Religious Dialogue

I think loz is talking about later around the time the New World was discovered and Europe had all those new resources to plunder.
EDIT:
Loz beat me to it.

Oh and back to your earlier point: It's more eurocentrism in particular (which needs to be combatted in particular) but it's hard to break out of considering nearly all of our western histories and societies are still eurocentric if even unconsciously. Plus you've got to count in that the Muslim world has been maligned for centuries so thanking them for the fact that we know anything about ancient Greece doesn't come to many western minds.

Also I wonder if you could draw somewhat orderly lines between Christianized Atheists and Islamized Atheists or if the similarities between their cultural beliefs would blur that too much. A better comparison would be Abrahamized Atheists vs Hinduized Atheists I'm sure.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Dude you're completely missing the point just like expoprism and red_bull. It's not that without religion we would have created nothing but the argument that religion has contributed nothing is clearly retarded. Exoprism's answer is a little different but completely ignores social development and the uniqueness it imparts. The world looks the way it does (our contributions to it anyways) because of our religions of our past. They raised countless generations of humans and to act as though that hasn't had a drastic effect on our cultural and social existences is as if to say that humans are what they are because that's what they are.

Also I like how you guys keep mentioning ancient Greece as though pagan religious accomplishments are separate from monotheist achievements. Actually it's even funnier when you consider that thisline of logic stems from monotheist defamation of polytheistic peoples.

You are misunderstanding, or I explained it crap.

Religion obviously made massive contributions to history and culture. Such is not at all being questioned.

My point is that those contributions would have come from somewhere else instead, if there had not been culturally dominant religious institutions absorbing wealth and monopolising knowledge.

There is a world of difference between "these things were made because of religion" and "these things were made by people who were religious". You can choose to view things out of context, but then you are failing to understand why things happen the way they do.

F.X. The medieval church had significant control of learning and basic skills like reading and writing were not broadly available. Hence, research and exchange of knowledge were limited to those who could read and write.

Once this was liberated, we start seeing a wealth of creation and a rapid expansion of the human knowledge base because the fundamental tools were available to do so. As it turns out, you didn't need to believe in a deity to invent something.

Hence, religion did not create these things. It simply controlled or limited access to the ability to create them.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Dude you're completely missing the point just like expoprism and red_bull. It's not that without religion we would have created nothing but the argument that religion has contributed nothing is clearly retarded. Exoprism's answer is a little different but completely ignores social development and the uniqueness it imparts. The world looks the way it does (our contributions to it anyways) because of our religions of our past. They raised countless generations of humans and to act as though that hasn't had a drastic effect on our cultural and social existences is as if to say that humans are what they are because that's what they are.

Also I like how you guys keep mentioning ancient Greece as though pagan religious accomplishments are separate from monotheist achievements. Actually it's even funnier when you consider that thisline of logic stems from monotheist defamation of polytheistic peoples.

Which is why I use it. All different people of conflicting beliefs have made significant contributions. All this seems to prove to me is that these are human contributions, not religious ones.

proletarian wrote:

I also think that it's funny how much is mentioned about the "logical Greeks" while nobody is talking about the Muslim acquisition of astronomy, geometry, algebra, etc. Obviously religion had a hand in that. Ethnocentrism is crap.

I'm well aware of the accomplishments made by the Arabs, I simply use pagans and atheists as my examples because monotheists are often paganophobic and infidelophobic and have been known to execute/massacre them in accordance with their religious teachings. I could have used any number of examples e.g China, which dwarfed anything Europe ever had until around the 1500s.

Che Burashka wrote:

Well, if you don't believe that the best way for your ruler's soul to reach the Afterlife is through a huge Pyramid, I doubt you'll build such a big one.
Or you wouldn't write music dedicated to your God, if you don't believe in one.
Religion has been a moving force throughout history. Sometimes going together with material development, sometimes going against it.

Without religion, would we have buildings - of course. But we wouldn't have the work of art that some temples, cathedrals or mosques are.
Same goes for music, we'd have it too, but we'd miss some of the best masterpieces in history. The same goes for painting and all kinds of arts.

Inspiration can come from almost anything and religion doesn't have a monopoly on that either. And if that's the best you guys can come up with, shit, the all-knowing god who created everything certainly leaves a lot to be desired in the religions he sends us. What has religion inspired that is impossible to be done with pure will, skill and non-religious inspiration?

