Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Reply to thread

Message

[USER=30167]@Albert[/USER] - There's always the chance that both you and I fall in the mistake of finding ways to back up our stances, instead of properly questioning them, but I promise I do my best to avoid that. We might be fools, but we try not to be. That's cool enough

Ok, when we try to discuss a topic I think it's convenient to trace its boundaries, to try and exhaust it before we transcend the topic itself and shake it off with a big shrug because it's become too broad. Otherwise, virtually any discussion about human affairs can be aborted after appealing to human nature. And even if every single social, political, ideological aspect of human history is either a direct result of or strongly determined by human nature, trying to determine which aspects of a doctrine offer a choice and which not is critical, IMO, in order to make a critique.

I don't think the beliefs of wolves (if we can use the word with them) and the beliefs of religious humans are equivalent. A wolf is a wolf, and a human is a human, but organized religion is not built into our biology. As you say, it is acquired, or if you're lucky, actually chosen. That's what makes it susceptible to critique in the first place.

Religion is not a natural impulse, or at least, not the major religions we're bringing up. And most importantly, the major religions, specially the abrahamic ones, are not only a view of the world, they are a model for behavior, crafted following the needs and circumstances of ancient peoples and -above all- their rulers. They tell you how to behave. They define good and evil actually NOT agreeing with human nature. Take the repression of sex, for instance. It follows either an outdated purpose, or a completely arbitrary one, and if a reasoning is ever provided, it has more holes than a swiss cheese. That's dogma, it's a command for behavior, and it often goes way beyond our natural flaws, the flaws we could indeed compare with the wolves flaws.

I try to take critique of religion the same way I would take critique of any idea or social construct. I was raised catholic, became an atheist, then an agnostic and now bugger me if I know what I am. But I worked hard to shake off grudges, and even if I won't judge a religion only according to the crusades for the same reason I won't judge communism only according to the soviet purges, I know by personal experience that beliefs (and their outcome) are a choice. Some people might never truly have it, but those cases of inevitability do not turn a doctrine, religious or political, into an integral part of everyone's nature - and hence beyond the point of any argument.

Humans can have a strong influence in their own beliefs. It's the funny thing about the so-called free will, and even if you think that we have "free will" only in appearance, we certainly seem to be able to choose wider than wolves, for good or bad.

<blockquote data-quote="Vodsel" data-source="post: 3604680" data-attributes="member: 11393">[USER=30167]@Albert[/USER] - There&#039;s always the chance that both you and I fall in the mistake of finding ways to back up our stances, instead of properly questioning them, but I promise I do my best to avoid that. We might be fools, but we try not to be. That&#039;s cool enough <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Ok, when we try to discuss a topic I think it&#039;s convenient to trace its boundaries, to try and exhaust it before we transcend the topic itself and shake it off with a big shrug because it&#039;s become too broad. Otherwise, virtually any discussion about human affairs can be aborted after appealing to human nature. And even if every single social, political, ideological aspect of human history is either a direct result of or strongly determined by human nature, trying to determine which aspects of a doctrine offer a choice and which not is critical, IMO, in order to make a critique.I don&#039;t think the beliefs of wolves (if we can use the word with them) and the beliefs of religious humans are equivalent. A wolf is a wolf, and a human is a human, but organized religion is not built into our biology. As you say, it is acquired, or if you&#039;re lucky, actually chosen. That&#039;s what makes it susceptible to critique in the first place.Religion is not a natural impulse, or at least, not the major religions we&#039;re bringing up. And most importantly, the major religions, specially the abrahamic ones, are not only a view of the world, they are a model for behavior, crafted following the needs and circumstances of ancient peoples and -above all- their rulers. They tell you how to behave. They define good and evil actually NOT agreeing with human nature. Take the repression of sex, for instance. It follows either an outdated purpose, or a completely arbitrary one, and if a reasoning is ever provided, it has more holes than a swiss cheese. That&#039;s dogma, it&#039;s a command for behavior, and it often goes way beyond our natural flaws, the flaws we could indeed compare with the wolves flaws.I try to take critique of religion the same way I would take critique of any idea or social construct. I was raised catholic, became an atheist, then an agnostic and now bugger me if I know what I am. But I worked hard to shake off grudges, and even if I won&#039;t judge a religion only according to the crusades for the same reason I won&#039;t judge communism only according to the soviet purges, I know by personal experience that beliefs (and their outcome) are a choice. Some people might never truly have it, but those cases of inevitability do not turn a doctrine, religious or political, into an integral part of everyone&#039;s nature - and hence beyond the point of any argument.Humans can have a strong influence in their own beliefs. It&#039;s the funny thing about the so-called free will, and even if you think that we have &quot;free will&quot; only in appearance, we certainly seem to be able to choose wider than wolves, for good or bad.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vodsel, post: 3604680, member: 11393"] [USER=30167]@Albert[/USER] - There's always the chance that both you and I fall in the mistake of finding ways to back up our stances, instead of properly questioning them, but I promise I do my best to avoid that. We might be fools, but we try not to be. That's cool enough :) Ok, when we try to discuss a topic I think it's convenient to trace its boundaries, to try and exhaust it before we transcend the topic itself and shake it off with a big shrug because it's become too broad. Otherwise, virtually any discussion about human affairs can be aborted after appealing to human nature. And even if every single social, political, ideological aspect of human history is either a direct result of or strongly determined by human nature, trying to determine which aspects of a doctrine offer a choice and which not is critical, IMO, in order to make a critique. I don't think the beliefs of wolves (if we can use the word with them) and the beliefs of religious humans are equivalent. A wolf is a wolf, and a human is a human, but organized religion is not built into our biology. As you say, it is acquired, or if you're lucky, actually chosen. That's what makes it susceptible to critique in the first place. Religion is not a natural impulse, or at least, not the major religions we're bringing up. And most importantly, the major religions, specially the abrahamic ones, are not only a view of the world, they are a model for behavior, crafted following the needs and circumstances of ancient peoples and -above all- their rulers. They tell you how to behave. They define good and evil actually NOT agreeing with human nature. Take the repression of sex, for instance. It follows either an outdated purpose, or a completely arbitrary one, and if a reasoning is ever provided, it has more holes than a swiss cheese. That's dogma, it's a command for behavior, and it often goes way beyond our natural flaws, the flaws we could indeed compare with the wolves flaws. I try to take critique of religion the same way I would take critique of any idea or social construct. I was raised catholic, became an atheist, then an agnostic and now bugger me if I know what I am. But I worked hard to shake off grudges, and even if I won't judge a religion only according to the crusades for the same reason I won't judge communism only according to the soviet purges, I know by personal experience that beliefs (and their outcome) are a [u]choice[/u]. Some people might never truly have it, but those cases of inevitability do not turn a doctrine, religious or political, into an integral part of everyone's nature - and hence beyond the point of any argument. Humans can have a strong influence in their own beliefs. It's the funny thing about the so-called free will, and even if you think that we have "free will" only in appearance, we certainly seem to be able to choose wider than wolves, for good or bad. [/QUOTE]