There is a famous joke about two men, Goldberg and Schwartz, who are walking to synagogue.

Say, Ennui, I just realized that Schwartz and I are "kindred spirits" of a type. I will be going with a friend later this morning to his church. I don't particularly like his church (ugh..."Evangelical Christian", meaning the service amounts to a particularly loud, particularly inane rock concert with a bit of vague sermonizing attached, all of it appealing to the emotions rather than the intellect), which doesn't offer any of the values which I find rewarding in a religious experience...such as "significant ritual" (as is represented for me by the Catholic mass). Even so, I, the "atheos ex catholicum", do find some value in going there, for while Schwartz goes to synagogue to talk to Goldberg, I go to my friend's church to look at the girls! :up:

I am thankful to Schwartz for seeming to validate my behavior, which occasionally serves to fill the weekly Sunday morning "dead spot" in the calendar. I personally have found, curiously, that when one has been raised to perform a religious ritual, such as is represented by churchgoing on Sunday mornings, it becomes difficult to enjoy other activities during that weekly time period, even if you no longer adhere to the religion in question. It is as if that time slot should be reserved for a certain type of activity, and to do something else seems a bit out of place. This means that for myself, Sunday mornings have long been a type of "dead spot" in the week, with me often unsure of what to do. Don't know if anybody else has experienced that phenomenon. Regarding the girlwatching, you are invited anytime...I'll provide the earplugs, and an affidavit verifying your non-participation. :wink:

And you get extremely inconclusive results.
— baker

Yup. Which is why attacking religion with a particular description of religion writ large is pointless. It doesn’t carry any weight with respect to what actual people believe or why they belong/self identify. — Ennui Elucidator

If you take that route, you end up in the Humpty-Dumpty land of my-religion-is-anything-I-want-it-to-be-and-I-can-call-it-whatever-I-want-and-everyone-needs-to-respect-that.

By "factually incorrect" you mean what?
That there is no heaven, no eternal damnation, and no nibbana?
— baker

Pretty much. Also that Jesus probably didn't do any miracles, etc.

And all religious teaching are scientifically unprovable. — stoicHoneyBadger

And whose problem is that?

My contention that Christianity was largely responsible for the destruction of classical literature, and culture generally, is that presented by Gibbon, and one or two others since. You will need something more than just naysaying — Banno

That's a more focused claim than made before, which was correlating monotheism to intolerance.,suggesting it was the monotheistic aspect of Christianity that resulted in its destructive nature.

Titus did destroy Judea and the Temple in Jerusalem, so to the extent the argument is made that polytheists stand for tolereance over their aggressive monotheistic neighbors, I don't see that. The act of destroying the temple dramatically changed Judaism and that culture forever.

I more generally see a violent human nature evident throughout history, not specifically related to any religion, but to power and politics, with religion being one method used to control. Whether the Christians were helpful to Rome or Rome helpful to the Jews, of course not, but identifying religion as the malevolent force, particularly monotheism, seems overly simplified and refutable by counter-examples.

The part of your quote I bolded doesn't make sense to me because I don't know what it means to be without culture. What happened perhaps was the replacement of one set of cultural values for another and you apparently lament that those you preferred were displaced.

I've looked at the discussion on this subject and it's berry clear that we take the approach of making apinions on religion based around modern values and not the true authentic teachings. Secondly these values are very hard to see in the way in which follows behave and deliver these theology's contradict these authentic teachings.

I more generally see a violent human nature evident throughout history, not specifically related to any religion, but to power and politics, with religion being one method used to control — Hanover

That is exactly what is all about. And his false in the base that he builds his argument on.

Blames for all human nature weaknesses religions. As if behind them aren't people.
And after Christianity especially. That Logical row simply makes no sense at all. Add to all these, the historical error that Christianity was first to oppress others, be intolerant and seek political state and you will understand that there isn't much to argue about here.

that Christianity was largely responsible for the destruction of classical literature, and culture generally, is that presented by Gibbon — Banno

Gibbon's work is a hallmark, required reading for the classicist, but one must be mindful of Gibbon's anti-religion bias, which has bled into the D&F.

I more generally see a violent human nature evident throughout history, not specifically related to any religion, but to power and politics, with religion being one method used to control. — Hanover

I think you see well. This violent nature, however, appears rather uncalculated, but rather instinctual. It is, again I say, the old "libido dominari", which evolutionarily developed as an integral part of all mammalian species. This is the reason behind why a male lion who has just killed or defeated the "alpha", and so become leader of the pride, will immediately engage in the macabre activity of seeking out and killing all of the previous alpha's Cubs, in order that the lionesses will more quickly come into estrus, allowing him to breed them. This instinct's sole end is to have the highest status possible within the social group, and to ensure genetic dominance.

This violent nature, however, appears rather uncalculated, but rather instinctual. — Michael Zwingli

And more should not be expected from humans than from some animals?

