Religious Typology Quiz

[Cancel 1 2023]

State atheism and State theocracy are both threats to human freedom.

I believe the Jews who were tortured at the hands of the Inquisition and the muslims who died at the hands of the Crusaders would beg to differ.

I think most atheists have adopted the moral maxims of the religious traditions of the culture they grew up around (Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or Confucian), but they just secularized it by stripping away the religious language and context.

Think of it the other way 'round: Morality grew up naturally within a social framework to confer the stability and security of the network and then people started to "imagine" that the "rules" they lived by were actually provided to them from a supernatural being from outside space and time who created the whole universe.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Jank, you’re proving you were correct when you posted you weren’t that bright.

It’s okay that you dodge questions. Your choice and right to do so. I always learn something from a person when they avoid some areas over others.

I did not dodge questions. I answered them as completely as possible. You decreed them to be 'walls of text' indicating you likely didn't read them for content.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Jank, you’re proving you were correct when you posted you weren’t that bright. Since I asked the question, then, yes, I’m really asking that question.

If I am honest and open about my abilities then it is insulting to suggest that I am wrong about my abilities. Your quote was "...Not as bright as he thinks he is". That would be an insult. As it indicates I somehow think myself smarter than I actually am. And I have told you exactly the opposite. So you are making stuff up about me that I never said nor indicated and you are, in fact, saying the opposite of my position and painting me with that brush.

 

[Cypress]

I believe the Jews who were tortured at the hands of the Inquisition and the muslims who died at the hands of the Crusaders would beg to differ.



Think of it the other way 'round: Morality grew up naturally within a social framework to confer the stability and security of the network and then people started to "imagine" that the "rules" they lived by were actually provided to them from a supernatural being from outside space and time who created the whole universe.

Right, 600 years ago religious crusades and inquisitions killed many people, and 50 years ago state atheism oversaw the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Neither theocracy or state atheism are something I am keen about.

It is sheer speculation to guess that moral frameworks were basically the same 5000 years ago, as they were when the religious traditions of the Axial Age arose.

We actually have evidence. Anyone who carefully reads the surviving texts of the Greek preclassical age, the late bronze age of the Near East, the Vedic texts of pre- classical India will notice distinct differences in the ethical frameworks, values, virtues, and metaphysical priorities, compared to the ethics and values that arose our of the Axial age traditions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

State atheism and State theocracy are both threats to human freedom.

I think most atheists have adopted the moral maxims of the religious traditions of the culture they grew up around (Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or Confucian), but they just secularized it by stripping away the religious language and context.

Any authoritarian state is a threat to human freedom. Democrat and Republican extremists favor authoritarian measures. Just not as bad as those of mass murdering states in the past….yet. LOL

Agreed on “most”. My experience and knowledge of human nature is akin to Lord Acton’s comment about the corruption of power. Any idea, be it atheism, theism, freedom or anything else, taken to an extreme, ends badly for the majority of people. This follows the ancient wisdom of “moderation in all things”.

Greek poet Hesiod (c.700 bc): ‘observe due measure; moderation is best in all things’.

Roman comic dramatist Plautus (c. 250–184 bc): ‘moderation in all things is the best policy.’

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I did not dodge questions. I answered them as completely as possible. You decreed them to be 'walls of text' indicating you likely didn't read them for content.

You and I can agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Right, 600 years ago religious crusades and inquisitions killed many people, and 50 years ago state atheism oversaw the deaths of tens of millions of people.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that. The atheist atrocities were NOT done because of atheism. The religious atrocities were often done explicitly for religion and with the imprimatur and often COMMAND of the Church.

Now, the obvious conclusion to draw would be that "religion was only used to JUSTIFY the evil that people wanted to do and it was, indeed, done without any religious foundation. But how does one explain the Old Testament and the numerous murders commanded by God there? But if we allow that, can we also allow that atheism was NOT behind what Stalin did or what Pol Pot did? If it is understandable for one, is it not understandable for the other?

