[QUOTE=matsta;37491327]And no, I'm not confusing the end of the middle ages with the begging of civilization. Never said that. I'm relating the 'end of the middle ages' (the Renaissance) with the origin of the concept of [I]society[/I].[/QUOTE]
What about the Egyptians?
Also you seem biased towards Christianity. What's up with that?
[QUOTE=matsta;37491327]You're wrong. Fast counterexample: the Greek philosophers. Period.[/QUOTE]
lmao
[editline]1st September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=matsta;37489349]Okay, are you fucking serious? I really hope you're not, because if you are actually serious, you don't know how wrong you are. How on earth can ancient Christianity be considered a 'cult' movement if it had the least amount of rituals possible? The whole reason I (and others) consider the New Testament as being 'special' among other religious books is the lack of rituals, those rituals who would be indicative of a 'cult', or some other form of mystic religiosity.[/QUOTE]
rituals are not the be-all-and-end-all of cults. the important features are a fanatical devotion to a central idea and/or person, encouragement of followers to cut themselves off from their previous societal bonds (matthew 10:35) so that since they have nowhere else to go, their bonds with the cult are that much stronger and it is that much harder to leave.
see also: [url]http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Death_Spirals_and_the_Cult_Attractor[/url]
[editline]1st September 2012[/editline]
besides christianity had plenty of rituals, what the hell do you think the last supper was? look at Mass, look at the Eucharist, look at the Sabbath, look at confession (making people confess things they're ashamed of is a textbook cult technique too), look at easter, not to mention all the pagan shit they added like christmas
I think people are just desperate for an answer to the question "Why are we here?". Religion pretty much gives you an answer to that question, at least, most religions do.
[QUOTE=kmlkmljkl;37495328]I think people are just desperate for an answer to the question "Why are we here?". Religion pretty much gives you an answer to that question, at least, most religions do.[/QUOTE]
but it isn't a real answer
Way back in those ancient old times, the world was still very underdeveloped and we didn't have any real proper systems of laws. People were killing each other left and right, people got raped a whole [B]bunch[/B], and there was nothing around to stop them. So then some guys were like "Hey, how do we fix this shit?" and some other guys were like "Let's tell them that there's a man in the sky who'll take you to this excellent sky place is you don't kill your friends." Of course, there was a lot of groups who decided that at roughly the same time, just with different forms of the man in the sky. Since most people were a lot less caught up in the "don't kill people" part and were a lot more into the "This one specific sky-man built the everything" part, they started going to all kinds of war. Then people with different moral values wound up gaining a lot of influence and caused the religions to change their beliefs, and it eventually changed it to what it is today, which is essentially the same religion but really mixed up in the syntax.
^That's the most general I can make it for you guys.
Then there's Buddhism, which I think everyone can agree has always just been pretty chill. I've never met anyone who doesn't agree with the values of Buddhism, because it's just so damn chill. Generally speaking.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;37495597]Way back in those ancient old times, the world was still very underdeveloped and we didn't have any real proper systems of laws. People were killing each other left and right, people got raped a whole [B]bunch[/B], and there was nothing around to stop them. So then some guys were like "Hey, how do we fix this shit?" and some other guys were like "Let's tell them that there's a man in the sky who'll take you to this excellent sky place is you don't kill your friends."
Then there's Buddhism, which I think everyone can agree has always just been pretty chill. I've never met anyone who doesn't agree with the values of Buddhism, because it's just so damn chill. Generally speaking.[/QUOTE]
I partly agree with what you say. However I am a theist, but my views of a divine power are pretty pantheistic.
This post isn't just in response to you, just thought I should share with the entire thread.
Way back in those old ancient times, things weren't actually as bad as you were making it out to be. Things were balanced. The (various tribes of) Native Americans, Incas, Celtics, and many others were actually very happy with the way they were living. They lived wholly and balanced their lives in the spiritual and physical word. Religiously, believe it or not they all believed the same exact thing. They just had different stories and interpretations of how the same exact thing reacted with the physical world.
