This message was self-deleted by its author

[Soph0571]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Soph0571) on Mon Oct 5, 2020, 01:41 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[shenmue]

1. Let's just change the name of this group to "I don't like religious people"

[guillaumeb]

2. It IS the unofficial name.

Also NOT liked, by a few prolific posters, are any articles that present religion in a positive light.

[sprinkleeninow]

3. Or, 'Who Invited All These Stinky God-Believers Here.'😆

🎄🦌🦌🦌🦌🦌🦌🦌🦌🎅🍪🥛🎁🎁🎁💰💰💰

[Mariana]

9. Has anyone been rude or disrespectful to you in this group? nt.

[sprinkleeninow]

14. I can't recall. eom

[Voltaire2]

16. but pretending that people have is lots of fun?

[sprinkleeninow]

18. See. One cannot 'win'. (no text)

[sprinkleeninow]

17. Not personally. Not 'rude' or 'disrespectful' to me personally.

Mildly off-putting in words and tone at times.
'Generally' speaking, that is.

[guillaumeb]

20. It is a constant feature here.

I have seen a few new posters enter the discussion and immediately be accused of all types of things. I have received numerous personal messages about the toxicity of this group.

The negativity directed at religion is constant.

[MineralMan]

4. It's called the "Religion Group," not the "Religious Group."

There's a reason for that. The group is for the discussion of religion, just as the Sports Group is for the discussion of sports. One need not have religious beliefs to discuss religion, as is obvious from the topics in this group. You could check with Skinner to see if he'd open a "Religious Group." There, you could limit discussion to only topics favorable toward religious beliefs.

[sprinkleeninow]

15. Why didja respond to my comment. I piggybacked on the first one

and I dint make the first comment regarding this.

[MineralMan]

25. I didn't. My reply was to shenmue.

Look more carefully.

[sprinkleeninow]

31. Too right. My spectacular Android phone showed the bars going upppp, and appeared to land on mine.

[EvilAL]

33. We have one.

It's called "Interfaith".

[Voltaire2]

6. there are protected groups for those with allergies to robust discussions of religion.

[sprinkleeninow]

19. So what exactly is one expected to and not be 'out of order' so to speak

be able to post?

[Voltaire2]

27. See "about this forum".

"Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome."

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. Wow.

Must be rough.

[Mariana]

23. There is nothing whatsoever in that post that suggests

that the writer doesn't like religious people.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

38. Um, there are protected religious groups on DU

You can go to them and any discussion of religion that isn't favorable will be shut down.

Except, that isn't this group. This is for every to talk. So, you can either actually realize that everyone doesn't fawn over religion and stick it out here, or you can go to a protected group and not have to deal with us evil atheists.

And, for the record, I don't have any problems with religious people. It's what some religious people do with their religion that bothers me. I feel that is true for every other atheist that posts here, but I won't speak for them.

[Pope George Ringo II]

39. The OP was hardly random

Religion makes specific claims regarding its role relative to morality. Like most religious claims, they are quite wrong, and there's nothing either unprovoked or wrong about rebutting them.

[MineralMan]

5. I'm sorry that your thread was taken over by people who

were not interested in discussion if your subject.

Something to think about, in that regard: Many animals other than human beings have been around for even longer periods. They seem to survive without the need for any sort of morality or ethical compass. Few of them every commit mass murder of their own species, either. It appears that only human beings do that.

Humans learn how to behave around other humans in various ways, I think. Mostly, though, they are taught by adult humans while they are young, and typically by example. That seems more important than any formalized set of behavioral rules.

[trotsky]

11. Expanding on that...

there are animals (who are not coincidentally pretty closely related to us) who also display moral awareness. They have no religion, but they have morals and a sense of moral/ethical behavior.

That answers the OP's question.

[Voltaire2]

7. The ethics promulgated by many religious institutions are frequently dubious.

However it seems reasonable to think that religion played an important role in the development of urban agricultural societies, the claim usually being that it provided the framework for extending group membership beyond kin and tribe, allowing cities to develop. Of course this also frequently means that religion becomes the ideological basis for slaughtering anyone outside of your particular religion, a problem that is plaguing us even now.

I think religion in general has outlived its purpose. It is now a vestigial social institution, providing magical explanations where none are needed, enforcing moral codes that are frequently nonsense, or even worse, outright harmful to society, and providing a rational for violence.

[MineralMan]

8. I think the religions of various cultures were probably

created to promulgate the ethics of those particular cultures. It seems as though as the culture changed over time, and due to new technologies and exposures to other cultures, the religions often had less and less relevance to that specific culture. Eventually, the multiple religions of individual cultures were replaced by more generic religions that were less culture-specific.

