Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-03-2012, 03:21 PM #1051
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Regardless of initial intent, we have seen the repercussions of separating church from the exclusive ability to govern. It's been astronomically better in all instances thus far, hasn't it?
That's besides the point. We know lots of things are astronomically better. The short and long-term benefits of trying to make them "grow" past Islam do not compare to, say, the repeal of bans on usury. It'd probably be much easier to integrate into their culture and it has real historical evidence supporting its benefits.

Quote:

I knew you would pick that out of my response. I should have expanded upon it further than "At the same time, we have had disastrous results as well." I do know that Japan and Germany are the minority in this case. But I also am not approving of military action for such idea spreading. I never have agreed with it and I never will. I completely agree with you in the second part of the quoted text above. I don't want to involve nation-building as much as I want an idealistic method for governance that is critiqued and based off real world evidence for a society's evolution.
Minority doesn't begin to explain it. They are the only two examples.

Idealistic method for governance? What exactly is that?

Please, explain what real world evidence for a society's evolution is. Because religion has been shown to be a HUGE factor in improving the world in all measures.


Quote:
My personal bias isn't against religion itself. It's against the ease of control religion has on so many people. When religion is claimed as a justifiable cause for physical action, it crosses boundaries. It's claims are of the supernatural and it is too easily used to persuade those that don't understand the natural. It's the individual people that do this, but individuals can sum up to a larger whole, such as the countries in the Middle East that want to control their population to prevent free thought.
Why is that different than any other ideology? Like I said, a bias against religion.

Quote:
I do not believe using explanations of the supernatural to explain the purpose of the natural is a logical clause. When anyone is asked "what do you know of the supernatural?" we all get the same reply; we all have the same amount of knowledge and that is "I know nothing of it." Because of this, religion should hold no place in the governance of others. People who attempt to use it as a form of governance are attempting totalitarian rule, whether they realize it or not.
Define logical. You're sounding quite prejudiced against the years and years and years and years of culture that exists around the world.

Oh god that last sentence. Define governance please. Religion is a form of governance regardless of the intentions of people who claim to be religious.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 07-03-2012, 03:28 PM #1052
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Oh for the love of god. Picking any ideology to model society after is a system of control. You need a helm to steer the ship after all.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 03:29 PM #1053
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH CONTROL.

order is best.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 03:30 PM #1054
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
People born into any country are in some manner limited to what they can and can't practice. Hell our educational system shoves our own brand of mysticism down our throats by glorifying our notion of freedom equality and liberty. The point is, we are all limited by our exposure to the environment we live in. I'm not given much of a choice but to support the republic form of government and the constitution.

Blind patriotism comes to mind. Cue the country music.
I do agree with you here. I think there is a difference in the level of limiting factors and the reasoning behind them though. And I do think that there is a direct link between the level of control over population and that population's ability to output in regards to education, science, medicine, economic strength, and the other foundations that build up a successful society that harbors less violence with healthier lives and a stronger ability to coexist with a higher level of well being.


Quote:
The overarching point is that free from the shackles of abrahamic faith, we still do no better. Hell we are no less fixated on spreading our dogma worldwide than any faith might be.

I'm not entirely convinced that people are happy or experience a peace of mind here. Especially generations younger than the boomers. Look at our behavior.
Here is not the best place to measure happiness without the shackles of Abrahamic religion. We are still a Christian nation. Hell, still only about 30% of the younger population even has doubt that God exists.

I think it would be better to look at nations like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the like and you'll see societies that are vastly different from ours. These countries don't attempt to "nation build" other countries. They take some of the best aspects of our country and strip away a lot of the worst.

Yes, mankind can still spread dogma with or without religion, but we do have documented progression in overall well being for individuals that coincides with the release of religious rule.

Quote:
No I said it would contribute to the death of the culture. You can't strengthen a culture based on a religion by removing belief in the religion. The two are inexorably linked.
Blaspheming a religious figure =/= removing belief in the religion. That is up to the culture to decide, which is my point. Blaspheming a religious figure could, in fact, strengthen the society's belief in their religion, causing more critical thought and different understandings.

Quote:
Besides the west is a good indication of what happens. The millennial generation are the most secular. The bulk of the remaining religious are vultures and weekenders.
And we can't measure any success on the part of the youngest generation because the youngest generation has yet to hold its role in the governing of this country.

