 |
| |
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:36
|
|
Hmm, already some new replies. Gotta go to sleep now though. Some quickies:
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
To help support Maniac, maybe you are misinterpretting what he meant by human society? When Maniac says society I would happen to believe he/she (?) means when civilizations began to develop, not just Neathandrals and the like. |
Yep. 
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Maniac, though, there's no way any religion-specific bonuses will get in, even for something as general as "more universalist" or whatever. It's too controversial. |
There will be a +1 happiness bonus (whatever that may mean) for cities that have the same religion as your state religion.
Anyway, I'm not arguing for religion-specific bonuses. The point I'm trying to make is that animism, totems, magical and mythological religions shouldn't be included as religions just like the more universalist religions that currently are included. Thinking of those mythological religions etc as the religion that every civ has default at the start of the game (when they're so called religion-less in game terms) is in fact rather realistic I'd say.
Though of course even those magical and mythological religions gave meaning to people's life. So therefore I think the ideal solution would be that there is one city improvement (the good old 'temple') that doesn't require any "universalist religion" and represents whatever local belief or pantheon you can imagine, while all other religious city improvements that come after it do require one of the seven universalist religions included in the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Platypus Rex its been found that even the late Neaderthals burried their loved ones |
just for the sake of my own curiosity, where did you get your evidence from?
quote:
who is to say when human understanding of death started |
indeed.
i've seen footage of elephants returning, years afterward, to the skeletons of loved and respected matriarchs. they caress the old bones with genuine tenderness. even the young calves seem to recognise a certain significance there.
scholastic view
from a scholastic (catholic) point of view, animals are not capable of metaphysical speculation. in other words, they have no capacity to understand death or it's consequences. the same principle may apply to neanderthals.
this does not mean that they cannot express grief. but i'll have to do some research before i can explain that one very effectively.
let me point out that humans do not understand death. it is only by the grace of god and by god's acts of revelation that humans have knowledge of the meaning of death.
buddhist view
there is no real distinction between animals, neanderthals and humans. they all experience joy and suffering.
at this point, i should introduce a couple of terms;
the principle of dependent origination
no phenomenon exists by and of itself. everything which is, has it's existence only as part of a larger whole. although we speak of things, actions, thoughts as me, you, it, my, his, etc. on closer inspection, these things all turn out to be just a part of a complex web of interactions. the idea of a fundamental distinction existing between one phenomenon and another is an illusion.
a corollary to this is the idea that no phenomenon arises without pre-existing conditions
nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could (/julie andrews)
no phenomenon has an absolute beginning or end.
conventionally designated reality
if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then, as far as you and i are concerned it is an ornithorynque.
although there is no 'real' distinction between phenomena, we daily make use of convention, probably because it's just more practical and it avoids getting known as "that @nally retentive b@stard"
if an object looks like a pen, if i can pick it up and write with it, if we both understand one another when you say "hey pass me that pen", then that object has a conventionally designated reality as a pen.
according to this view, "religion" has no real beginning or end. when you see the same behaviour portrayed by humans, neanderthals, elephants, there is nothing surprising about this.
modern view
depends on the pholisopher and how much they've been smoking. many of them would point out that "religion" is just a word game that is played within society. it has no real meaning.
anybody who is not a leotard, hi-digger or derider is probably so bound up in societal mores that they are incapable of developing an intelligent opinion on death or meaning anyway.
personally
i stand by my original point. archeological evidence so far shows humans developing elaborate burial practices around the 5000bc mark.
it is still speculation to say that this is conclusive evidence of "religion or moral systems." it may be a reasonable assertion, but it's only an educated guess.
humans were actually around for some time before this. so to say that
quote:
religion or at least moral systems have always been present in human society |
is just speculation.
when did humans first develop an understanding of death?
what is the difference between superstition and organised religion?
how to play the flute?
what really is that strange stuff that collects in your navel?
answers to all these questions and more in our next, thrilling installment of...