Or so it seems to me.

Currently, we appear to be stuck in the late bronze and early iron age with regard to our religions. We've moved on. The religions haven't.

[TlalocW]

10. The religions have moved on.. a little... and often kicking and screaming

Slavery (and I don't downplay the involvement of religious people seeking to get rid of it, but you also can't downplay the people using religion to keep it)
Women's rights
Civil rights (let's never forget that the Moral Majority/Religious Right came together due to their support of segregation and not because they didn't like abortion)
Children's rights
etc.

TlalocW

[procon]

13. Social mores play a greater role than religion.

Many people don't have any religious concerns, and more countries have less interest in a relationship with organized religions. Groups of diverse people form societies that foster solidarity and community relationships, which in turn determines our inherent moral compass as human beings. This socialization has become the standard that codifies and expands the basic moral practices accepted by communities around the world. Over generations we've learned to see the common humanity and morality of our neighbors, friends and coworkers, and those principles apply to society as a whole because we all want to see quality of life in our neighborhoods improve to safeguard our own interests.

[guillaumeb]

21. Can there be morality without intelligence?

Morality is a construct. It varies from culture to culture.

Religion, if by religion you mean formalized religious groups, has existed for many thousands of years, but archeological evidence suggests that the impulse to religion has existed for 300,000 years.

Morality, religion, tribalism, language, are all survival mechanisms and useful traits survive because they allow the members of the group to survive.

[Voltaire2]

28. Oh now it is "an impulse to religion".

Your claim used to be that religion has existed for 300,000 years. You're making progress, but this 300,000 year "impulse to religion" is still nonsense.

[guillaumeb]

29. It is a different way of describing it.

And if you are entitled to your personal opinion as to the validity and interpretation of the available evidence.

[Voltaire2]

32. Yeah because your original framing was nonsense.

Meanwhile evidence of theistic religions, you know, your sort, the ones with gods, goes back at most to around 10,000 bce, and is generally considered to have developed along with agriculture and cities.

There really is no reason to think that theistic religion is a permanent feature of civilization.

[trotsky]

37. No, it's a completely different claim.

And rather than have the humility and intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong, you just double down and lash out at anyone pointing it out.

You claim you are a Christian. Is this how you think Christians should act?

[guillaumeb]

40. Again, you misunderstand. eom

[trotsky]

41. Sure thing, g.

Everyone can observe your behavior. You're fooling no one.

[EvilAL]

35. We survived for at tens of thousands of years without religion.

So your last line would be more correct with it removed.
What archaeological evidence for 300,000 years?
There is no support for that.
Burials or cremation do not mean a religion was involved as a reason for it.
Nobody knows when we invented religion and gods.
If anything, real evidence of religion from 300,000 years ago would put a pretty good stake in the heart of modern religions.

[sprinkleeninow]

22. I've been called out in that I 'hi-jacked' a thread around here somewhere

and appears I did that to yours in addition.
Sincere apologies.

[pangaia]

26. I was wondering if someone would note that. I didn't expect it.

Morality is subjective.

[tirebiter]

30. Ethics begat morality

Ethics and metaphysics are not the same thing. Movin' on...

[EvilAL]

34. Society gives us our morals.

We evolved the ability to have morals I suppose, to know right from wrong, to be self-aware and to have empathy.
We figured out, as populations of humans all over the world, that it is wrong to kill and steal. It is wrong to purposely cause harm, distress and suffering on each other.
It took us a while and there is still work to be done.
Bible had little to do with it.

[NeoGreen]

36. False binary choice...

Last edited Fri Dec 22, 2017, 11:36 AM - Edit history (1)

...the premise of the question is flawed.

It isn't derived from one or the other of the two choices presented.

Human Morality does not require religion. Generic morality does not require religion or humans. Religion does not necessarily mitigate "evil instincts" (however defined), and often acts as a catalyst to perpetuate them or make them worse. The so called "good aspects" of religion are a mere patina as cover.

Man is 200,000 years old, however, Hinduism, which is recognised as the world’s oldest living religion, began to emerge a mere 5,000 years ago. Judaism dawned in the 2nd Century BCE. Logically then men existed for approximately 195,000 years before any religions that we can recognise as religions today were established.

So what?
This only tells us that whatever religion(s)/moral constructs preceded the last 5000 years didn't survive to now.
Maybe the maximum life span of any particular religion is in the neighborhood of 5000 years?

I would postulate that it would be beneficial, for humanity as a whole, to understand this dynamic in the hopes of reducing that lifespan.

There's a good quote somewhere that speaks about the entrails of the last priest, or something...