Quote:
It is more likely that they will simply embrace western consumerism with the aesthetic appearance of their heritage. Probably nothing more. Turkey was going that direction until the tables turned.

To hell with equal rights. People should only have the rights required for them to fulfill their roles. Code of Manu.
Are you arguing our roles are predetermined? If not, then aren't we all able to change our roles at will, thus allowing us to have any rights we want at any time? Isn't this most easily addressed by equal rights for all?
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien

Last edited by Treghc : 07-03-2012 at 03:34 PM.
Treghc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 03:49 PM #1055
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
That's besides the point. We know lots of things are astronomically better. The short and long-term benefits of trying to make them "grow" past Islam do not compare to, say, the repeal of bans on usury. It'd probably be much easier to integrate into their culture and it has real historical evidence supporting its benefits.
And certain laws ascertained from religious followings have historical evidence to support its detriments. Should these not be addressed?

Quote:
Minority doesn't begin to explain it. They are the only two examples.
Thus, they are the minority.

Quote:
Idealistic method for governance? What exactly is that?

Please, explain what real world evidence for a society's evolution is. Because religion has been shown to be a HUGE factor in improving the world in all measures.
The discovery of quantum mechanics changes society's ways, largely from an economical standpoint. Bar code scanning, GPS, cell phones, the list is far too long to even attempt to knock out here, but such a discovery has changed the ways society's operate. We can even watch the cultures of Catholics or other Christian denominations evolving and changing their perspective and treatment of others in instances like the treatment of homosexuals. Christians alike have also evolved past their beliefs of burning men and women at the stake for witchcraft and wizardry. It's evolution born from critical thinking and understanding.

And yes, religion has had its significant moments in improving societies. Those moments are past though. We haven't had a great improvement in the lives of those within societies in a long, long time. All of the improvements come from deeper understandings, largely stemming from scientific discovery and/or methodology.

Quote:
Why is that different than any other ideology? Like I said, a bias against religion.
Not bias against religion. Bias against the areas religion claims to supervise; bias against religions credibility when it makes certain claims. We have better methods of understanding now.

Quote:
Define logical. You're sounding quite prejudiced against the years and years and years and years of culture that exists around the world.
You can't claim to know something by claiming it comes from an unknowable source. You don't see the misstep in logic there?

Quote:
Oh god that last sentence. Define governance please. Religion is a form of governance regardless of the intentions of people who claim to be religious.
And it's when religion attempts to govern others that I have a problem with. They don't know if they're right or wrong. The religious person's experience with the supernatural is just as limited as a nonreligious person, yet the religious person is often granted an excuse from critique when making claims that supposedly come from the supernatural.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 03:55 PM #1056
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I do agree with you here. I think there is a difference in the level of limiting factors and the reasoning behind them though. And I do think that there is a direct link between the level of control over population and that population's ability to output in regards to education, science, medicine, economic strength, and the other foundations that build up a successful society that harbors less violence with healthier lives and a stronger ability to coexist with a higher level of well being.

It isnt so much the level as it is the type of controls in place.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Here is not the best place to measure happiness without the shackles of Abrahamic religion. We are still a Christian nation. Hell, still only about 30% of the younger population even has doubt that God exists.
You're mixing my statements. The point about happiness was unrelated. Merely saying I don't think people are as happy as we make them out to be. Observe our behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I think it would be better to look at nations like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the like and you'll see societies that are vastly different from ours. These countries don't attempt to "nation build" other countries. They take some of the best aspects of our country and strip away a lot of the worst.
These nations defense is subsidized by the cock of the US military. Those countries are sad places. Formerly strong and proud people reduced to what they are. Tragic. Wheres the warrior spirit Nordmen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Yes, mankind can still spread dogma with or without religion, but we do have documented progression in overall well being for individuals that coincides with the release of religious rule.
Some dogma is more beneficial than other dogma. Correct. Glad that's outta the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Blaspheming a religious figure =/= removing belief in the religion. That is up to the culture to decide, which is my point. Blaspheming a religious figure could, in fact, strengthen the society's belief in their religion, causing more critical thought and different understandings.
Monkey see monkey do. People not taking the religion seriously causes others to become influenced. There's no guarantee. However youth have a propensity for counter culture for the mere sake of rebellion. Look at this country post 1960ish.

