Can I take a nutritional supplement for that?

How intolerant of you.

nt

Except historically, the exact opposite has been the case. But hey, let's just pretend otherwise.

And it is that constant promotion of the narrative that prevents actual dialogue.

Keep imagining that's the problem, instead of you refusing basic courtesy in discussion such as admitting error and apologizing.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=319214

Perhaps if you abandoned the narrative dialogue might happen.

Admit error, and apologize.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=319355

You keep throwing that word "narrative" around so much that you've made it meaningless. The "narrative" is that you refuse to admit a simple error, and apologize. That thread proves it. Show you're serious about dialog, g. Admit error and apologize.

hard to get anything done around here.

But, you can pretend otherwise.

I see the point you are trying to make. You have a contemporary bias. I won't refute that here.

It really takes a broad, historical look at religion, spirituality, philosophy and science in order to see if your statement rests on a logically valid premise. A broad brush like that is not accurate.

Especially in the hands of religion.

So, if I present a picture of a notable Nazi scientist would that then equate science with evil? That's what I mean.

What do you think of the science that brought us nuclear weapons that decimated the civilian population of two Japanese cities, i.e., all the men, women, children, babies and animals within the blast zone, and then horribly sickened and killed thousands who died horrible, painful deaths from radiation poisoning?

Just from an ethical perspective, no religion that I know of has ever been able to have the impact on an entire planet at one time. They could not destroy most of civilization with the push of a few buttons. They didn't produce technologies that have managed to severely effect the climate systems of the earth, pollute the air and water and oceans with byproducts of the modern technological advances, (as per engineering and industry, et al).

I value logic reason and science as a method. However, does the gravity of the above make it true that the sciences have brought us to the Anthropocene era in a short period of time, a 6th mass extinction that could end most life on the planet in a geologically short period of time mean that science and reason are evil, bad or wrong?

Do you take that as valid support that science is evil and destructive, when we both know that science is a methodology and who uses it and how is more to the point?

I don't think so. Maybe so more specificity and historical context is due?

This is what I mean. The way you are presenting it is a false equivalence. I don't have to deny atrocities that have occurred in history to refute your assertion. However, "especially" is a bit better, but still not accurate. Religion in the past does not equate with the way it is misused for political and other purposes today. In fact, it was just an aspect of various cultures and, in some cases, the distinctions or categories we use are imputed on them, (the Vedas, for example).

I could go on...

People oppress others mainly because they wish to. Some oppressors are, or were, theists, some not. The problem is the oppression, not theism or atheism.

Stop it.

Science is a method for determining truth. It is not a prescriptive moral system. It can't tell you what is morally right or wrong. It doesn't pretend it can. No one presents it as such.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Please stop before I start crying blood.

The Chinese Government, run by atheists, is basically trying to erase the Uighurs culturally, linguistically, and religiously.

Which you do love doing.

Religion was the tool of the oppressors. Certainly some individuals found messages in it to resist, but the key question to answer is, "What force were they resisting AGAINST?" It was generally religion, or supported by religion.

run by the atheist controlled Government of China. I am certain that these concentration camp inmates will appreciate that insight.

In the 20th-century it became clear that political ideologies can manipulate the masses and justify unspeakable atrocities.

However, that is not necessarily an argument for religion itself. It just points out that we are talking about human beings and how they use what they have and for what purpose.

To completely ignore the rather ubiquitous role that religion, (in various forms) has played historically in favorable times and "in the name of" atrocities is specious. Of course, there is a Western bias involved here as if European history for the last couple of millennia is all that matters.

When one considers the value and import of religions, (as a sociologist suspending bias for instance) for indigenous tribes, for instance, it even smacks of a very disrespectful and prejudicial view that reveals the bias behind it.

but the fact is that oppressors will use whatever resonates in their own particular culture to further what they wish to do. Sometimes language is used, or ethnicity, or religion, or, in the case of China, hatred for religion.

Excellent. That distinguishes the user from the tools. It is probably the most important aspect of the discussion here, so thank you.

So, the finger points back at us and being human and our stages of development. That may be a more beneficial way to see it because then, it is possible to reflect on our motivations and behavior from a broader perspective and, perhaps, someday, take another step out of our quagmire and ignorance.

I remember the Pogo comic strip and the line that became famous from it: "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

I also hold the notion, which is easily ignored or forgotten for various reasons that, we are ALL in this TOGETHER.

I like your use of "tools" and their role in shaping the world. So let's look at our toolbox. What items are in there and how have they benefited humankind.

Music - The ultimate unifier. The common language.

Science - Its contribution for good is astronomical. Health just for starters. Ease of living and increased understanding of our place in the universe just keep getting better.

Religion - The ultimate divider. History's most prolific mass murderer. Of absolutely no use in understanding the cosmos. Clearly, a tool we don't need and would be better off without.

I simply won't point out the fallacies and contradictions in your statements. They should be self-evident.

I respect your biases, but they seem to be occluding the point you are trying to make.

I might gather that you like music, or are a musician from that as a wild guess.

and they can point to an exact verse in the holy text that says to kill people, they aren't exactly "using" the text, they're doing what it says. That's the key problem with religion, and one you've never addressed.

And why?
Look at the current idiot in the WH. I bet he has no concept of God. Nevertheless, he is there because of religion. The evangelicals provided the push. They claim God has put him in control. If he ends up pushing the button, they'll say it was Jesus' hand.

It's too bad what happened in Japan. Very bad. But if you want to portray Truman as evil in order to deflect from the history of religious horrors, then you got nothing.

I am not deflecting, that was a comparison. I am sorry if you misunderstood.

If you don't know much about the historical context of religion and its relationship to culture, that is fine. You can assert your bias and present it as factual, but if the topic really interests you enough, then you might enjoy finding out more about it. I assure you it is very interesting and it would also help you in pointing out the faults of certain dogmas, the problem with fundamentalism and literalism in the modern era.

In a sense, if you go from a limited scope of knowledge on the subject, then add personal and cultural bias to that and then argue for it, that actually enters the territory of some religious views and the way they are held onto and promoted in the first place and I don't get the sense that you would want to promote that methodology inadvertently.

If you have your cause and it really matters, enjoy some research and find out. It can make you more effective as an agent of change.

I attended Catholic school for 7 years. I know a thing or two about religion. Your condescension is insulting. Your own ignorance and bias is telling.

So what do you think of the Christian led genocide of the Americas?

Your button is touched? Bing.

So, ad hominum is where you want to go now? You are arguing from your own assumptions now and possibly projecting. You, of course, have no idea just how incorrect those statements are.

However, an ad hominum then shifts the focus away from the contentions being made and into a personal attack that then then is supposed to elicit a defensive reaction. No can do. I will not play that kind of game with you.

When you go there, you really end the discussion. I won't be arguing with that. It really is pointless and I will leave your statements as the evidence of that here.

First you insult me, then you play the "no I'm not, you are" game. I asked a legitimate question that you won't answer because it exposes religion as the true evil that it is.

Is genocide limited to theists?

Let's just stop pretending that religion isn't guilty of their own sins.

And if I forget any of mine, my wife and children are happy to remind me of them.

If they're trying to eliminate religion, locking up atheists is a strange way to do it.

Or perhaps it's just about eliminating groups and individuals that pose a threat to the state, as I said?

Hmm...

Typical.

Or is it all theists?

How about social democrats? Or constitutional monarchists?

BEWARE THE WRATH OF MURPHY!!!!

to control others.
Religion pushes society, "forward" is questionable.

Even non-religious organizations. It is a human behavior.

and many do push society forward.

As opposed to religion.

And religion is no different in that. No one here argues that religion is only a force for good.

Universities, Hospitals and Science labs don't keep the masses in check and prevent forward progress as religions do.

Does their religion prevent them from making discoveries?

we were discussing the actions of hierarchies. Noted, changing the subject.

So I followed your lead.

after you tried to lump all hierarchies together.

Nice try, but that's a fail.

Or are some theists opposed to certain forms of progress?

I see no evidence that religion is a force for progress.

To explain the exact physics of what happened the day the earth stood still, or

exactly how the kangaroos got to Australia after the flood, or

how the flood waters "went away", or

how a serpent or a donkey could talk, or

how humans lived over 900 years, or

any of those other myths claimed as historical fact by the fundies. I guess I'll be waiting for a while.

But everyone knows that kangaroos invented boats.