They all believed this: The universe was once nothing but a void of energy, that energy was concentrated and single. When the universe began, the energy spread out and created a physical universe. The "spiritual universe" was also created (possibly in another dimension?), which also includes our collective consciousness. The universe then began developing. The stars and planets were created, etc. They believed that the energy from creation also existed in all of us ("The Kingdom of God is within ourselves"). So did the spiritual energy. Now, take a look at this real quick. Doesn't this sound similar to a lot of science's explanations for the beginning of the universe with the exception of the spiritual shit? Sure it does. Also read up on what some philosophers have to say. But this is where it begins to differ. The ancient people used meditation, ceremonies, prayer, even tobacco, and other things they used to channel their collective consciousness, which in they were able to learn more about the "spiritual world." They were able to connect with nature, with themselves (and each other), and find their relationship within the physical world. By doing this and becoming balanced, they also connected with the spiritual world. They believed that if you could live your life balanced and wholly, when you die, your energy will recollect with the stars. At the end of the universe, all of the energy will be recollected and back into a singularity. If you could not live in balance, when you died your energy will be recycled and given to a new life - reincarnation. Even if you believe in all of this, a God doesn't have to exist.
I'm not saying you should believe this or that I'm right. I'm actually a very considering person and I'm open to what anyone has to say. Every ancient tribe and civilization wondered where we came from, and they looked to the stars. They knew we were connected. Every ancient tribe and civilization also shared beliefs that were [i]very[/i] similar, even when they were on the other side of the globe. Celtics, American Indians, Buddhism, and even some things in Islam and Christianity. So what I'm saying is that religion and spirituality was not a bad thing. But you're right, it did become a bad thing when people began to use religion to their own benefit. Even if you think, "Bullshit there's still no reason to believe you're connected to the universe, maybe all of this just happened and that's how it is," remember - we are in fact connected to the universe. The atoms that created the stars are in us. The ancient people had a knowledge and understanding of the universe that we, humanity, has lost.
Lol personally sometimes I think it'd be best if the whole world became lesser developed Native Americans or something. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not a weird hippy or anything. I have my computer, job, smartphone, etc...
Edit: If for any reason you guys are more interested, read up on Carl Jung and maybe even consider the book Mitakuye Oyasin by Dr. A.C. Ross.
carl jung is intellectually worthless and i'd advise you to actually research what life in ancient tribes was like because it's nothing like the romantic-nostalgic view you seem to have. hobbes was right when he said the life of humans without civilization is "nasty, brutish, and short"
[QUOTE=Guy Mannly;37491599]then your concept of "society" is just as inaccurate as your concept of what the word "cult" defines. i'm genuinely curious - how do you define society if ancient egyptian and mesopotamian civilizations - and possibly ancient greece and rome, depending on whether you were referring to bc or ad - are excluded from your definition?
the italicized part of my post was in relation to christianity. [I]bringing up greek philosophers isn't applicable to humanism because [B]paganism[/B] functions completely differently from christianity. pagan religions revolve around performing ritual acts to appease the gods.[/I] the individual feelings of the worshippers are completely irrelevant. however, christianity is based on an individual's beliefs and how they truly feel about their god rather than how they choose to worship him. christianity also emphasizes the concept of sinning and repenting for one's sins, whereas pagan religions don't have any such concept.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you do know about this, but if I brought the Greek [B]philosophers[/B] in this discussion is to show how people in the past can embrace the idea of there being no gods and of looking upon our own happiness. If you read Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" you'll see he believes his ethics are the best way to live because [I]we achieve happiness through them.[/I]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37491599]rituals are not the be-all-and-end-all of cults. the important features are a fanatical devotion to a central idea and/or person, encouragement of followers to cut themselves off from their previous societal bonds (matthew 10:35) so that since they have nowhere else to go, their bonds with the cult are that much stronger and it is that much harder to leave.[/QUOTE]
Of course Christianity originated lots of conflicts inside society. Consider that they were in under the rule of the Roman Empire and were being prosecuted by it. Being Christian was kind of suicidal, that's why people got separated from their families and friends. Considering all that, I don't this is enough for labeling early Christianity as a cult.
[QUOTE]besides christianity had plenty of rituals, what the hell do you think the last supper was? look at Mass, look at the Eucharist, look at the Sabbath, look at confession (making people confess things they're ashamed of is a textbook cult technique too), look at easter, not to mention all the pagan shit they added like christmas.[/QUOTE]
Remember that we're talking about early Christianity. All those rituals were added later. If you read the actual scriptures you won't find explicit indications of what rituals had to be made of it they had to be made at all.