Critical.thought doesn't happen. Hell look at all the fanatical militant internet atheists who are ignorant as ****. They merely repeat the blogs the read or the pundits they hear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
And we can't measure any success on the part of the youngest generation because the youngest generation has yet to hold its role in the governing of this country.
Except I only brought them up to show the lack of religious belief. Or increasing lack of religious belief to be accurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Are you arguing our roles are predetermined? If not, then aren't we all able to change our roles at will, thus allowing us to have any rights we want at any time? Isn't this most easily addressed by equal rights for all?
No. I'm saying that most people are born into a natural heirarchy of ability. It is thus that rights should be distributed. As you go up the pyramid the amount of individuals in each level decreased but their responsibilities increase or should increase tenfold. That is the best distribution of privelage or right as we call it. Equal rights tells the peasants that they should be unhappy with their duty, forgo that duty and become kings. Incessant need for equality is oddly correlated with unhappiness.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 04:03 PM #1057
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
It doesn't matter whether or not a religion is right or wrong. It only matters if what it teaches works. It doesn't matter if what is written in the constitution is right or wrong. What matters is whether or not it works. It doesn't matter whether the cosmic fireball we orbit is named amun ra, Yahweh or the sun. What matters is what is written about it and its relationship to us and our lives.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 04:05 PM #1058
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Religion doesn't work for understanding the world.
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 04:07 PM #1059
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
And certain laws ascertained from religious followings have historical evidence to support its detriments. Should these not be addressed?
What does that have to do with what I said? You have no capacity for the economic way of thinking. It's not simply about going over each law and finding out the cultural basis for its existence and erasing it from society. By repealing bans on usury you can set into motion one of the key market processes that lead to a rapidly growing society. When economies grow, people become more modern.

Merchants gain respect, women can gain entrance into the market place which eventually leads to them entering the political arena. When people are allowed to be successful prejudicial barriers can break down. As I'm sure you know, economic success in a capitalist economy doesn't require elite social standing or years of old money. Markets require private property rights, a very "western, liberal" thing. Markets help build capital within a society. Markets are quite democratic, allowing consumers to "vote" on the goods that they are provided, and everyone can vote. This helps introduce western-democratic policies. The ban on usury prevents quite a bit of economic growth which allows theocratic governments to maintain their power with ease. You aren't going to socially engineer yourself away from primitive, theocratic societies.

Quote:

Thus, they are the minority.
You've now said the same thing two posts in a row. That little quote re-enforces the fact that they're a minority. Just in case you weren't aware, when I say minority doesn't begin to explain it I'm not saying they aren't a minority...


Quote:
The discovery of quantum mechanics changes society's ways, largely from an economical standpoint. Bar code scanning, GPS, cell phones, the list is far too long to even attempt to knock out here, but such a discovery has changed the ways society's operate. We can even watch the cultures of Catholics or other Christian denominations evolving and changing their perspective and treatment of others in instances like the treatment of homosexuals. Christians alike have also evolved past their beliefs of burning men and women at the stake for witchcraft and wizardry. It's evolution born from critical thinking and understanding.
So you have a couple examples of technological revolution. What does that tell us about the Middle East, and what should the US do?

Quote:
And yes, religion has had its significant moments in improving societies. Those moments are past though. We haven't had a great improvement in the lives of those within societies in a long, long time. All of the improvements come from deeper understandings, largely stemming from scientific discovery and/or methodology.
Methodology? Please, explain that one. Have you ever thought that religions role within society helps set into place an environment where such improvements can be made? Max Weber has written quite a lot on this.

Quote:
Not bias against religion. Bias against the areas religion claims to supervise; bias against religions credibility when it makes certain claims. We have better methods of understanding now.
You are not naming any qualities inherent to religion, yet your focus is explicitly on organized religion. It is a bias against religion. It's nothing offensive, it's just a fact.

Science does not offer a better understanding of the questions that the religious ask. At least not anyone who has actually studied the religion they claim to be devout about.
Quote:
You can't claim to know something by claiming it comes from an unknowable source. You don't see the misstep in logic there?