No, atheism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the purges of Stalin or Pol Pot's evil. Atheism was something they might have espoused but they didn't kill people because they were insufficiently atheist. They killed people to control them.

Religious people have a very long history of murdering people in the name of God.

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

We actually have evidence. Anyone who carefully reads the surviving texts of the Greek preclassical age, the late bronze age of the Near East, the Vedic texts of pre- classical India will notice distinct differences in the ethical frameworks, values, virtues, and metaphysics, compared to the ethics and values that arose our of the Axial age traditions.

Of course. That's because people change morality and ethos. The highest morality of the past oversaw murder. No one would agree today that a God-ordained genocide was a real thing, but they were definitely part of past religions. Morality changes to suit the zeitgeist of the people who live under the moral rules.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

You and I can agree to disagree on that point.

I guess so. Can we both agree you two dodged many of my questions?

 

[Cypress]

I disagree wholeheartedly with that. The atheist atrocities were NOT done because of atheism. The religious atrocities were often done explicitly for religion and with the imprimatur and often COMMAND of the Church.

Now, the obvious conclusion to draw would be that "religion was only used to JUSTIFY the evil that people wanted to do and it was, indeed, done without any religious foundation. But how does one explain the Old Testament and the numerous murders commanded by God there? But if we allow that, can we also allow that atheism was NOT behind what Stalin did or what Pol Pot did? If it is understandable for one, is it not understandable for the other?

No, atheism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the purges of Stalin or Pol Pot's evil. Atheism was something they might have espoused but they didn't kill people because they were insufficiently atheist. They killed people to control them.

Religious people have a very long history of murdering people in the name of God.

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"



Of course. That's because people change morality and ethos. The highest morality of the past oversaw murder. No one would agree today that a God-ordained genocide was a real thing, but they were definitely part of past religions. Morality changes to suit the zeitgeist of the people who live under the moral rules.

Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot were responsible for killing Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists precisely because they viewed religious authority as a rival to the type of scientific atheistic Marxism Communism they were establishing.

The priest in my father's village was shot by Bolsheviks, because he was a Christian community leader.

You are correct that many people died in the Gulag because they were being used as slave labor, irrespective of religious belief


The Homeric epics are surviving evidence of the values preclassical Greece held. The highest values were honor, valor, reputation, and an abiding interest in what other people thought of you. The Vedic texts of pre-classical India are primarily about cosmic maintainence, there's essentially nothing about personal, individual virtue.

What made the Jewish prophets radical is they claimed that charity, mercy, love for all your neighbors was not just a nice thing to do, but that is was a binding and categorical religious moral obligation.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot were responsible for killing Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists precisely because they viewed religious authority as a rival to the type of scientific atheistic Marxism Communism they were establishing.

In some ways I can see that. But again, it wasn't for "atheism's" sake. It was to promulgate control.

You could make the argument that the pope didn't want anyone in Languedoc murdered but rather wanted them to toe the line to be under his direct control as well. That it was wholly independent of faith.

But it gets harder when you look at various religious texts in which the God who created the entire universe supports and commands murder.

But your point is valid so long as you equally apply it to religions as well. That it isn't the religion per se but rather religion (or atheism in your example) is used to leverage its power to control people.

What made the Jewish prophets radical is they claimed that charity, mercy, love for all your neighbors was not just a nice thing to do, but that is was a binding and categorical religious moral obligation.

Let's be quite clear on this: the Jewish prophets, like Samuel, actually suggested God wanted a genocide. And earlier than that the holy books of the Pentateuch are littered with God ordained murder of innocents in service to the Israelites taking the land.

The addition of universal "mercy, charity and love" seem to be somewhat new to the overall Judeo-Christian ethos.

That's because religion is made up by humans and can thus evolve to meet our needs as we grow.

 

[BidenPresident]

Religion is bad for a nation. Lets the ignorant believe they know more than they do. Look at the Trump/GOP fascists.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Right, 600 years ago religious crusades and inquisitions killed many people, and 50 years ago state atheism oversaw the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Neither theocracy or state atheism are something I am keen about.