[QUOTE=matsta;37499716]Of course Christianity originated lots of conflicts inside society. Consider that they were in under the rule of the Roman Empire and were being prosecuted by it. Being Christian was kind of suicidal, that's why people got separated from their families and friends. Considering all that, I don't this is enough for labeling early Christianity as a cult.[/quote]
you have completely missed the point. cults are like that precisely [I]because[/I] of hostility from the outside. look at how people hate scientology for christ's sake. it works in the cult's favor, because once you're in it's difficult to get accepted back in normal society, plus it gives an outside enemy for everyone inside to hate and thus be drawn to one another even more. see the robber's cave experiment and innumerable studies of ingroup/outgroup effects.
[quote]Remember that we're talking about early Christianity. All those rituals were added later. If you read the actual scriptures you won't find explicit indications of what rituals had to be made of it they had to be made at all.[/QUOTE]
what about baptism
I believe that there is a God, but not the kind of God that most mainstream religions talk about. I don't think of God as a big dude up in the sky judging everyone simultaneously, in fact, I think that it couldn't care less about what we do. I think that this "God" is more or less a metaphysical consciousness that exists everywhere. In my head I imagine it physically to be a ball of plasma or fire, but really I don't believe it to have any physical presence at all. The easiest thing to compare it to is a force. God is a force that exists in no actual form, but still has its influence on everything there is.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, it's hard for me to put this belief into words.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37498828]carl jung is intellectually worthless and i'd advise you to actually research what life in ancient tribes was like because it's nothing like the romantic-nostalgic view you seem to have. hobbes was right when he said the life of humans without civilization is "nasty, brutish, and short"[/QUOTE]
So is life today. It's not that much different. I mean sure there was war, disease, and "nastiness." But there were happy civilizations and there were not-so-happy civilizations. Of course if you were in Egypt and on the lesser scale of the social class, you're pretty much shit out of luck. But the Native Americans were content with the way they lived. The Celts were also a very proud and content people, as well. It just depends. You must have taken what I said too close to your heart or something, I wasn't saying life was perfect. But saying, "People were killing each other left and right, people got raped a whole bunch, and there was nothing around to stop them," is not accurate of every single tribe or civilization. There was such thing as calm organization back then, ya know. I wasn't talking necessarily just about tribes, but early civilization as well. Also, did you even notice that only three sentence in my entire post was directed towards what BigJoey said?
Explain to me why Carl Jung is intellectually worthless. That's a dumb thing to say. He was an amazing philosopher and a master of psychology. He can teach us a lot about human behavior, our thoughts, our motivations, hidden aspects of our own personality, and a bunch of other things. There's a lot to learn from him, and for some people this can actually help them.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;37501027]a master of psychology[/QUOTE]
hahahaha what. nobody's a master of psychology
[QUOTE=zacht_180;37501027]So is life today. It's not that much different. I mean sure there was war, disease, and "nastiness." But there were happy civilizations and there were not-so-happy civilizations. Of course if you were in Egypt and on the lesser scale of the social class, you're pretty much shit out of luck. [B]But the Native Americans were content with the way they lived.[/B] The Celts were also a very proud and content people, as well. It just depends. You must have taken what I said too close to your heart or something, I wasn't saying life was perfect. But saying, "People were killing each other left and right, people got raped a whole bunch, and there was nothing around to stop them," is not accurate of every single tribe or civilization. There was such thing as calm organization back then, ya know. I wasn't talking necessarily just about tribes, but early civilization as well. Also, did you even notice that only three sentence in my entire post was directed towards what BigJoey said?[/quote]
I'm sorry but no. The Amerindians were even more fucking brutal and murderous than the Europeans that conquered them. I'm not saying that the excesses of colonialism were justified (far from it), but to go the opposite direction and say that they lived in the garden of Eden is pure fantasy.
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/violence1.PNG[/img]
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/violence2.PNG[/img]
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/violence3.PNG[/img]
The Aztecs slaughtered people on an industrial scale to appease their gods.
[quote]Explain to me why Carl Jung is intellectually worthless. That's a dumb thing to say. He was an amazing philosopher and a master of psychology. He can teach us a lot about human behavior, our thoughts, our motivations, hidden aspects of our own personality, and a bunch of other things. There's a lot to learn from him, and for some people this can actually help them.[/QUOTE]
No, his ideas are complete trash and he has been effectively disowned by modern psychology. His "theories" were unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37508052]No, his ideas are complete trash and he has been effectively disowned by modern psychology. His "theories" were unfalsifiable pseudoscience.[/QUOTE]
He was a psychologist, yet you call him out on 'pseudo science'... The focus of much of his work was consciousness.
If you're talking about the brain biologically, you cannot bring consciousness into the argument because the fields are entirely seperate. Consciousness will never be explained scientifically.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37508384]Consciousness will never be explained scientifically.[/QUOTE]
yes it can, anything that isn't metaphysical, science can quite capably cover
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37508384]He was a psychologist, yet you call him out on 'pseudo science'... The focus of much of his work was consciousness.
If you're talking about the brain biologically, you cannot bring consciousness into the argument because the fields are entirely seperate. Consciousness will never be explained scientifically.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter if he was a psychologist, he can still make psuedoscience.
Tell me why you can't explain consciousness scientifically.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37508384]He was a psychologist, yet you call him out on 'pseudo science'... The focus of much of his work was consciousness.[/quote]
just because he wore the clothes and spoke the language of a scientist, and called himself a scientist, doesn't make him a scientist. what matters is what you actually do.
It doesn't matter if I wear a labcoat or a clown suit, I will still be a scientist as long as I use the scientific method.
[quote]If you're talking about the brain biologically, you cannot bring consciousness into the argument because the fields are entirely seperate. Consciousness will never be explained scientifically.[/QUOTE]
nonsense on stilts.
[QUOTE=Jookia;37508989]Doesn't matter if he was a psychologist, he can still make psuedoscience.
Tell me why you can't explain consciousness scientifically.[/QUOTE]
Because analysing it's biological functioning doesn't correspond to anything that we as humans didn't create.
Happiness/sadness for instance, you can talk about it's biological function but that completely skips the part where humans created both concepts.
We created the idea of 'happiness' and by merely creating it, we created the opposite. Basically, any time anything was given a word or label by humans, the mere lack of that alone was always there to act as the opposite duality to it's existence.
This is why animals don't care if they're depressed nor commit suicide, because neither the concept of happiness being a desirable state, nor the idea of depression as an opposite ever occur to them. They just ride the wave of existing and don't waste a single second caught in delusion. Yet because they don't have our 'great knowledge' nor suffer from all the problems that humans do, we label them as inferior.
This applies to pretty much anything, and that is all there is to really know about consciousness. We perceive things and think about them in terms of words and labels, which are all false because we created them.
It doesn't mean you have to become a drooling potato sitting in a cave thinking about nothing all the time, it just means you should really chill out with all the serious scientific/psychological theoretical hooah because we created it all.
but animals do have happiness and sadness, they do get depressed, they do have internal experiences
words do have referents you know
[url]http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth[/url]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37508052]but to go the opposite direction and say that they lived in the garden of Eden is pure fantasy.[/QUOTE]
Can you fucking understand? I never said that lol. His comment just made it seem like murder, rape, war, and "nastiness" were everywhere and to the extent that every individual/tribe in the world was a complete disaster of shit. Nope.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37500079]you have completely missed the point. cults are like that precisely [I]because[/I] of hostility from the outside. look at how people hate scientology for christ's sake. it works in the cult's favor, because once you're in it's difficult to get accepted back in normal society, plus it gives an outside enemy for everyone inside to hate and thus be drawn to one another even more. see the robber's cave experiment and innumerable studies of ingroup/outgroup effects.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I don't know what you would label as a 'cult' and what you wouldn't. Just forget about all those terms already. Even if you would cal Christianity a 'cult' because of that, I do think that the kind of radical separation from the rest of (Roman) civilization that meant Christianity for the one who adopted it was justified given the conditions I described. I see nothing bad about it looking at the context.
[QUOTE]what about baptism[/QUOTE]
Now you're just struggling to find any rituals done there. Baptism might have been a ritual of initiation, that's right, but not even baptism was explicitly indicated as a ritual to be made for the future generations of Christians. I was only indicated back then, as something to be done there, in the context.
You must accept that in the New Testament they do not give that much importance to rituals and don't take them to be as fundamental as other religions do. I wouldn't consider ancient Christianity a 'cult' because it lacked that mysticism that characterized most of the religions I would call 'cults' at their time.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37500079]carl jung is intellectually worthless and i'd advise you to actually research what life in ancient tribes was like because it's nothing like the romantic-nostalgic view you seem to have. hobbes was right when he said the life of humans without civilization is "nasty, brutish, and short"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=zacht_180]Explain to me why Carl Jung is intellectually worthless. That's a dumb thing to say. He was an amazing philosopher and a master of psychology. He can teach us a lot about human behavior, our thoughts, our motivations, hidden aspects of our own personality, and a bunch of other things. There's a lot to learn from him, and for some people this can actually help them.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=DainBramageStudios]No, his ideas are complete trash and he has been effectively disowned by modern psychology. His "theories" [B]were unfalsifiable pseudo[U][I]science.[/I][/U][/B][/QUOTE]
You can't accuse Jung of making 'pseudoscience'. Remember that psychology was kinda merger with philosophy back then. Psychological inquiry was closer to philosophical knowledge than to scientific knowledge. And, of course, if it is like that, your labeling of Jung's work as 'unfalsifiable' is meaningless and naïve.
[QUOTE=kmlkmljkl;37495328]I think people are just desperate for an answer to the question "Why are we here?". Religion pretty much gives you an answer to that question, at least, most religions do.[/QUOTE]
Not even the most sophisticated scientist can give you the answer for that.
Why are we in a dark space, residing on a chunk of mass, that is older than you could imagine, where people do weird shit every minute of the day, driving cars, writing media and seeking for entertainment? Why?
[QUOTE=Scar;33850230]Look at animals. They don't have religion, yet most don't needlessly hurt each other. That argument is just stupid, moral can and did exist without religion. And having a lifestyle forced on you is an incredibly bad thing.
[editline]22nd December 2011[/editline]
Ancient myth are always people with no methods of actually knowing things trying to explain phenomena with thinks they knew.
[editline]22nd December 2011[/editline]
"oh you like her? Let's spend the rest of your life with her, even if you or her change!"
"Sounds great! I'd love to be forced to live with someone who I may stop to love!"[/QUOTE]
animals don' understand you enormouse jackass. sorry if im posting late but that pissed me off
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=matsta;37510350]You can't accuse Jung of making 'pseudoscience'. Remember that psychology was kinda merger with philosophy back then. Psychological inquiry was closer to philosophical knowledge than to scientific knowledge. And, of course, if it is like that, your labeling of Jung's work as 'unfalsifiable' is meaningless and naïve.[/QUOTE]
what a crock of shit; me calling his work unfalsifiable is plenty meaningful. it means it can't be falsified.
[editline]2nd September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=matsta;37510350]Okay, I don't know what you would label as a 'cult' and what you wouldn't. Just forget about all those terms already. Even if you would cal Christianity a 'cult' because of that, I do think that the kind of radical separation from the rest of (Roman) civilization that meant Christianity for the one who adopted it was justified given the conditions I described. I see nothing bad about it looking at the context.[/quote]
how was it justified exactly
[quote]Now you're just struggling to find any rituals done there. Baptism might have been a ritual of initiation, that's right, but not even baptism was explicitly indicated as a ritual to be made for the future generations of Christians. I was only indicated back then, as something to be done there, in the context.[/quote]
I wasn't struggling to find a ritual, it was one that slipped my mind from the first post. The absence or presence of rituals doesn't determine whether or not something is a cult, I said that before. UFO cults don't have rituals. It's the fanatical devotion to an idea or person that matters, along with vilification of outsiders.
[quote]I wouldn't consider ancient Christianity a 'cult' because it lacked that mysticism that characterized most of the religions I would call 'cults' at their time.[/quote]
christianity lacking mysticism lmao
[quote]You can't accuse Jung of making 'pseudoscience'. Remember that psychology was kinda merger with philosophy back then. Psychological inquiry was closer to philosophical knowledge than to scientific knowledge.[/quote]
it simply doesn't matter what category his ideas are gerrymandered into. what matters is the content, and the content was garbage. if it's science then it's bad science, if it's philosophy then it's bad philosophy.
[QUOTE=matsta;37510350]Remember that psychology was kinda merger with philosophy back then.[/QUOTE]
Science is not relevant to the understanding of a field, just facts.