And it's when religion attempts to govern others that I have a problem with. They don't know if they're right or wrong.
You never said there's a misstep in the logic of religious arguments, you said it is not a logical cause. You don't understand that they can make that claim, and it rests on a presumption of faith. Your refusal to accept this isn't indicative of some noble quest for truth, but a sad misunderstanding of religious thought and political authority. This is what I mean when I say you're a bull****ter.

Quote:
And it's when religion attempts to govern others that I have a problem with. They don't know if they're right or wrong. The religious person's experience with the supernatural is just as limited as a nonreligious person, yet the religious person is often granted an excuse from critique when making claims that supposedly come from the supernatural.
Politics isn't about knowing whether one is right or wrong. Can't you see that? Governing institutions don't attempt to govern others, they do. Do you not understand that our society, and just about every non-totalitarian/quite authoritarian society is POLYCENTRIC? Religion is a governing institution. It provides rules and cultural norms for people's behavior. It does not have a monopoly on legitimized coercion ala the state.

The only reason one should oppose a religious government versus a secular one is because the religious administration offers worse policies than the secular, not because of some inherent difference in quality.

Last edited by Vit Beeyer : 07-03-2012 at 04:24 PM.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 05:36 PM #1060
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
What does that have to do with what I said? You have no capacity for the economic way of thinking. It's not simply about going over each law and finding out the cultural basis for its existence and erasing it from society. By repealing bans on usury you can set into motion one of the key market processes that lead to a rapidly growing society. When economies grow, people become more modern.

Merchants gain respect, women can gain entrance into the market place which eventually leads to them entering the political arena. When people are allowed to be successful prejudicial barriers can break down. As I'm sure you know, economic success in a capitalist economy doesn't require elite social standing or years of old money. Markets require private property rights, a very "western, liberal" thing. Markets help build capital within a society. Markets are quite democratic, allowing consumers to "vote" on the goods that they are provided, and everyone can vote. This helps introduce western-democratic policies. The ban on usury prevents quite a bit of economic growth which allows theocratic governments to maintain their power with ease. You aren't going to socially engineer yourself away from primitive, theocratic societies.
I think you're bridging a rather large gap by assuming women will and can automatically enter the marketplace by such a policy in societies like Saudi Arabia. How does a women go to work without her husband being present, as he must be whenever she wants to be outside of the house? This is a form of governance dictated by religious interpretation. Do you have examples of such economic policies as being the driving force for overriding policies derived from religious institutions? Obviously, you know more than me about these types of things (and that isn't a shot. I'm being sincere), so I would like to be enlightened.

Quote:
You've now said the same thing two posts in a row. That little quote re-enforces the fact that they're a minority. Just in case you weren't aware, when I say minority doesn't begin to explain it I'm not saying they aren't a minority...
Then what is the point of what you were trying to say? I'm not attempting to be rude, but I didn't get anything out of that part of the post. I said they're the minority, which you agree with. So... what's your point?

Quote:
So you have a couple examples of technological revolution. What does that tell us about the Middle East, and what should the US do?
The witch trials and treatment of homosexuals is a technological revolution? I don't think so.

Quote:
Methodology? Please, explain that one. Have you ever thought that religions role within society helps set into place an environment where such improvements can be made? Max Weber has written quite a lot on this.
Has there ever been an environment set in place that has been built off only the foundations of the teachings of Aristotle, Thomas Payne, Albert Einstein and other natural intellectuals that didn't claim authority from divine/supernatural forces?

No. There's hasn't been. So how can you compare? What are the criteria we use to compare against? I'm interested in reading these pieces. Have any immediate links for me? I'll try to remember to look them up when I'm at home, but I'm generally a pretty busy person.

Quote:
You are not naming any qualities inherent to religion, yet your focus is explicitly on organized religion. It is a bias against religion. It's nothing offensive, it's just a fact.

Science does not offer a better understanding of the questions that the religious ask. At least not anyone who has actually studied the religion they claim to be devout about.
I'm not saying science does. In fact, all I've been saying for my previous posts is that religion knows nothing more than science does about it; they are equal in their understanding of the supernatural. Religion claims to assume knowledge while science holds a stance of "we don't know." That is the only separating factor. On the other hand, science has a much better grasp on the natural world than religion has ever had.

