THEHOOLIGANJEDI VS DURANDAL on Religion

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Here it is. First I'm gonna address human nature.
The Explanations I gave Before:

There are many atrocities that aren't attributed to Religion, and can be attributed to human Behavior.
1. Survival/Competition- This is a big one, Humans kill the weaker ones, or the less technically advanced to survive in a new surrounding. Modern Man did this nearly 20,000 give or take, to the Neanderthals when they first came to Europe. So did the Europeans when they butchered the Native Americans. (religion eventually did come to play)

2. Xenophobia- Humans More often than not aren't too tolerant of different looking people. Most of the world governments in the past were not at all tolerant of anyone that was different. With the Exception of Some African tribes and Native Americans, to a degree. Long before the Native Americans (at most 10,000 years) Arfican/Aboriginals reached the Americas (mostly S America), then the Native Americans wiped them out in a war. There Evidence in caves that support this, and a human skull that Predates all Native American activity there by many milennia.(that is another story) Today, there is still evidence of xenophobia in the world. There are some people who haven't seen Black people or white people and are frightened of their appearance. On the Flip side humans also are intrigued by the Unknown and want ot know more about it a conquer it.

Humans are not that much different than animals, well kill, we have sex and many other things. Because Humans are more sentient, intelligent, and aware (of both ourselves and our surroudings). That's what keeps us from being as savage and territorial, or from wiping each other off the face of the Earth. So we can overcome some of the Negative aspects of our Human nature.

Here's some more: May be Redundant

I'll do what I can in explaining it again. There are two examples of some natural Human characteristics (many can be attributed to animal too) that can very much be the direct root to many atrocities. Think of many of the first encounters that Humans of different races 10,000 years or so ago, More often than not wars were the end result of contact with strangers, Humans in the past were far less sophisticated when deal with out siders, they were more animalist and followed the whole Kill or be Killed mentality
Survival/Competion: Humans move into an area and directly, cause the extinction or subjugation of another Group. For Survival and competition. Lower lifeforms do the same thing all the time. Humans did this Neanderthals thousands of years ago
Xenophobia: Humans More often than not aren't too tolerant of different looking people. The Neandethals were different in appearance, so humans wiped them out. The Native American and Africans were different and lived differently so they were subordinated or wiped out. I've stated this Before.

Oh and here's a definition of Human Nature from: http://www.degruyter.de/journals/humnat/

Human Nature is dedicated to advancing the interdisciplinary investigation of the biological, social, and environmental factors that underlie human behavior. It focuses primarily on the functional unity in which these factors are continuously and mutually interactive, including evolutionary, biological, and sociological processes as they interact with human social behavior; biological and demographic consequences of human history; cross-cultural, cross-species, and historical perspectives on human behavior; and the relevance of a biosocial perspective to scientific, social, and policy issues.

Frequently cited and highly rated, the journal features major overviews and statements of biosocial interpretation and research as well as news briefs highlighting recent conferences and research reports.

Abstracted in Sociological Abstracts (SA); Psychological Abstracts (PA, PsycINFO); BIOSIS; Social Science Citation Index (SSCI); Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences; Cited in Magazines for Libraries (Katz)

Well That what I have For Now, I'd rather have a more objective, friendlier debate, but if any flaming start I'm respond in kind.

[Durandal]

I should have been more clear. Just do a fresh start. Outline the overarching point you wish to make, give some evidence to back it up, and we'll go from there.

I'm only doing this because you kept claiming that I misrepresented you, and your original argument got lost in the shuffle, essentially.

I'm not going to argue about the existence of human nature, since Nick provided a pretty good definition of it, which has traceability. The definition of human nature you posted is the description of what apparently is a psychology or sociology academic journal.

What I will argue is the usefulness (or lack thereof) of simply blaming it for all our problems, but I can't start until I get a clear and explicit argument from you.

Like I said, just start fresh. Think back to what you wanted to say when you originally started the thread and make whatever modifications you wish to your argument. This way, we can determine if we are, in fact, in agreement but only feuding over minor semantical issues.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

I should have been more clear. Just do a fresh start. Outline the overarching point you wish to make, give some evidence to back it up, and we'll go from there.

I'm only doing this because you kept claiming that I misrepresented you, and your original argument got lost in the shuffle, essentially.

I'm not going to argue about the existence of human nature, since Nick provided a pretty good definition of it, which has traceability. The definition of human nature you posted is the description of what apparently is a psychology or sociology academic journal.

Understood, but my arguement came about a day before Nick's, you must have missed it. But it's basically similar to in some ways, except I gave some specific examples.

What I will argue is the usefulness (or lack thereof) of simply blaming it for all our problems, but I can't start until I get a clear and explicit argument from you.

Okay, now since you have a more clear description of what Human Nature is all about. I can say that from my beliefs God gave man religion, since most Religions were born during times of Huge conflict, the subordination of women, very fundamentalist and barbaric thinking. My Stance (although incomplete at this time) is that Religion reflects the social evolution of man and has considerably changed alonside Humankind. In the past Humans had the more animalistic Kill or be killed/Kill the weak so the strong can survive mentality. Now it's considerably different in most cases. (Islam is now where, Christianity was at most 400 years ago)

1. IIRC Judaism was created around the time when The Hykos (evidence points to the fact that the Hykos were the Hebrews) invaded Egypt, Now when the Hykos were driven out or captured, the captured Hykos were the Hebrews IIRC who Ultimately left during the Exodus.)

2. Now Christianity was a much more liberal version of Judaism God wasn't vengeful when you compare the Hebrew version to the Christian version. Although, Christianity was also born in a time that was uncivilized, but probably less so than the days of Judaism. There were bigger differences in what Christ taught, He was non-violent (or at least was more benevolent than the Hebrews)

3. Islam's past, well I can't say that much about, b/c my info is limited on it, but it mirrors Judaism in soo many ways. Mohammad and his ppl were persecuted, so they fought back

Like I said, just start fresh. Think back to what you wanted to say when you originally started the thread and make whatever modifications you wish to your argument. This way, we can determine if we are, in fact, in agreement but only feuding over minor semantical issues.

Sure, I'll do that. IIRC, My statement was along the lines of; we can't put a huge bulk of the Blame on the atrocious actions humans have committed on each other to Religion, many of the atrocities committed were started before Religion came into play prominently or in some cases before there was religion in the world. But that doesn't mean the Religion is off the Hook at all. They did condone and sanction countless deaths throughout time.

Well that what I have to say for now. You can Re: my point ifyou want to counter it or if anything needs further clarification as my points are incomplete at this time. I'll be back with some more points ASAP.

[Durandal]

Okay, now since you have a more clear description of what Human Nature is all about. I can say that from my beliefs God gave man religion, since most Religions were born during times of Huge conflict, the subordination of women, very fundamentalist and barbaric thinking. My Stance (although incomplete at this time) is that Religion reflects the social evolution of man and has considerably changed alonside Humankind. In the past Humans had the more animalistic Kill or be killed/Kill the weak so the strong can survive mentality. Now it's considerably different in most cases. (Islam is now where, Christianity was at most 400 years ago)

This belief is circular reasoning. You cannot use the existence of religion to prove the existence of God to prove that God gave religion to Man. If you're using it as the basis for your argument, you might as well concede right now.

The basic problem is that not all members of a religion embrace change, yet they still live on. For example, Osama bin Laden hasn't embraced the more positive changes that liberal Muslims have. Same with Jerry Falwell. If this was an evolutionary process, one of them would eventually die out -- hopefully the conservatives, but that is clearly not the case.

The basic difference between Jerry Falwell and the Inquisitioners is that he lives under a government which won't allow him to kill Jews or forcibly convert others. Otherwise, the beliefs are essentially static and unchanged.

Furthermore, a religion's reliance on holy books makes any kind of evolution or growth difficult and in some cases, impossible.

<snip religion history>

Sure, I'll do that. IIRC, My statement was along the lines of; we can't put a huge bulk of the Blame on the atrocious actions humans have committed on each other to Religion, many of the atrocities committed were started before Religion came into play prominently or in some cases before there was religion in the world. But that doesn't mean the Religion is off the Hook at all. They did condone and sanction countless deaths throughout time.

Here's the basic problem with your stance. If Islam and Christian holy books explicitly condemned such actions and contained no passages that implied that mass-murder is acceptable under certain circumstances, the die-hard extremists wouldn't be committing such acts. You don't see strict followers of Buddhism blowing up buildings, do you? Of course not, because not one passage in any Buddhist scripture or writing can possibly be interpreted to condone such activity.

You're giving religious fervor too little credit. These people truly believe what they are taught. Osama bin Laden was thoroughly indoctrinated as a youth with the beliefs that it's acceptable to slaughter infidels, so he firmly believes that. His religion is his primary motivation. He merely uses the fact that the US is funding his oppressors as support for his claim that all US citizens are infidels, devils, whatever.

You'll notice how lots of born-again Christians explicitly condemn abortion, the death penalty and euthenasia for the same reasons -- they were similarly indoctrinated. Do you say that Christians who bomb abortion clinics aren't motivated by their religion as much as they are motivated by some insatiable desire to blow something up? That's absurd. They're motivated solely by their religious beliefs.

Now, in all fairness, you'll hear plenty of Southern Baptist ministers talk about the fact that "for every passage detailing God's love, there are five about his hate and wrath." So, the fundamentalists focus on the parts of the religion that serve them best. However, this does not change the fact that these religions are tools through which these men can exercise their evil, especially because the people who don't have the same desire for power -- the followers -- can be convinced to do evil things in the name of their beliefs with the use of holy books. Osama's patsies fly planes into buildings purely because of their religious beliefs, even if Osama himself thinks that Islam is a load of horse shit.

Even if we determine that the human instinct to seek and exercise power is responsible, what good does that conclusion do us? We can't get rid of or control the natural human instinct for power; it's simply there. We can control religion, the machine through which many of these men work.

So, you can argue all you like about how religion isn't as much to blame as human nature or whatever you wish, but so what? Blaming human nature is just useless finger-pointing; it gets us nowhere.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

This belief is circular reasoning. You cannot use the existence of religion to prove the existence of God to prove that God gave religion to Man. If you're using it as the basis for your argument, you might as well concede right now.

I wasn't making that leap, I said that according to me and My beliefs that's how I see it being. Your Beliefs of course are different. But what I was trying to say regardless on what either of us personally think about how religion was formed, on most occasions they (specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) were formed during times of strife, among Empires (xenophobia/racism) and when women were mere subordinates. Since these were many of the characteristics in Religion at the time, and still are in some cases.

-That Religious Beliefs that support (xenophobia/racism the subordination of women and other fundamentalist views) were around long before Religion existed and were integrated into Religious doctrine when religion was either concieved or Handed Down by God.
OR
-That Religious Beliefs that Support the above mentioned, were concieved when Religion was first concieved by man, or handed down by God.

The basic problem is that not all members of a religion embrace change, yet they still live on. For example, Osama bin Laden hasn't embraced the more positive changes that liberal Muslims have. Same with Jerry Falwell. If this was an evolutionary process, one of them would eventually die out -- hopefully the conservatives, but that is clearly not the case.

The basic difference between Jerry Falwell and the Inquisitioners is that he lives under a government which won't allow him to kill Jews or forcibly convert others. Otherwise, the beliefs are essentially static and unchanged.

Furthermore, a religion's reliance on holy books makes any kind of evolution or growth difficult and in some cases, impossible.

Quite true, but still the Bible and other holy books are and alway have been suseptable to to interpreting them to advance somebody's often delusional view of their religion. most of these books were written thousands of years ago. Stuff like that is open for interpretation, just like how Nostradamus and his prophecies are (I was watching a doc on Discovery). But I think there a move to growth that is ocurring. Falwell Generally is considered nothing more tha a hate mongerer, and people who share his fundy views (or any other Religion) are looked down upon by the General population. As for growth in Islam in the Mideast it's pretty uncertain there, but perhaps with time (50-100 years) there might be some change.

<snip religion history>

Here's the basic problem with your stance. If Islam and Christian holy books explicitly condemned such actions and contained no passages that implied that mass-murder is acceptable under certain circumstances, the die-hard extremists wouldn't be committing such acts. You don't see strict followers of Buddhism blowing up buildings, do you? Of course not, because not one passage in any Buddhist scripture or writing can possibly be interpreted to condone such activity.

But Buddism wasn't formed in a place of strife or war. Actually, Buddism was formed to counter some of the coldness of Hundism and the caste system. Since Buddha was a man born into kingship he wanted enlightenment. This was far different from the others, it was born out of peace and not war violence an bloodshed.

You're giving religious fervor too little credit. These people truly believe what they are taught. Osama bin Laden was thoroughly indoctrinated as a youth with the beliefs that it's acceptable to slaughter infidels, so he firmly believes that. His religion is his primary motivation. He merely uses the fact that the US is funding his oppressors as support for his claim that all US citizens are infidels, devils, whatever.

Actually I give religious fervor more credit than you realize. Sure Bin Laden's Religion is extremely belligerent, but if America didn't have it's inconsistent policy in the Mideast why would he attack the US then? He would have very little incentive to attack the US, but it would still be a possibilty. I would say in this case they both go hand in hand 50/50.

You'll notice how lots of born-again Christians explicitly condemn abortion, the death penalty and euthenasia for the same reasons -- they were similarly indoctrinated. Do you say that Christians who bomb abortion clinics aren't motivated by their religion as much as they are motivated by some insatiable desire to blow something up? That's absurd. They're motivated solely by their religious beliefs.

Now, in all fairness, you'll hear plenty of Southern Baptist ministers talk about the fact that "for every passage detailing God's love, there are five about his hate and wrath." So, the fundamentalists focus on the parts of the religion that serve them best. However, this does not change the fact that these religions are tools through which these men can exercise their evil, especially because the people who don't have the same desire for power -- the followers -- can be convinced to do evil things in the name of their beliefs with the use of holy books. Osama's patsies fly planes into buildings purely because of their religious beliefs, even if Osama himself thinks that Islam is a load of horse shit.

Even if we determine that the human instinct to seek and exercise power is responsible, what good does that conclusion do us? We can't get rid of or control the natural human instinct for power; it's simply there. We can control religion, the machine through which many of these men work.

So, you can argue all you like about how religion isn't as much to blame as human nature or whatever you wish, but so what? Blaming human nature is just useless finger-pointing; it gets us nowhere.

That where we differ. True even if Human Nature is the main cause as I say, we can't really solve that problem unless world wide Lobotomies acheive popularity.
Look at the progress humans have made in relations throught out the world, and the restraint we've developed in comparision to 10,000 years ago. If all the humans of that time had all the tech we have now it's safe to assume that humans wouldn't exist now.

[Durandal]

I wasn't making that leap, I said that according to me and My beliefs that's how I see it being. Your Beliefs of course are different.

Yes, my beliefs are the most obvious explanation.

But what I was trying to say regardless on what either of us personally think about how religion was formed, on most occasions they (specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) were formed during times of strife, among Empires (xenophobia/racism) and when women were mere subordinates. Since these were many of the characteristics in Religion at the time, and still are in some cases.

Yes, religion began as a symptom of human malice and desire for power, but it has grown into the cause of it because so many people believe in it. First, Man formed religion for his purposes, but eventually religion began to control Man.

-That Religious Beliefs that support (xenophobia/racism the subordination of women and other fundamentalist views) were around long before Religion existed and were integrated into Religious doctrine when religion was either concieved or Handed Down by God.
OR
-That Religious Beliefs that Support the above mentioned, were concieved when Religion was first concieved by man, or handed down by God.

There's no question that religion was created by certain men to grant them power and control of the masses by attributing unexplainable events to divine intervention. The masses are generally stupid, and will believe anything they are told. Regardless of that, we now have secular governments and science, so religion is no longer needed to maintain order. Thus, in today's world, it does little more than create conflict, such as what we have in the Middle East and Northern Ireland.

Quite true, but still the Bible and other holy books are and alway have been suseptable to to interpreting them to advance somebody's often delusional view of their religion.

You're giving the holy books in question far too much credit. Osama bin Laden does not have a "delusional" view of Islam. He read the text in the most straightforward manner possible and came to certain conclusions based on the incredible amounts of violence and hate-mongering in that text. The Bible and Qua'ran aren't simply susceptible to malicious use, they encourage it, and they were both created with that end in mind. Of course it's easy to use them to justify mass murder. But saying that they're merely susceptible to malicious use is like saying a whore is susceptible to sex.

most of these books were written thousands of years ago. Stuff like that is open for interpretation, just like how Nostradamus and his prophecies are (I was watching a doc on Discovery).

Nostradamus was full of shit, and his little cult has taken to making up prophecies post hoc to prove his divine inspiration. However, the Christian and Muslim holy books are clearly asinine, hate-mongering works. They're about as "open to interpretation" as Mein Kampf.

But I think there a move to growth that is ocurring. Falwell Generally is considered nothing more tha a hate mongerer, and people who share his fundy views (or any other Religion) are looked down upon by the General population.

The general population where you live. Do you think he would have stayed in public view this long, gotten his own university and gotten as rich as he has if everyone thought he was full of shit? Don't kid yourself; the man has a very large following.

The growth you're referring to is stunted by the fact that most Christians who really want to be progressive consider simply declaring the Old Testament null and void an impossibility. Christianity's ridiculous tenets of divine inspiration for the entire Bible has chained it to the violence and hate in the Old Testament, and most of the progressives are unwilling to completely ignore a work that was declared as divinely inspired by ignorant morons hundreds of years ago.

As for growth in Islam in the Mideast it's pretty uncertain there, but perhaps with time (50-100 years) there might be some change.

Only if they admit that their holy book is bullshit, which is something most Muslims aren't ready to do. They, like Christians, first have to admit that their holy books are hate-mongering, violent works that were meant for use by people like Osama bin Laden and Jerry Falwell. That's something they're even less willing to do. The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that you have one. So far, Muslims blame Osama bin Laden for "twisting" Islam, taking every possible ounce of blame off the religion is an absolutely appalling display of circular reasoning.

But Buddism wasn't formed in a place of strife or war. Actually, Buddism was formed to counter some of the coldness of Hundism and the caste system. Since Buddha was a man born into kingship he wanted enlightenment. This was far different from the others, it was born out of peace and not war violence an bloodshed.

That's irrelevant to my point. You claim that, even without religion, basic human malice would take hold. I refuted that claim by saying that Buddhism's case was clearly the opposite. Deeply devout followers of any religion will do exactly as their religion tells them. Osama bin Laden certainly qualifies. The simplest explanation is that he is just doing what his religion demands he do. We know he's a religious fanatic, and we know religious fanatics are completely unreasonable people.

Actually I give religious fervor more credit than you realize. Sure Bin Laden's Religion is extremely belligerent, but if America didn't have it's inconsistent policy in the Mideast why would he attack the US then? He would have very little incentive to attack the US, but it would still be a possibilty. I would say in this case they both go hand in hand 50/50.

There's no real way of telling, but you simply cannot deny that he was able to use Islamic beliefs to recruit followers and convince them to ram planes into buildings, as well as garner millions of dollars in support. Islam clearly plays a large role.

That where we differ. True even if Human Nature is the main cause as I say, we can't really solve that problem unless world wide Lobotomies acheive popularity.
Look at the progress humans have made in relations throught out the world, and the restraint we've developed in comparision to 10,000 years ago. If all the humans of that time had all the tech we have now it's safe to assume that humans wouldn't exist now.

This is true, and no one is saying that it's impossible for religions or humans to grow, but as long as humans cling to religions which include unquestionable holy books, we're screwed. Sure, I'd like to see a world where everyone could realize that religion is simply bullshit, but that won't happen for a very long time, if ever. In a more practical hope, I'd hope that people convert to Buddhism and embrace its teachings to simply live well with others and to not bother anyone else.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Well it took me quite some time to respond, I've been busy with some things, in my absence I did have time to do some static research on the History of both Islam and Christianity. I found out that both Religions weren't so Fundamentalistic at all. They both were pretty tolerant. Islam Tolerated and accepted both Christianity and Judaism and even allowed women certain rights. What that means, you'll find out later. I'll have to continue my reseach and I'll respond to you last post ASAP.