It's for people who are afraid of dealing with the fact that there is nothing after death, that's why they invent God and believe in an afterlife
[QUOTE=I]You can't accuse Jung of making 'pseudoscience'. Remember that psychology was kinda merger with philosophy back then. Psychological inquiry was closer to philosophical knowledge than to scientific knowledge. And, of course, [B]if it is like that[/B], your labeling of Jung's work as 'unfalsifiable' is meaningless and naïve.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37513858]what a crock of shit; me calling his work unfalsifiable is plenty meaningful. it means it can't be falsified.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]it simply doesn't matter what category his ideas are gerrymandered into. what matters is the content, and the content was garbage. if it's science then it's bad science, if it's philosophy then it's bad philosophy.[/QUOTE]
Do you compulsively answer to anyone without further reading of their posts? Next time I expect that you organize one, and only ONE answer.
Anyway, you have to read my entire post, not rip it into pieces, genius. I said that IF IT IS LIKE THAT ([B]if Jung's psychology was closer to philosophy than to science[/B]) your criticism is meaningless in the sense that you can't criticize him for that. It's like saying a song is bad because "it has no graphics". Philosophy doesn't have to be 'falsifiable' because it precisely works [I]beyond[/I] what can be considered as a 'fact'.
Anyway, I feel this is getting offtopic. We can discuss about Jung in another thread, I guess. Now, about Christianity...
[QUOTE=before your post, I]Of course Christianity originated lots of conflicts inside society. Consider that they were in under the rule of the Roman Empire and were being prosecuted by it. Being Christian was kind of suicidal, that's why people got separated from their families and friends.[...][/QUOTE]
[...]
[QUOTE=I]Okay, I don't know what you would label as a 'cult' and what you wouldn't. Just forget about all those terms already. Even if you would cal Christianity a 'cult' because of that, I do think that the kind of radical separation from the rest of (Roman) civilization that meant Christianity for the one who adopted it was justified [B]given the conditions I described.[/B] I see nothing bad about it looking at the context.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37513858]how was it justified exactly[/QUOTE]
Ok...it seems like you're just not reading my posts...
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37513858]The absence or presence of rituals doesn't determine whether or not something is a cult, I said that before. UFO cults don't have rituals. It's the fanatical devotion to an idea or person that matters, along with vilification of outsiders.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=I]Okay, I don't know what you would label as a 'cult' and what you wouldn't. Just forget about all those terms already.[/QUOTE]
Plus, if only that suffices to call something a cult, I'd say "New Atheism" is also a cult because of the fanatical devotion of some of its members to science, extending its role beyond that of ontical inquiry and also because of their hatred towards any kind of religious or even transcendent thinking.
[editline]2nd September 2012[/editline]
PD: If you're actually going to disagree with anything I said, then [B]disagree with it[/B], don't just post 'lmao', because that proves nothing.
I don't even know what there is to disagree with.
God is made up by humans so it doesn't exist in any real, tangible sense, much like Bigfoot/Loch Ness, Spider-man, etc.
As for why religiousness exists, it exists for many reasons, and that doesn't even interest you people. "Hmm, I wonder what kinda people go to churches in like Africa, and why?"
[QUOTE=matsta;37516641]Ok...it seems like you're just not reading my posts...[/quote]
No I mean why did they have to separate themselves in the first place? What rational reason could one have for becoming a Christian? The Romans just left people alone if they weren't upstarts trying to start a political uprising; they mostly treated people okay by the standards of the time. Eventually Christianity became the mainstream religion but conditions afterwards weren't markedly improved from before, and you'd have a hard time showing that the improvements that did occur were down to Christianity and not just ordinary technological advancement that would have proceeded either way.
[quote]Plus, if only that suffices to call something a cult, I'd say "New Atheism" is also a cult because of the fanatical devotion of some of its members to science, extending its role beyond that of ontical inquiry and also because of their hatred towards any kind of religious or even transcendent thinking.[/quote]
well yeah, i would say that some of the excesses of new atheism (r/atheism, etc) are pretty cultish. at least we agree on that. other cults include most political parties (both mainstream and fringe), most ideologies, identity politics
Religion has been used throughout history as a tool to control people, keeping them stupid and under the rule of facist liars. You've got your Greeks who were frightened to death to commit huberus against the state with fear that they may anger the gods, you've got Christianity telling people to accept their lot in life because its the life god gave them, you've got the Aztecs stabbin' the hearts out of virgins and telling them they saved the sun in order to create a society of fear and repression.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.