It is sheer speculation to guess that moral frameworks were basically the same 5000 years ago, as they were when the religious traditions of the Axial Age arose.

We actually have evidence. Anyone who carefully reads the surviving texts of the Greek preclassical age, the late bronze age of the Near East, the Vedic texts of pre- classical India will notice distinct differences in the ethical frameworks, values, virtues, and metaphysical priorities, compared to the ethics and values that arose our of the Axial age traditions.

Agreed. Notice that some people only want to see fault on the opposing points of view and never in their view be it atheism or theism. You and I are agreed that both POVs have had flawed pasts.

Also agreed on the lack of evidence about human moral frameworks prior to the written record and archeological evidence garnered from excavating ancient human habitats. Although the archeological is lacking, the research I’ve read indicates modern-thinking man has been around for at least 30,000 years. That’s a huuuge frickin’ gap before the written record.

As you, Jank and I have already discussed, there are logical moral codes for human coexistence since societies that are plagued by murder, rape, robbery and other crimes on each other soon fall apart. Ones that have social order and mutual respect tend to survive.

If Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is considered, then the first two base levels are more genetic with the higher three levels becoming less about genetics and more about uniquely human traits.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/a-guide-to-the-5-levels-of-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Religion is bad for a nation. Lets the ignorant believe they know more than they do. Look at the Trump/GOP fascists.

Haters gonna hate regardless of age, gender, culture or beliefs.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I disagree wholeheartedly with that. The atheist atrocities were NOT done because of atheism. The religious atrocities were often done explicitly for religion and with the imprimatur and often COMMAND of the Church.

Now, the obvious conclusion to draw would be that "religion was only used to JUSTIFY the evil that people wanted to do and it was, indeed, done without any religious foundation. But how does one explain the Old Testament and the numerous murders commanded by God there? But if we allow that, can we also allow that atheism was NOT behind what Stalin did or what Pol Pot did? If it is understandable for one, is it not understandable for the other?

No, atheism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the purges of Stalin or Pol Pot's evil. Atheism was something they might have espoused but they didn't kill people because they were insufficiently atheist. They killed people to control them.

Religious people have a very long history of murdering people in the name of God.

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"



Of course. That's because people change morality and ethos. The highest morality of the past oversaw murder. No one would agree today that a God-ordained genocide was a real thing, but they were definitely part of past religions. Morality changes to suit the zeitgeist of the people who live under the moral rules.

^^^
Violent atheist. I’m guessing age is under 35.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I guess so. Can we both agree you two dodged many of my questions?

Were they buried in your text walls? If so, then no, it wasn’t a dodge. It was TL;DR

 

[Cypress]

In some ways I can see that. But again, it wasn't for "atheism's" sake. It was to promulgate control.

You could make the argument that the pope didn't want anyone in Languedoc murdered but rather wanted them to toe the line to be under his direct control as well. That it was wholly independent of faith.

But it gets harder when you look at various religious texts in which the God who created the entire universe supports and commands murder.

But your point is valid so long as you equally apply it to religions as well. That it isn't the religion per se but rather religion (or atheism in your example) is used to leverage its power to control people.



Let's be quite clear on this: the Jewish prophets, like Samuel, actually suggested God wanted a genocide. And earlier than that the holy books of the Pentateuch are littered with God ordained murder of innocents in service to the Israelites taking the land.

The addition of universal "mercy, charity and love" seem to be somewhat new to the overall Judeo-Christian ethos.

That's because religion is made up by humans and can thus evolve to meet our needs as we grow.

The priest in my father's village was definitely executed because he was Christian.

You can flip your justification on it's head, and say the reason the church executed heritics was because of a desire to control. You need to apply your justifications universally and without prejudice.

I just the referee because I'm agnostic. If a holly roller pulls the moral superiority card on me, I'll reject it with extreme prejudice.

If an atheists wants to pin the crusade on modern christians, then we should keep a fair score card and pin murders of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists
committed by State atheism on modern atheists.

