final bahamut posted...
By having one experience you're automatically excluded from some other experience. You can't be a kid growing up in a metropolis and also have grown up on a small farmstead in the country.


Why didn't you just say this? I would have not gotten into this debate then.

----

"Good for you. Now why do you think your hokey religion is an argument?
...
...
...
Revolution is an always has been a game of thesis and antithesis hopefully creating a synthesis. Although sometimes it's just antithesis killing or subjugating everyone who's into thesis, or vice versa. That sucks when revolution is like that."

Did you just call my religion hokey and mention Hegel's dialectic like it's a fact? Do you realize just how ironic that is?

Again not necessarily. But if you never take someone who does wife swap seriously, then how can you have a wellformed idea of what wife swapping is actually about?


I've read William Blake's arguments for free love and the modern trend in evolutionary biology arguing polyamory is innate in us (e.g., Sex at Dawn). All of this assumes there is an innate nature in man, but I disagree with this. Genes form more of a "field of potential" whereas experience-dependent plasticity is what truly conditions us. Genes tilt us more in a direction, but just because one has genes associate with aggression doesn't mean such tendencies will emerge due to upbringing, nutrition, and other various factors.

It depends on one's goals in life. For stuff like Ch'an/Zen practice, connecting deeply to another, and raising children, monogamy is better, but if your goal is to be entertained as much as possible, then go ahead with polyamory.

Said the guy who'd rather be insular and dead than be given life-saving treatment by a someone who doesn't share his views on monogamy.


The reason I don't like you is because of your implicit biases in regards to what is more "secular". I agree, there are many actions that could touted as unethical, but when you start analyzing how globalization tends to destroy the diversity in cultures and beliefs, you start understanding how many assumptions underlie our claims on what is more "progressive". I can get more into this later.

And how, precisely, am I disrespecting your values by admitting the truth that for a long time Persian culture dead? Am I "disrespecting" your values by not automatically kowtowing to your beliefs on monogamy?


1. Dismissing my religion as hokey.
2. Saying my Pre-Islamic culture is dead without any explanation.
3. Acting like monogamy has been superseded by more "modern" definitions of sexuality.

That's a shame, because I'd hug you and risk my life for you. Because you're a human being and everyone deserves life. I'd risk my life for your wife and children too, again simply because they're alive and as a simple baseline deserve to remain that way.


Start off by Paypaling me some money.

People like you are just talk and when push comes to shove, you hide behind your masks.

User Info: Jimayo

Jimayo
3 years ago#80
FunWithAFryPan posted...
Jimayo posted...
FunWithAFryPan posted...
Jimayo posted...
FunWithAFryPan posted...
I think you misunderstood me. My point is that in the absence of religion people aren't more or less likely to wage war, or at the very least this is a specious claim and isn't falsifiable.


And I'd have to disagree. You wouldn't be able to pull off the crusades without religion. That's less war right there.


Well, as per the point I was making, it's entirely likely that in a world with no religion people would have just waged some other war during that same period of time. Consider the political and geographical reasons for the Crusades. You didn't even provide a good example from actual history.


And I think that would of been better, because I know what was happening then, and I know why the pope started the crusades. The people would definitely have risen against the depredations of the young nobles and that would have been a good thing.


I thought we were talking about religion and how it (doesn't) make people more or less violent than they otherwise would be.


5 crusades. All with the same cause that may have been eliminated if not for religion rallying support. Not to mention instead of nobles vs. commons coming to a head back then, they stayed mired in serfdom. But that's totally got nothing to do with religion and it's ability to rally the sheep.

And of course you ignored the religiously motivated horrible killing events I brought up.
261 - More troll food than any other board on the net.
What the right sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rYqF_BtIwAU
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. religion brings progress!

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived