Religion is the worst evolutionary trait in human history

Quite interesting what the Dalai Lama said toward secular ethnics. Pleasantly surprise I must said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...80973a-30a2-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

 

Way too simplistic, this is the typical 'atheist' argument on Facebook. No religion = no war type of emotional post.

 

Seems like he ready to give up his own religion but doesn't because of his position.

He seems to believe the situation is either or. .. while I feel we can do both

Rocket River

 

I went and watch some of his speeches after reading the WaPo piece. That provide more of his thinking. Thought this was new, but he has been working this concept (although it seems he has steer it more toward science in this WaPo piece) for years now AFAIK after searching.

My poor paraphrase- he is saying Religion is ultimately tribal and can't be universally accepted. This secular ethic can a universally accepted path for all. IOW, he's looking for a new solution and has not lost faith at all in his religion. I see it as a highly ego-less gesture from a religious leader. He care more about the world than his own religion.

 

My thing is. . . why? What can this be universally accepted and all the other ethical frameworks cannot.

You do not have to be a Christian to beleive in the Chrisian ethical structure
any more than you have to be a Jew or a Muslim or Buddhist.

I guess it is because of my definition
Ethics is a part of every religion but it is not religion
Every Religion have their own ethical framework
In fact I'd go so far and say they are all very similar

Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shall not kill/murder†.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal††.
Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Thou shall not covet‡ your neighbor's wife (or anything that belongs to your neighbor).

I look at the none 'God' related commandments.
Does anyone think going against any of these is a good idea? Ethical?

If you pull the ethical system from every religion
Find the overlap . . . .
I suspect it will look very similar to your secular ethics.

It seems like rather than getting a Chevy, Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. . . he wants just a non name brand car . . . since no one can decide on which car they want.

Rocket River
just my interpretation

 

Why does Italian food not have soy sauce in it?

You can Americanize it with some b*stard fusion, but the orthodox will never accept it as canon. There are keystone ingredients and techniques they recognize as authentic. Ingredients that are sometimes distinct to just that region.

In the OT, those parts about God commanding the murder of neighboring tribes doesn't really fit context or inspiration to new converts. But if you have a more pronounced and recorded (real or not) lineage, then you might feel more entitled or one ring closer to that particular higher power.

Yup...my people did that. Yup...my tribe went through terrible trials and tribulations, yet our faith is still THIS strong.

 

Well, I'm approaching it from a science perspective. Before we knew what created thunder, there were many theories. Now, it's pretty much universally accepted how thunder is created. This is because we have great understanding and insight into the processes involved in creating thunders. I believe that once we gain great insights and understanding of the mind, brain and body relationship and processes, we can have a much better precise 'ethical' framework.

As of current, the ethics we have is imprecise and messy. The sources of our ethnics seems to come from many areas - religion, god, ancient text, philosophy, psychology, human feelings, voices in our head, neural system and feedback, etc...

And although there seems to be some 'common' set, it's not really that universally accepted among religions either. For example, some of the thing you lists seem common. But I think some religion provide no exception to them while others do. Honor they father and thy mother (what if they are abusive?). Thou shall not kill/murder (what if it's for protection or defense)? Thou shall not commit adultery (what if all parties involved consent to that lifestyle). Etc.

Then when we consider some commonly known 'religious' driven ethics, we get into a much more controversial list. Ethics as it deal with sex, music, dancing, consumption of alcohol, consumption of meat, nudity, marriage, women, education, clothing, drugs, worship, abortion, etc.

Without the understanding and insights into our working mind, we are left to "guess" and pick and choose. Faith play a huge part. Which 'vehicle' we are born into probably play the biggest part. Once we have the understanding and insights, I think we do not need to depend so much on faith, on guesses and can make a much better informed decision. And such decision can help all, religious or not. For those that are not religious, there is a new framework to work with. For religious folks, it can change their interpretation of their religion by 'rejecting' aspects that just simply has little basis in how things actually work and 'enhance' aspects that are supported.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kg84Bhtxg6M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bill Mahrer and Charlie Rose - good watch.

DD

 

Is it illegal to not honor your parents? And what if your parents neglected you or abused you? I can't imagine any social worker, cop, or mental health professional tell you that getting away from them and cutting them out of your life is a bad idea.

And what if those same parents did something awful to your neighbor and was telling the authorities. "Nope," you would reason, "Even though my father stole from my neighbor, I can't dishonor him." That would render you having to choose which commandment to break, honoring your father, or bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Is it illegal do commit adultery? The same book that says you can't do that, also says you can't divorced either. Even if your spouse beat you within the inch of your life.

Is it morally wrong for a starving person to steal food?

And is it illegal if I think your wife is hot and don't act on it? And is that really immoral?