The TaNaKh is, in part, a history of the Jewish people, and that's why it is full of violence, war, death.

But Rabbinic Judaism, on the whole, in the past two thousand years has not practiced, preached, or committed genocide. Besides the ritual purity and food laws of Torah, Rabbinic Judaism seems to me to invoke the rather commendable moral vision of the Jewish prophets.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Notice that some people only want to see fault on the opposing points of view and never in their view be it atheism or theism. You and I are agreed that both POVs have had flawed pasts.

Also agreed on the lack of evidence about human moral frameworks prior to the written record and archeological evidence garnered from excavating ancient human habitats. Although the archeological is lacking, the research I’ve read indicates modern-thinking man has been around for at least 30,000 years. That’s a huuuge frickin’ gap before the written record.

As you, Jank and I have already discussed, there are logical moral codes for human coexistence since societies that are plagued by murder, rape, robbery and other crimes on each other soon fall apart. Ones that have social order and mutual respect tend to survive.

If Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is considered, then the first two base levels are more genetic with the higher three levels becoming less about genetics and more about uniquely human traits.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/a-guide-to-the-5-levels-of-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs

Nice.

I think the prohibitions on murder or stealing found in the Code of Hammurabi is more like a criminal code. It's not a comprehensive binding moral vision.

Being able to restrain oneself from murdering and raping is such a low moral threshold to surpass, the bar barely clears the ground. You can barely call that a moral framework.

We don't see any evidence in pre-classical era surviving literature of a focus on the types of individual virtues and values that we take for granted today. And those basically are first found in the Axial Age texts of Confucius, Plato/Aristotle, Zarathustra, The Buddha, The Dhammapada, and the Jewish prophets.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The priest in my father's village was definitely executed because he was Christian.

You can flip your justification on it's head, and say the reason the church executed heritics was because of a desire to control. You need to apply your justifications universally and without prejudice.

I just the referee because I'm agnostic. If a holly roller pulls the moral superiority card on me, I'll reject it with extreme prejudice.

If an atheists wants to pin the crusade on modern christians, then we should keep a fair score card and pin murders of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists
committed by State atheism on modern atheists.

The TaNaKh is, in part, a history of the Jewish people, and that's why it is full of violence, war, death.

But Rabbinic Judaism, on the whole, in the past two thousand years has not practiced, preached, or committed genocide. Besides the ritual purity and food laws of Torah, Rabbinic Judaism seems to me to invoke the rather commendable moral vision of the Jewish prophets.

Like violent Trumpers who seek to justify violence with half-truths and minor instances of violence by LWers, violent atheists seek to justify their violence against theists using the same strategy.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all used the same tactic as the violent atheists on this thread are seeking to do.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nice.

I think the prohibitions on murder or stealing found in the Code of Hammurabi is more like a criminal code. It's not a comprehensive binding moral vision.

Being able to restrain oneself from murdering and raping is such a low moral threshold to surpass, the bar barely clears the ground. You can barely call that a moral framework.

We don't see any evidence in pre-classical era surviving literature of a focus on the types of individual virtues and values that we take for granted today. And those basically are first found in the Axial Age texts of Confucius, Plato/Aristotle, Zarathustra, The Buddha, The Dhammapada, and the Jewish prophets.

I think any human village or tribe would agree that prohibitions against theft and violence would be conducive to the harmony of the group. Logically, stealing from others enhances the person or smaller group but, overall, it weakens the cohesiveness of the group.

Consider that one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman empower was too many slaves. Slaves have no loyalty to the State or Roman ideals since they don’t share in the benefits. For a group to remain cohesive, there must be a greater gain to be part of the group over subdividing into smaller groups or individuals.

This is a difference between the physical sciences and the social sciences….the latter of which are fuzzier than hard sciences.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

^^^
Violent atheist. I’m guessing age is under 35.

??????????????

Are you suggesting I'm a violent atheist? Based on what, exactly?

??????????????