This kind of reminds me of James Randi who debunked the spoon-bending charlatan Uri Geller who was proclaiming psychic powers. After Randi showed how it could be done by sleight of hand, Uri Geller basically said "well it can be done that way but I'm still using psychic abilities in my version" to which Randi replied "Then you're doing it the hard way". And I'll give the religionists the same answer, you're doing it the hard way. Waiting around for inspiration from god is a terrible way of getting things done.

runequester wrote:

You are misunderstanding, or I explained it crap.

Fair enough.

runequester wrote:

Religion obviously made massive contributions to history and culture. Such is not at all being questioned.

Exoprism is.

runequester wrote:

My point is that those contributions would have come from somewhere else instead, if there had not been culturally dominant religious institutions absorbing wealth and monopolising knowledge.

Yeah but the form that exists is what matters not the form that could have been. Maybe with a different religion our temples would be made of glass and neon tubing. It's as meaningless as wondering what Trotsky would have done.

runequester wrote:

There is a world of difference between "these things were made because of religion" and "these things were made by people who were religious". You can choose to view things out of context, but then you are failing to understand why things happen the way they do.

These things were made because of the specific form of our religions. The only reason brilliant cathedrals exist is because organized christianity wanted them. The components that make up our greatest works only do because of our cultural need to arrange them in that fashion. What you're trying to say here makes sense but you're purposefully ignoring the effect of religion on us, not the other way around.

runequester wrote:

F.X. The medieval church had significant control of learning and basic skills like reading and writing were not broadly available. Hence, research and exchange of knowledge were limited to those who could read and write.

And thus inherently Christianized in the same sense that growing up in the west will inherently westernize your worldview.

runequester wrote:

Once this was liberated, we start seeing a wealth of creation and a rapid expansion of the human knowledge base because the fundamental tools were available to do so. As it turns out, you didn't need to believe in a deity to invent something.

Nobody is saying you do, not even most religious people. Also the recent progress in technology is not the result of liberation from theology but the compounding of technologies. That is when you have a cutting tool it's easier to make all sorts of other tools. Our technological sophistication is what allowed us to love so fast not our belief systems.

[/quote]Hence, religion did not create these things. It simply controlled or limited access to the ability to create them.[/quote]
What is the point of a mosque without Islam? You clearly are misunderstanding the argument. You think that what's being said is that religion gave us the ability to create these things. Rather what is being said is that we created these things and that religions necessarily formed them out of their social control. It's the form at question not the ability or components.

Exoprism wrote:

I simply use pagans and atheists as my examples because monotheists are often paganophobic and infidelophobic and have been known to execute/massacre them in accordance with their religious teachings. I could have used any number of examples e.g China, which dwarfed anything Europe ever had until around the 1500s.

Pagans did the same bro. Did you forget about the Coliseum?

Dagoth Ur wrote:

What is the point of a mosque without Islam? You clearly are misunderstanding the argument. You think that what's being said is that religion gave us the ability to create these things. Rather what is being said is that we created these things and that religions necessarily formed them out of their social control. It's the form at question not the ability or components.

In that case, I think we actually agree. I'll go eat more hot dogs instead

Quote:

Did you forget about the Coliseum

When did Greeks kill peoples of other religion just because of that reason? Of course they spent most of the time fighting among themselves,but the Period of Hellenism (granted, Alexander perhaps wasn't a true Greek) shows just how acceptable of other religions and cultures the Hellenes were. There were also many foreigners living in Anthens and so on during most of the Greek history.

And,i might be wrong though, but the gladiator games didn't have much to do with religion anyway. A number of gladiators were,for example, Roman criminals and others. I think.

The Aztecs sacrificed criminals but it was still religious. Gladiators had a religious justification but that's all it was I suspect. It's just silly to act as though monotheists are worse when they do the exact same thing. Every monotheist "holy war" was a product of material concerns justified through religious rhetoric. Again this creeping anti-polytheist attitude seeps through by asserting the shallowness of pagan faith as compared to monotheist faith.

Loz wrote:

And,i might be wrong though, but the gladiator games didn't have much to do with religion anyway. A number of gladiators were,for example, Roman criminals and others. I think.

The Romans fed Christians to the Lions and burned them alive.