This might pass as morality for an agrarian bronze-age society but I like to think the ethics of the society I live in is a bit more advanced.

 

I've been reading some of Pinker's florid prose again. Still worth sharing as it gets to the core of this thread.

“The scriptures present a God who delights in genocide, rape, slavery, and the execution of nonconformists, and for millennia those writings were used to rationalize the massacre of infidels, the ownership of women, the beating of children, dominion over animals, and the persecution of heretics and homosexuals. Humanitarian reforms such as the elimination of cruel punishment, the dissemination of empathy-inducing novels, and the abolition of slavery were met with fierce opposition in their time by ecclesiastical authorities and their apologists. The elevation of parochial values to the realm of the sacred is a license to dismiss other people’s interests, and an imperative to reject the possibility of compromise.”

“Why should the spread of ideas and people result in reforms that lower violence? There are several pathways. The most obvious is a debunking of ignorance and superstition. A connected and educated populace, at least in aggregate and over the long run, is bound to be disabused of poisonous beliefs, such as that members of other races and ethnicities are innately avaricious or perfidious; that economic and military misfortunes are caused by the treachery of ethnic minorities; that women don't mind to be raped; that children must be beaten to be socialized; that people choose to be homosexual as part of a morally degenerate lifestyle; that animals are incapable of feeling pain. The recent debunking of beliefs that invite or tolerate violence call to mind Voltaire's quip that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

“The doctrine of the sacredness of the soul sounds vaguely uplifting, but in fact is highly malignant. It discounts life on earth as just a temporary phase that people pass through, indeed, an infinitesimal fraction of their existence…the gradual replacement of lives for souls as the locus of moral value was helped along by the ascendency of skepticism and reason”

“Institutionalized torture in Christendom was not just an unthinking habit; it had a moral rationale. If you really believe that failing to accept Jesus as one's savior is a ticket to fiery damnation, then torturing a person until he acknowledges this truth is doing him the biggest favor of his life: better a few hours now than an eternity later.”

“Morality, then, is not a set of arbitrary regulations dictated by a vengeful deity and written down in a book; nor is it the custom of a particular culture or tribe. It is a consequence of the interchangeability of perspectives and the opportunity the world provides for positive-sum games.”



http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

TLDR: All good people celebrate the declawing of Christendom in many developed countries, though much work remains to ensure that it stays put where it belongs (nowhere near the state).

That work has to continue anywhere faith threatens secularism. That can start with Islam, but it cannot finish there.

 

The ten commandments have a lot of victim-less crimes. That's where religon's morality falls apart and where secular morality is clearly supurior. Religious morality has too many victim-less crimes.

 

I would think the worst evolutionary trait is the capacity to design weapons of increasing destructiveness, followed closely by the ability of individuals with even the most rudimentary technical skills to effectively use them.

 

LOL. :grin:

 

What exactly do you find problematic about that assertion?

 

I've probably said it before about 50 times over the years, but I gotta steal it again from Groucho, the cat that Woody stole it from. To paraphrase:

I wouldn't belong to a religion that would have me as a member.

 

Internet messaging fail. Nothing. I agreed with it.

 

Oh, okay; shields down, then. Have a good weekend!

 

Morality and Legality are not the same.

Seems your morality is basically .. . . if it ain't illegal explicitly by the law .. . . Then it is ok?

Rocket River

 

I know there are Muslims on this board. #1 I'm asking to verify the below information and #2 if verified I'm asking how this information is taken out of context or untrue.

Quran 2:191 'Slay the unbelievers'
Quran 3:28 'Muslims must not take the infidels as friends'
Quran 3:85 'Any religon other than islam is not acceptable'
Quran 5:33 'Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize islam'
Quran 8:12 'Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than Quran'
Quran 8:60 'Muslims must master all weapons to terrorize the infidels'
Quran 8:65 'The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.'
Quran 9:5 'When opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you find theme'
Quran 9:30 'The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.'
Quran 9:123 'Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.'
Quran 22:19 'Punish the unbelievers with garments of firm, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies'
Quran 47:4 'Do no hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them'

Side note, just browsing through books/chapters/verses randomly on an online version of the quran with multiple english translations. damn it's violent!!! don't know if it's slightly more or less violent than the old testament but it's apparent that it was written during a time of major conflicts and the tone and speech reflects that.

 

Christianity and Islam are frequently compared but a comparison of the life of Jesus and the life of Mohamed is IMO more telling. The believers of both faiths fail at emulating their savior/prophet but if they were to do it perfectly what would they be like.

One would bring death and destruction and the other would die for you.

It's unfortunate that Christians suck at Christianity and it's a damn good thing that most Islamists suck at Islam.