So, doesn't preventing a war help survival? If so, isn't it an ethical decision and action? — Alkis Piskas

Depending at what cost. :)

No, but intolerance is not limited to or invented by Christianity. It's just a nasty human quality. — Thunderballs

I believe all human qualities are build into us by evolution, therefor it served us well at some point. People are tibale by nature and being intolerant of the competing tribe, at times, might be very beneficial. It looks to me that most problems of the modern world are brought on by being too tolerant.

To which modern slaves you refer? Loan slaves? — Thunderballs

I am referring to lefists, who are promoting the victim-hood culture for their own political gain. who are splitting the society into oppressors vs oppressed and setting them up against each other, be it lgbt against straight people, blacks against whites, women against men, etc.

splitting the society into oppressors vs oppressed — stoicHoneyBadger

Are you referring to Social conflict theory ?

am referring to lefists, who are promoting the victim-hood culture for their own political gain. who are splitting the society into oppressors vs oppressed and setting them up against each other, be it lgbt against straight people, blacks against whites, women against men, etc. — stoicHoneyBadger

Do you really dispute who the original instigator was in each of these conflicts you've identified? It's not like blacks, gays, and women were all equal players in society and that they woke up one morning and spun a narrative that they were oppressed and wanted equal rights.

I'm not disputing that in any political fray either side might not be guilty of over-playing their hand well past its moral limits, but it seems fairly naive to hold one side blameless, especially when it's the side that threw the first hundred or so punches.

Are you referring to Social conflict theory ? — Wheatley

Yes, you could say so. i.e. Marxist ideology that tells some problematic group that all their problems are because the other group is oppressing them and, therefore, they should somehow oppress that group in return to make things even. Unfortunately, there are lots of gullible, bitter and resentful people, who fall for it.

Marxist ideology that tells some problematic group that all their problems are because the other group is oppressing them — stoicHoneyBadger

Can you give an example?

Do you really dispute who the original instigator was in each of these conflicts you've identified? It's not like blacks, gays, and women were all equal players in society and that they woke up one morning and spun a narrative that they were oppressed and wanted equal rights.

I'm not disputing that in any political fray either side might not be guilty of over-playing their hand well past its moral limits, but it seems fairly naive to hold one side blameless, especially when it's the side that threw the first hundred or so punches. — Hanover

It does seem that the current approach, i.e. for example, blaming current white people for slavery that they ended over 5 generations ago. Or blaming current straight people for some gay oppression generations ago. A healthy approach would be to see us all as people, who have our own interests and we should learn to live together in a society, trying to balance our interests the best way possible, so that the society does not collapse. Also understanding that life has struggles build into it, things very often do not go the way we plan, but blaming some class of people, who supposedly oppressed us generations ago, is a very toxic approach that leads to gulags and misery.

Critical race theory, for example, teaches black kids that they would not be able to succeed in life because of their skin color, so don't even try, white people will still hold you down.
Feminism, pretty much the same, telling women that there is a 'glass ceiling', that men won't allow them to succeed.

So, instead of taking responsibility and trying their best, they fail because of not even trying and then blame others for their miserable lives.

Critical race theory, for example, teaches black kids that they would not be able to succeed in life because of their skin color, — stoicHoneyBadger

Feminism, pretty much the same, telling women that there is a 'glass ceiling', that men won't allow them to succeed. — stoicHoneyBadger

Those are misrepresentations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Those are misrepresentations. — Wheatley

And what do you think are correct representations?

And what do you think are correct representations? — stoicHoneyBadger

I would have to ask them in person.

I would have to ask them in person. — Wheatley

whom? race hustlers? :)

race hustlers? — stoicHoneyBadger

Marxists.

Marxists. — Wheatley

Just know that their goal is to get political power, not "make things better".
For that they are happy to split the society into classes and generate artificial conflicts among them by blaming one class for all the misfortunes of the other.

And more should not be expected from humans than from some animals? — baker

It should, but we err if we deny our core nature

Just know that their goal is to get political power, not "make things better". — stoicHoneyBadger

That's just your opinion...

That's just your opinion... — Wheatley

Did it ever play out any other way? ;) whenever Marxists come to power, it always end in a totalitarian state and misery & concentrations camps for the people.

whenever Marxists come to power, it always end in a totalitarian state and misery & concentrations camps for the people. — stoicHoneyBadger

Do you have any confirmation for this claim?

I would have to ask them in person. — Wheatley

[...]

Marxists. — Wheatley

AKA "progressive liberals".

AKA "progressive liberals — Michael Zwingli

They're all Marxists??

Can you confirm? — Wheatley

Russian October revolution rings a bell? Basically replaced a stupid Czar with a blood-thirsty maniac Lenin, followed by Stalin.

Russian October revolution rings a bell? — stoicHoneyBadger

That's not confirmation.