Animalism/tribalism/else: religion from the start?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
New religions arose, who all to a certain degree had some characteristics that could appeal to the people living in those new society surroundings, and bind them together. These characteristics are:
3. Dogmatism: As said above, if the words come from God, you can't change them anymore after writing them down. Opposed to mythology, which was flexible. |
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
this only applies to christianity, islam and some judaic sects |
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
I would say it maybe relates to the powers in place through those religions as opposed to the religion itself. Not to say the religion doesn't promote dogmatic ways, but I think the churches themselves are the ones who have provided the inornamate amount of dogmatism. |
there are just so many places to go with this one...
some definitions of dogma;
quote:
Dogma is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative or beyond question.
A generally held set of formulated beliefs.
A teaching or doctrine which has received official church status as being the truth. In the Roman Catholic Church it is a definitive teaching that is regarded as infallible.
Doctrine that has been infallibly defined by the Church; it is what Catholics must believe in order to be Catholic. |
@techie
i'd agree that the temporal power of the church, especially in mediaeval times is a significant factor in the promotion of dogma. it certainly has a political element of "for us or against us"
@maniac
you are right. some buddhist sects can also be quite dogmatic.
mythology wasn't necessarily flexible.
i think you are trying to say that faiths which characteristically transmitted their teachings through mythology had a more accepting attitude towards alternative faiths.
if so, that is probably a fair statement, but not one which i would be prepared to accept as factual.
in terms of that statement, there are a few points to consider
dogmatism does not require revelation
as you said, some buddhist sects are quite dogmatic
however, the teachings of the buddha are not considered as divine revelation. the buddha was just a mortal human, same as you or me. his teachings are considered to be the result of thought and meditation, not god-given
revelation does not require dogmatism
the bible was developped by the catholoc church.
protestant sects accept the bible as being a divine revelation. they do not, however accept the authority of the roman church to interpret that revelation.
mythology is not necessarily flexible
hinduism is based on whaqt could be referred to as mythology. yet, as you say, many aspects of hinduism are dogmatic in the sense that they consider those myths to represent 'absolute' truth
songlines passed on by generations of koori tribes are taught strictly. again, they are mythological in character, but they are not subject to variation. each wor dmust be memorised with precision
dogmatism is not necessarily inflexible
the doctrine of the immaculate conception was developed by the catholic church in the early 20th century. it is now dogma. previously it was not.
there is a nexus to consider between church, revelation and dogma. the three are certainly related, but i do not think it is as simple as you imply.
further i'm not at all sure that the existence of dogma sustains your argument that religion is evolutionary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
ahh, ghent,..
if you happen to run into gerda anytime, you can tell her from me - i still think she's a hottie.
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
Actually I don't really understand what's the point you want to make. |
oh good. i'm not the only one then.
i agree i sort of got lost in just being contrary there. i have yet to express an opinion on your original point "that religion is evolutionary." i just felt that your argument was poorly reasoned and inconclusive. by the time i finished, i was more involved with analysing the logical or empirical inconsistencies than actually making any sort of argument about it myself.
my apologies
quote:
Basically I was just repeating in short what I had been taught in university during history of philosophy classes. If you disagree with what I say, go argue with my professor. |
no problem. where does he drink??
oh and since you're on your way to the bar, make mine a kwak. 
re: definitions of religion
ceremonial burial is the quoted as the first archeological evidence of a recognisable religious practice. it doesn't mean that humans had religion then. it just looks like the sort of thing that can reasonably be associated with religious practice.
quote:
I guess humans, while not having some organized religious system, would always have had some basic moral values (which don't have to be metaphysical as far as I can see |
i would argue that moral systems are inherently metaphysical.
do basic moral values predate organised religions?
from a humanist point of view, that is probably a reasonable suggestion.
i could see cause for argument from a theistic point of view.