Quote:
You never said there's a misstep in the logic of religious arguments, you said it is not a logical cause. You don't understand that they can make that claim, and it rests on a presumption of faith. Your refusal to accept this isn't indicative of some noble quest for truth, but a sad misunderstanding of religious thought and political authority. This is what I mean when I say you're a bull****ter.
To me, a misstep in logic is reason enough to deny permission of logical cause.

And thank you for assuming things, per usual. I actually do understand their use of faith, especially being a person of faith previously. Faith, when used alone, is an non-solidified means of assurance, and is not a permissible reasoning for authority. There's nothing wrong with having faith. There is a misstep in logic to believe that faith issues one's self with authority though. It's as I stated earlier: using supernatural explanations to explain the natural is a misstep in logic and is not a logical cause to claim any authority.

Quote:
Politics isn't about knowing whether one is right or wrong. Can't you see that? Governing institutions don't attempt to govern others, they do. Do you not understand that our society, and just about every non-totalitarian/quite authoritarian society is POLYCENTRIC? Religion is a governing institution. It provides rules and cultural norms for people's behavior. It does not have a monopoly on legitimized coercion ala the state.

The only reason one should oppose a religious government versus a secular one is because the religious administration offers worse policies than the secular, not because of some inherent difference in quality.
Religion is totalitarian in nature. All power always translates to the direct consent of a being more powerful than us. I'm against that.

Our own governing institution is supposed to relay equal power to all people, allowing us to vote for the things we want to be made policy or be abolished. Unfortunately, that's not how it is, but I do think it's a better method to strive for, as it allows people to critique policies to their fullest extent.

I'm not denying religion is a governing institution. I'm arguing for its legitimacy as a decent or better form of institution over its counterparts.

---

Bare in mind, I am taking in everything you have to say. I'm not representing my beliefs to their fullest extent nearly as much as I am questioning and challenging other's beliefs. A person's beliefs are their beliefs, and you should be able to understand that not everyone represents who they are as an online persona. So, please stop attempting to presume you know who I am.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 05:39 PM #1061
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Someone who can claim religion is totalitarian in nature has an inherent bias against religion and isn't worth discussing this with. Sorry.

As far as the links you want, they don't exist, that'd be one of the most methodologically flawed questions one could possibly ask and it represents a misunderstanding of the goals of history. Deirdre McCloskey and Max Weber's work on capitalist ethics is where you should start if you want to see where I'm coming from.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 05:43 PM #1062
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I think you're bridging a rather large gap by assuming women will and can automatically enter the marketplace by such a policy in societies like Saudi Arabia. How does a women go to work without her husband being present, as he must be whenever she wants to be outside of the house? This is a form of governance dictated by religious interpretation. Do you have examples of such economic policies as being the driving force for overriding policies derived from religious institutions? Obviously, you know more than me about these types of things (and that isn't a shot. I'm being sincere), so I would like to be enlightened.
I never assumed that. I mean how the **** can you say, "And thank you for assuming things, per usual,", to me, when IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF YOUR POST YOU DETAIL MY ASSUMPTIONS FOR ME.

This is bull****ting. It's intellectual dishonesty. Poisoning the well bit by bit.

It's a process. The market process. The market process is a driving force behind human progress. Do you believe that the introduction of women into the marketplace was the result of feminine determination as much as it was the result of economic incentives?

Do you know what usury is?
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 07:36 PM #1063
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
Someone who can claim religion is totalitarian in nature has an inherent bias against religion and isn't worth discussing this with. Sorry.
totalitarianism - the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Yup. Sounds like the major Abrahamic followings to me. Replace "the state" with "God" and you you've got it. Is not the purpose of religion to tell us why we do things? Is not the explanation for this given by the rule of a higher power that determines what is good or bad for us and even determines our purpose? This being regulates every aspect of our public and private life by determining our fate of entering heaven or hell.

This is different from all religions, which I will admit fault to falsely addressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
It's a process. The market process. The market process is a driving force behind human progress. Do you believe that the introduction of women into the marketplace was the result of feminine determination as much as it was the result of economic incentives?
Again, how would the market process supersede the policies set in place that prohibit Saudi Arabian women from leaving their house without the accompaniment of a significant male counterpart (a policy developed from religious interpretation, thus causing a change/evolution in their cultural standards)? How can a Saudi woman become part of the market with policies like this in place? I'm looking for the reasoning and/or the evidence. So far, I've been given assumption.