Quote:

The Romans fed Christians to the Lions and burned them alive.

During one period,yes. The fact that it spread so quickly just testifies that this repression didn't go as far as it could have gone.
But it was later tolerated and accepted anyway.

My argument is that monotheism is not the only oppressive religious system, much to the dismay of Exoprism.

I think that the ancient Greek and Roman (or German and other pagan religions) were much less repressive than the religions of Abraham and Co.

I don't doubt that at all. But to say that pagans were oblivious and all accepting of monotheists is horseshit.

Quote:

But to say that pagans were oblivious and all accepting of monotheists is horseshit.

I think that they were more accepting of monotheists than these monotheists were accepting of them though.
For example the Slavs converted to Christianity on their own will. I think that Germans and others converted in a similar fashion.
And the Christian Germans later led the "northern crusades" against Lithuanian and other pagans.

Which is a fantastic example of where religious rhetoric clouds a cultural rivalry. Pagans justified their invasions with the power of their Gods all the time.

Yes,but there's the fact that whever pagans invaded Christian or Muslim lands they would usually convert within a short period (Slavs,Germans,Magyars and so on). With the exception of, for example, Mongols and Tatars (who are today Muslims anyway).
But when Christians invaded (South) America they didn't convert to native religions but imposed their own.
Why is that?
My guess is that the backwardness of the invading barbarians played a big role in their conversion...

Abrahamic religions are clearly more efficient as proven by their ability to have nearly taken over the world completely. I tend to figure that's because most pagan religions didn't make humanity the center that God created. Like with the Olympians they were the center that we aimlessly floated around. God is the overthing and we are te center of its creation. That's an appealing simplism.

Loz wrote:

I think that they were more accepting of monotheists than these monotheists were accepting of them though.

That is bullshit. Judaism pretty much explicitly states to leave other people alone. The Romans, on the other hand, started the first anti-semitic propaganda campaigns against Jewish monotheism.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Exoprism is.

Actually, no. What I was saying is that everything religion has done, so has non-religion. This obviously points to the fact that simple dialectical and historical materialism is at play because these are human contributions, not religious. If the best you can come up with to support religion is something that can be done without it, then you've failed in your task. People create buildings and art with inspiration from nature, oceans, books, films, imagination etc. Religions, unlike what their followers and holy books say, don't have a monopoly on anything. We don't need religion for morals, government, economy, education, art..... I mean seriously, what do we need it for? We'd do just fine without it and since it causes more harm than good, we should do just that.

proletarian wrote:

My argument is that monotheism is not the only oppressive religious system, much to the dismay of Exoprism.

Much to your dismay, I never said it was. Religious people have a tendency to see things that aren't there and I'm starting to get concerned with some members of this debate....

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Abrahamic religions are clearly more efficient as proven by their ability to have nearly taken over the world completely. I tend to figure that's because most pagan religions didn't make humanity the center that God created. Like with the Olympians they were the center that we aimlessly floated around. God is the overthing and we are te center of its creation. That's an appealing simplism.

On the whole, monotheists were a lot more violent, they weren't "more efficient". But now you say this? Don't think there's a correlation here? Furthermore, there's around 2 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Muslims in a world population of almost 7 billion, that's hardly "the world completely".

It was actually the pagan religions that had the capacity to expand since they were accepting of almost any new god that someone else happened to worship. The Christians were persecuted because they were viewed as intolerant of other gods and at one point were called "atheists". It wasn't until Constantine decided to convert to Christianity, itself the product of evolution from the tribal monotheist cult of the Jews, that things started taking off for them. They got to inherit the wealth, strength and knowledge of an empire built with no thanks to monotheism.

Mabool wrote:

Judaism pretty much explicitly states to leave other people alone. The Romans, on the other hand, started the first anti-semitic propaganda campaigns against Jewish monotheism.

Have you ever read the Bible? Judaism appears as one of the most violent religions ever invented if we are to take its word. Not to forget the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is justified because "god gave them the land". Ironically, genocide was the same method used when the Jews first landed there after the Exodus according to the Bible. I obviously think that rhetoric is simply employed to justify imperialism but it can't be denied that many Jews (and Christians) are buying into this.

lol okay. post-Babylon Judaism, then. Unless you want to count the revolts against Rome, which I believe were in response to Roman anti-semitism.