it still hinges on what you consider to be basic moral values. there is a distinction to be made here between "moral sytems" and "moral values." certainly, from a scolastic point of view, humans inherently possess moral freedom, and therefore moral values.
from that point of view, as soon as a being possesses humanity, it also possesses a capacity for moral judgement. it would make sense to say that "moral systems" and "organised religion" came along afterwards.
personally
i tend to think that making unqualified statements about early human history is unwarranted.
i. it's unacademic - the evidence for any thesis is very sketchy at best. we can paint pictures of what might have happened, but can we know conclusively??
ii. it's subject to religious speculation - different religions and philosophies have different explanations for things. even in strict philosophical terms, going back to the very beginnings of human consciousness will throw up many, many different points of view.
iii. arrrgh!! creationists!! @#$% - nobody wants that!
iv. oh god, here come the scientists - from an anthropological point of view, it's like trying to investigate the big bang. the closer you get to it, the less you understand. and let's face it, i'd rather deal with an honest fool of a creationist than some physicist/philosopher.
paganism
your statement seems to me like a bit of a jumble of many different ideas and causes.
quote:
The religions were also very localized. |
transport was very limited, social interaction was limited what effect did this have on the localisation of beliefs?
in comparison with todays standards of transport and communication, wouldn't you consider that religions were in fact quite widespread and uniform? (if, for example whole regions of europe had similar religious practices in 3000bc, how does that compare?)
ancient pagan beliefs seem to have held that different gods presided over different places/times. in the case of europe, it would seem that religions were very widespread, but gods were very local.
quote:
One tribe could have their own gods to worship, while a tribe a few kilometers further could have a set of others. |
true, but both tribes might have been part of the same "religion."
again, you seem to be leaning on pagan beliefs, which did not necessarily reflect greater tolerance. this god rules that river, those gods inhabit these hills. the tribe living in the hills is subject to a different god and that determines their religious practice.
do those practicing paganism today do anything different?
the same behavioiur can be seen in the "evolved" religions, many modern religions live side to side today. were ancient times more tolerant, more warlike, or no different at all.
overall, this part of your argument seems like a strongly humanist-leaning historical narrative.
you have not shown that humans determined the course of religious development. i do not believe that the argument is historically sound. i disagree with the "once upon a time" feel of your narrative. some of your points are worthwhile, but i have seen plenty of evidence for animist practices still going on today that are no different, so the "evolution" narrative does not convince me.
quote:
It was considered normal for everyone to have their own different gods. |
yes, pagans considered it normal for different places and hence different tribes to be presided over by different gods.
it was not necessarily considered normal for someone to be other than pagan. if you showed up preaching monotheism in stone-age europe, you would probably have been considered very un-normal indeed.
just because it was considered normal, does not mean the relationship was one of tolerance and non-violence.
"sire it is normal for those heathens to worship their cruel war-god thor... therefore we must destroy them and take their land. "
it is still considered normal many religions live side by side in mant parts of the world.
enough for now, i need a ciggie, i'll get back to the rest later. oh and where's my beer?!!! 
#$%& belgians....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
re: goddess figurines
the evidence of similar figurines found distributed over large distances may indicate that many different tribes had similar religious practices. they may have all been used to represent similar beliefs. they may have represented different gods within the same religion. they may have arisen by pure accident. they may have had no religious significance whatsoever.
nontheless, there is a distinct possibility that religious beliefs were not as localised as you suggest.
re: ho hum...
as if that needs any further explantion?!!
it's perfectly clear to me!! 
as i said above, the idea that "this didn't cause problems" is rather tenuous. i don't think there's any evidence that ancient religions caused any fewer problens than modern ones.
as far as "this was considered normal"
normal to whom??
have you conducted a 'phone survey of late stone-age tribes and analysed the data?
yes, i deny that egyptian and indian cities all had their own god.
egyptian and indian boogers all had their own god.
gods for harvest, gods for sowing, gods for peeing, god for the little dribble of pee you just can't get rid of, gods for smallpox, gods for plague, the list goes on
quote:
In the great cultural areas of those days large empires started forming ... , the tribal beliefs no longer succeeding in streamlining behaviour of all the ... different peoples in the empires. New religions arose, ... that could appeal to the people living in those new .. surroundings, and bind them together. |
the part i really don't like about this is: you are getting really stuck into the humanist historical narrative again.
now, i don't have a problem if you want to say "i don't believe in the action of deities or metaphysical forces. i don't believe that gods had any effect in shaping human history, or the history of religion."
if that is your belief, you are quite entitled to it.
but if you are trying to put a rational argument, you should state your assumptions. your narrative seems to assume that humans or the forces of human civilisation shaped religious history.
that may be so, and i do not reject the possibility. but i cionsider it to be just one of many possibilities.
as far as the expansion of religions goes, it really is a more complicated matter than you seem to suggest.
i'll skip that and the question of hinduism as a tribal religion for now.
as far as the "silly polemic" bit goes
like i said your argument is very humanist. i don't think it is an example of sound theology. my initial impression was that you were veering towards one of those "religion is the source of all evil" tirades.
as far as "your own prejudices"
we all have them. i'm prejudiced too ( don't get me started about modern philosophers or john howard!!)
like i said your argument did not seem at all like sound reasoning so much as humanist dogma.
there was no intention to cause offence. i think it was the schmoo who pointed out elsewhere: these things are called posts, not term papers. so i was trying to keep things as short as possible.
sorry if i sounded harsh, from my point of view there is nothing wrong with having prejudices. i just think it's helpful to be able to recognise them when necessary.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
yep, at this point, you still have to research ceremonial burial before you can start lining up the lambs.
i like maniac's point that you should be allowed to build temples without having a "universalist religion" (his term - not mine). on the other hand, if there's no rioting in c4, maybe the whole 'happy people' part of the game doesn't figure in anymore.
#$%& belgians....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
To start all Civ's off as animistic is to assume religion takes an evolutionary process, in which case is a Western view to promote the elitism of monotheism. Religion is not evolutionary, although it would seem that it could be put into an evolutionary outlook. |
Especially since you could conclude from that that the next logical step in the line of animism (everything has a soul, or spirit - even swords and stones) - polytheism - monotheism would be atheism (or the religion of prudence).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
The terms used to categorize several different religions were more generic Christian concepts. |
Yeah sorry for that. Some meaning may have been lost or shifted in my translation from Dutch to English. Also, if you want to compare two things, I guess you have to either invent new words, or use words from one of the things you’re comparing and which you’re more familiar with, which of course might carry with it connotations that are not intended.
quote:
I should have said: "Maniac, religion could (not would) be evolutionary from the view of it being used as a tool to control the masses -- sociologically and psychologically." Following that, because a religion may be more useful for controlling the masses certainly does not mean it is better suited for complex civilizations. |
Can’t follow your train of thought here I must admit. 
Btw, “controlling the masses” may be putting it bad. Perhaps saying “allowing them to live together” would be better.
quote:
The Mayans and Incans both had very complex civilizations; forms of animism worked out perfectly fine for them and their great empires would be here today were it not for the advent of gunpowder. |
I don’t know that much about those civilizations, so unfortunately I can’t reply here much. 
On a general note though, giving a couple examples of animist or tribal religions still surviving today (Hinduism partly I guess) or in large civilizations a couple centuries back is as far as I can judge not a proof that religion is not evolutionary from a sociological-functionalist point of view. Of course, the world isn’t a 100% “universalist religious”, nor are all religions a 100% universalist. But I dare say that when comparing the world between 500 BC and now, universalist religions are now much more widespread. In other words, though not a perfect one, an evolution has happened.
To go back to eg the Aztecs and Incas, weren’t those still young and growing empires? Who knows how their religion could have evolved should their civilization not have been destroyed by the Spanish? I remember now… I saw a documentary once about the Incas, and IIRC how they were in the process of forming one religion out of the different tribal religions. So who knows what could have happened further.
lebensraum
quote:
dogmatism does not require revelation
as you said, some buddhist sects are quite dogmatic
however, the teachings of the buddha are not considered as divine revelation. the buddha was just a mortal human, same as you or me. his teachings are considered to be the result of thought and meditation, not god-given
revelation does not require dogmatism
the bible was developped by the catholoc church.
protestant sects accept the bible as being a divine revelation. they do not, however accept the authority of the roman church to interpret that revelation. |
I never claimed those two required each other.
Also I never said revelation (sorry for the Christian word) had to be divine. Some dude whose words are given higher authority (Siddharta, Zoroaster, Confucius, Lao Tzu) also fits the bill. Can you give many examples of mythological religions supposedly having one guy who founded the religion?
quote:
i would argue that moral systems are inherently metaphysical. |
Ho wait. Do you mean with ‘metaphysical’ that it has to contain supernatural elements such as a god or a higher reality/idea-lity? If so, are you saying that any monist materialist moral system is in fact NOT a moral system?
quote:
i. it's unacademic - the evidence for any thesis is very sketchy at best. we can paint pictures of what might have happened, but can we know conclusively?? |
We can never know anything conclusively. The only thing science allows us to do is say that something might probably be more probable than something else.
quote:
my initial impression was that you were veering towards one of those "religion is the source of all evil" tirades. |
I don’t think that. That would be a rather odd position btw, since what is “evil” is usually defined by religions or other moral systems…
quote:
the part i really don't like about this is: you are getting really stuck into the humanist historical narrative again.
now, i don't have a problem if you want to say "i don't believe in the action of deities or metaphysical forces. i don't believe that gods had any effect in shaping human history, or the history of religion."
if that is your belief, you are quite entitled to it.
but if you are trying to put a rational argument, you should state your assumptions. your narrative seems to assume that humans or the forces of human civilisation shaped religious history. |
Well duh. Who else shaped human history than humans? Do you actually believe gods exist and that they guided human history, or are just making some purely hypothetical philosophical argument??
quote:
that may be so, and i do not reject the possibility. but i cionsider it to be just one of many possibilities. |
Sure, it’s a possibility, just like the existence of deities. But the existence of Martians, trolls and wizards is also a possibility. As said above, science doesn’t allow us to give certainty, but it can give an indication of what’s more probable than other stuff. And the possibility of human history being affected by humans seems in my humble opinion infinitely more probable than the possibility of it being guided by deities, aliens (though those could very well exist of course) or who knows what else one can imagine.
So, you know, as said I’m busy now, so I’m not gonna spend my time discussing about religion with (I assume) someone who believes in god(s). I'd advise to read a good book about scientific methodology first.
Sorry if I sounded harsh.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
planet
|
|
Yes, bring in the shaman/wise or whattever
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
Also I never said revelation (sorry for the Christian word) had to be divine. |
fair enough, but your terms are a bit loose. in theological terms, revelation refers to that which is revealed by god(s). if you are talking about something passed from human to human, "teaching" would be probably a better word to use.
quote:
Can you give many examples of mythological religions supposedly having one guy who founded the religion? |
nope, if it's important to you i'll fish around for some examples.
quote:
Ho wait. Do you mean with ‘metaphysical’ that it has to contain supernatural elements such as a god or a higher reality/idea-lity? If so, are you saying that any monist materialist moral system is in fact NOT a moral system? |
"metaphysical" has nothing to do with god, or belief therein. it refers to that which cannot be aprehhended by the senses. for example, a circle is metaphysical.
a materialist system is still based on concepts. concepts are not physical objects. i would argue that materialist morals are just as metaphysical as more acsetic systems.
of course, i have a friend who determinedly argues that all human behaviour is determined by a process of chemical reactions. according to his point of view, everything is purely physical and there is no such thing as metaphysics.
ohhh. now you've hurt my feelings!!
quote:
Who else shaped human history than humans? Do you actually believe gods exist and that they guided human history, or are just making some purely hypothetical philosophical argument?? |
nope, i'm just pointing out that your argument hinges on your belief that gods did not shape the course of human history. i'm not saying that isn't possible. i'm just pointing out that it's one possible viewpoint and it strikes me as a very western one at that. if you're going to start analysing other peoples' cultures, don't you think you should start by considering their viewpoint first?
i just don't like your point of view because it strikes me as really limited and boring. personally it fascinates me to try and understand all the different explanations people have for how we came to be where we are. i do think the fabric of reality is far more subtle than you suggest.
what is more problematic to me, from a purely rational point of view, is the historicity of your argument.
you're writing your own little troll story. it's all "once upon a time, in a far distant land, the people were very silly. they believed in many, many gods.
everyone got along just fine because they thought it was normal.
then, one day, the evil princesss monotheism showed up and it all went downhill from there."
quote:
the possibility of human history being affected by humans seems in my humble opinion infinitely more probable than the possibility of it being guided by deities, aliens (though those could very well exist of course) or who knows what else one can imagine. |
i don't have a problem with your opinion. i just think it lacks sensitivity. reality is a very subtle phenomenon.
quote:
So, you know, as said I’m busy now, so I’m not gonna spend my time discussing about religion with (I assume) someone who believes in god(s). |
oooh, i must tell my mum. she'll be soo pleased.
quote:
I'd advise to read a good book about scientific methodology first. |
now you're being silly. what really makes me laugh is that you think you're the one being scientific!
most of our disagreement stems from the fact that i'm coming at this from a philosophical/theological point of view, while you're coming at it from a sociological point of view. and, well of the two, i'm inclined to think that theology is a far more precise science than sociology.
this is bound to offend someone, but isn't sociology more of an art than a science? 
quote:
Sorry if I sounded harsh. |
you call that harsh, boy?!!
god!! my butt didn't even get warmed up over that one!
now where's my @#$% beer
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
this discussion seems to have died a natural death.
i don't think there's any need to revive it. looking back over the discussion, though there are a few points that i feel i should clarify before we bury it forever.
re: dogmatism & revelation
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
I never claimed those two required each other. |
it was strongly implied in your original post.
quote:
if the words come from God, you can't change them anymore |
if you want to change your point of view, fair enough. but yes, you did suggest that one depended on the other.
quote:
Who else shaped human history than humans? |
this point deserves better explanation than i have given it so...
the problems i see with your argument are
1) "religion" has not been defined. so let's start with "the relationship(s) between individuals, their society and their god(s)."
yes, i know, you'll disagree with that. since you haven't proposed a definition of your own, however, that leaves you in the position of having to show reason why you disagree with the above.
from a theological perspective, god(s) have a higher order of being than humans. it therefore stands to reason that god(s) would have at least as much influence on the relationship as humans.
if you started out defining religion as a purely sociological phenomenon, you would avoid this source of contention. as it is, any general use of the term "religion" necessarily pre-supposes some kind of relationship to god(s).
i'm not making a statement here about the existence or otherwise of gods. i'm simply pointing out that your argument is too generalistic to be logically sound. you have left key terms undefined, and as any good programmer will tell you - undefined variables are nothing but trouble.
2) your original thesis reads like a peice of conspiracy theory. this part in particular
quote:
In that setting of increasing complexity and interaction, the tribal beliefs no longer succeeding in streamlining behaviour of all the geographically and culturally different peoples in the empires. |
again i'm not saying that gods had anything to do with it. but your language seems to imply a conscious intention on the part of some unnamed (human) powerbroker to go out and control the masses.
this was probably unintentional on your part, and you have already retracted the "controlling the masses" part. however my point stands - i do not see the development of religion as some sort of conspiracy. (at least not on the part of the humans involved - maybe the aliens did it )
of course if you do see it as a sort of conspiracy, feel free to state your opinion. but would you please back it up with rational argument and evidence of some kind?
3) the key term, "evolution" has not been defined. again you seem to be implying several different things at once.
quote:
In that setting of increasing complexity and interaction |
assuming that god(s) do not exist, and that the universe is purely mechanical in nature, your interpretation of "evolution" seems to contradict the physical law of entropy. if the universe is purely mechanical, how do you explain your idea that society and religion are of ever increasing complexity?
again, i'm not saying that there are not suitable arguments to defend your point of view, but whatever they may be, they are certainly not obvious, and you have made no attempt to clarify them.
in summary
as you can see, none of my argument actually hinges on the existence of god(s) or otherwise. i criticise your argument for it's lack of logical consistency. so if you feel like apologising for jumping to conclusions, go right ahead.
quote:
So, you know, as said I’m busy now, so I’m not gonna spend my time discussing about religion with (I assume) someone who believes in god(s). I'd advise to read a good book about scientific methodology first. |
the problems i see with this statement are;
1) i have not stated what my beliefs actually are. you have not taken the trouble to ask. yet you are already acting on what you assume. what are we telepathic now?
2) my own beliefs are simply not relevant to the topic at hand.
3) if you only ever discuss things with people who have the same point of view as you do, that's up to you.
edit: * omg - lebensraum's turning into a raving lunatic too!
4) considering the wealth of logical inconsistencies, lack of evidence, gross generalisations and ideological taint of your arguments, you've got to admit, it's pretty arrogant for you hand out advice about scientific method.
edit: * omg - see above
quote:
Sorry if I sounded harsh. |
no problem.
now it's my turn...
omigod, i was right all along!
maniac's whole argument really is one of those "religion is the source of all evil" rants.
how disappointing!
now if anyone wants to take the trouble to actually define "evolution" and "religion," maybe we can have a discussion about whether or not religion is evolutionary
as it is, i'd have to say the arguments so far proposed are just one big waftam
i'm inclined very much to agree with tech wins on two points.
i) religion is not really evolutionary
ii) this discussion is getting long-winded. i'm done.
Last edited by lebensraum on 18-06-2005 at 18:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
skrobism
|
|
from: lebensraum
quote:
dogmatism is not necessarily inflexible
the doctrine of the immaculate conception was developed by the catholic church in the early 20th century. it is now dogma. previously it was not. |
Sorry. You are wrong.
How could it be that the Roman Catholic Church developed this dogmatic truth "in the early 20th century" when Pope Pius IX made the Feast of the Immaculate Conception a holy day of obligation in 1854? One of the reasons for his decision was that sinless state of Our Mother had been Church Dogma for centuries.
Please read:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Even if you misspoke and meant 19th century, your point that this is invented or changed dogma is silly. It would be like saying that just because the Catholic Church recently started to observe Divine Mercy Sunday, the Church only recently accepted the mercy of God as dogma.
Dogmas are the basic TRUTHS of a religion. These cannot be changed. The way people celebrate, the rituals, the prayers might change. Dogma does not - by definition.
Religions and political mov'ts cannot go changing their truths without invalidating those same truths.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
skrobism
|
|
quote:
enough with the funny stuff.
this sort of cult mentality is just plain dangerous. |
Which is exactly why I voted banana. I thought some form of religion component would be good for the game, but that religion should be able to be named by the player - "Skrobism - a way of life" would be an excellent name choice. The player could make it polytheistic or monotheistic. Then watch it spread across the borders, or whatever...
I really am uneasy about playing a religious game and role playing on the web if the names of the religions are actual. There will be a lot of upset parties.
Go Banana!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005 07:48
and geomod says i'm slow!!
|