---

Martian, I'll reply when I get the time. Might be a day or two til I can reply at all here.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien

Last edited by Treghc : 07-03-2012 at 07:38 PM.
Treghc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 07:40 PM #1064
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
totalitarianism - the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Yup. Sounds like the major Abrahamic followings to me. Replace "the state" with "God" and you you've got it. Is not the purpose of religion to tell us why we do things? Is not the explanation for this given by the rule of a higher power that determines what is good or bad for us and even determines our purpose? This being regulates every aspect of our public and private life by determining our fate of entering heaven or hell.
This wouldn't pass for an introduction to philosophy class. You can't just replace the abstract concept of the state with the concept of a deity. How lazy can you get? I'll just skip this and get onto the rest.

Does the fact that almost every real-world example of totalitarianism vehemently opposed religion mean anything? Is totalitarianism to democracy what atheism is to religion?



Quote:
Again, how would the market process supersede the policies set in place that prohibit Saudi Arabian women from leaving their house without the accompaniment of a significant male counterpart (a policy developed from religious interpretation, thus causing a change/evolution in their cultural standards)? I'm looking for the reasoning and/or the evidence. So far, I've been given assumption.
Do you know what usury is, yes or no?

In short, because policies are cultural, and the easiest way to change a culture is to sell it something.

Last edited by Vit Beeyer : 07-03-2012 at 07:42 PM.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 09:20 PM #1065
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
Someone who can claim religion is totalitarian in nature has an inherent bias against religion and isn't worth discussing this with. Sorry.
this is a bad post
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 12:16 AM #1066
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Hannah Arendt disagrees.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 11:53 AM #1067
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
totalitarianism - the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Yup. Sounds like the major Abrahamic followings to me. Replace "the state" with "God" and you you've got it. Is not the purpose of religion to tell us why we do things? Is not the explanation for this given by the rule of a higher power that determines what is good or bad for us and even determines our purpose? This being regulates every aspect of our public and private life by determining our fate of entering heaven or hell.
These books arent out there to tell you why you do things. Many will tell you how you ought to live. Others will show you if you are willing to do the legwork. The chief function is the improvement of the human. This may or may not require the purging of the wicked. IE those not willing to take up the great work in the religion. Or those which deliberately thwart the efforts of the followers.

I suspect modern interpretations of Christianity are popular because it requires no attempt at perfection. It accepts you as you are flaws in tact. It asks nothing of your behavior accept the will towards repentence for wicked deeds. Abstinence from such deeds is encouraged yet with sola fide it is unnecessary. This opens the door to predators. A lot like our modern state which also asks nothing of you but your votes and your taxes. Interesting isnt?

There is no inherent totalitarianism unless you believe that any kind of authority is totalitarianism. Which is generally hogwash. Consider that our lives are more heavily regulated by the state than what is spelled out by any literal reading of the Abrahamics.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 07-04-2012 at 12:03 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 01:34 PM #1068
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
Hannah Arendt disagrees.
that's great, but you're coming into an atheist thread and telling people they have a bias against religion. well, duh...

you can't just decide someone is wrong and move on if you are trying to put together an argument (unless someone is lying or trolling). and even then, its just an argument, not indisputable fact.
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 02:14 PM #1069
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Not a logical bias, some illogical emotional one.

And he said religion is totalitarianism. That's bull****, I've said for a while he's a bull****ter. Not worth it.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 02:59 PM #1070
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by chodeyg View Post
that's great, but you're coming into an atheist thread and telling people they have a bias against religion. well, duh...

you can't just decide someone is wrong and move on if you are trying to put together an argument (unless someone is lying or trolling). and even then, its just an argument, not indisputable fact.
Except there are atheistic religions. Being an atheist in no way precludes a bias against religion. It just so happens that many atheists are against any and all of them. Sometimes I feel like no one knows what atheism is.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 08:07 PM #1071
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
The reason I say there is a bias is because few athiests are born athiests. If you leave a religion you are going to have different feelings than if you have never experienced it. And humans are naturally emotional beings. Just an observation.
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump