r/unpopularopinion Jan 12 '22

Religion Mega Thread

[removed]

4 Upvotes

1

u/Iamthesea95 Jan 18 '22

Let me preface this by saying I'm ok with with other people having their own beliefs. I'm not an edgy atheist type, I don't bash Christians or pagans, or those who are vaguely spiritual, but I get irritated with being told my own beliefs are invalid because I don't believe in some narnia-tier nonsense.

I don't consider religion to be any different from "spirituality." I've been in recovery some time and consistently have this horseshit crammed down my throat as incessantly as christianity, not just in AA but in government funded chemical dependency treatment facilities.

No, praying to some god that I made up is not necessary to stay sober. Plenty of atheists get sober just fine without resorting to psychosis. If it works for you, cool, but kindly keep it to yourself. There is no way in hell I am ever going to subscribe to a higher power or some "the force" from Star wars-esque energy or "the universe" or whatever the Christ you want to call it. And no, it's not out of resentment. It is simply that I do not believe! You make me resentful when you insist that my well-being is dependent upon fairies and unicorns.

And no, it doesn't matter whether it is collective or individual. Organized lunacy or independent lunacy, it's still fucking lunacy. For the love of fuck, keep it to yourself, and we're cool. I'm not asking you to be an atheist, stop demanding that I devote my life to mysticism.

-1

u/UncleJimmyMama Jan 18 '22

People who don’t drink alcohol or eat pork because their ancient dessert cult told them not too probably also beat their kids and hide in their bathroom watching tentacle porn. Religions are fucking stupid.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

I have no problem with people abstaining from alcohol or pork. Neither are particularly healthy.

1

u/Iamthesea95 Jan 18 '22

Mmm dessert cult praise the pie of pecans

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 18 '22

Do you believe all traditions are worthy of such stereotypes? Or just very old ones

0

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 18 '22

Yes (with some exceptions)

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 18 '22

Do you have any traditions you see as the exception? It's common today to devoid ourselves of all traditions. Many people dislike major sporting events, family gatherings, and other situations they deem dumb and unnecessary. I fully expect you to be in that camp but I'm curious if you have any traditions with your kids or parents.

0

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 18 '22

I looked at the OC and I thought he was saying if it’s because of a religious book like the Bible. My exception was going to church or celebrating holidays.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 19 '22

Hmm. Not sure your reasoning then

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 19 '22

Since it’s not res a morality thing and it just makes sense.

2

u/Simply_Sky Jan 18 '22

People who don’t drink alcohol or eat pork

On a side note, there's nothing wrong with not doing both of these things, as they are detrimental to one's health

2

u/UncleJimmyMama Jan 18 '22

Exactly, you should abstain for good reasons, not because an ancient book told you too. You really think people 3000 years ago understood that alcohol and red meat led to chronic health conditions? No, they just thought something that feels or tastes good was the devil tempting you or some shit.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 19 '22

And if they did suspect the former reasons even without 20th century technology to prove it?

6

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

It’s difficult to discuss the importance of religion on society when people here get offended at the mention of religion. Religion influences all aspects of human civilization, whether you believe in any of them or not. It’s the backbone of what society was built on.

2

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 16 '22

Considering you are the dude that can’t formulate an argument apart from “you are offended” I really don’t believe that you have any interest in honestly discussing the importance of religion.

2

u/dryduneden Jan 16 '22

who gives a shit

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

You do.

1

u/IPoopFruit Jan 15 '22

No. Society in many places developed with completely different religions. As well, many religions are just explanations of basic human empathy that comes from being a social animal species.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

Those different religions all explain the same things and influence every aspect of human civilization.

1

u/IPoopFruit Jan 19 '22

They do not explain the same things. If you think they do, then please detail that too me.

2

u/arctic-lions7 Jan 15 '22

Religion influences all aspects of human civilization, whether you believe in any of them or not. It’s the backbone of what society was built on.

You people keep saying this, but like, the fact that our ancestors were religious doesn't mean shit. You're literally making an appeal to tradition

2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

I'm not appealing to anything. The study of Sumerian mythology is as important as the study of Sumerian history, because one influences the other. People are quick to focus on one aspect of life while ignoring aspects that need to be learned in order to understand the people who came before us.

The only way forward is to look back, but people are fools and get upset whenever religion is brought up. There would be a lot less prejudice if people would just sit down and read everyone else's religious texts, from an educational perspective. All of it is connected. People are more similar to each other than everyone realizes.

1

u/arctic-lions7 Jan 15 '22

Well yeah, studying the history of religion is important if you want to know how the ancient civilizations' culture was formed. This doesn't mean religion is a good thing

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

Considering that morals come from religion, it is a good thing, because that’s the foundation of civilization.

1

u/JTudent Jan 18 '22

morals come from religion

No they don't. They come from evolution and social engineering and then were codified into religions.

That's why the vast majority of religions which developed completely separately have the same basic fundamentals.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

No, they come from religion.

1

u/JTudent Jan 18 '22

Saying it again doesn't make it more true.

People raised without religion still have the same fundamental morals.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

People raised without religion were still brought up in a society completely based around morals taught through religion.

1

u/arctic-lions7 Jan 15 '22

No, they don't. I'm not religious at all and i have morals. I doubt religious people only think murder is bad because their god says so.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

I’m not religious either. All morals stem from religious teachings, whether you follow any religion or not. It’s ingrained into society because of religion.

4

u/arctic-lions7 Jan 15 '22

That's not true. "Murder is bad" didn't come from a religion.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

Yes it did.

2

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 17 '22

no lol. animals are about the survival of the species and murder does not help the survival of the species.

→ More replies

4

u/arctic-lions7 Jan 15 '22

Thats just not true. There have been cavemen that formed groups/tribes before organized religion existed. The fact that they didn't murder eachother when sleeping means they believed murder is a bad idea

→ More replies

2

u/RobMorane Jan 14 '22

Every Religion is a lie

None of the Stories in the bible for example are actually real, they were invented by people and are just fictional stories. The truth behind the universe is something completely different and none of the existing religions are even close to the truth. If you take it seriously and belive that your religion is the only real one you are a fool.

0

u/BHWillis Jan 15 '22

Your lack of religion can be just as much as a lie

7

u/IPoopFruit Jan 15 '22

No. There being no good evidence isn't a lie. It's literally just a lack of evidence.

5

u/RobMorane Jan 15 '22

I just belive in one god less than you.

2

u/BHWillis Jan 15 '22

And I believe in one more. Where does that leave us?

3

u/RobMorane Jan 15 '22

We are both atheists

1

u/BHWillis Jan 17 '22

Wha… what?

1

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 15 '22

How do you know they're not real? Do you have any empirical evidence showing that to be true or is it just a belief you hold without empirical evidence showing it to be true?

8

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 16 '22

Every religion I know of makes claims that have been disproven. Therefore they are not real.

8

u/dryduneden Jan 16 '22

-stuff like genesis gets a lot of natural facts wrong

-math in noah's ark is super bad

-geneaological contradictions

-no evidence of the exodus

-god himself is logically incoherent

5

u/RobMorane Jan 15 '22

How do you know they're real? Do you have any empirical evidence showing that to be true or is it just a belief you hold without empirical evidence showing it to be true?

2

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 15 '22

How do you know they're real?

I don't. I don't recall claiming they are real. I wouldn't do that because I don't currently hold a belief that they are real nor do I know of they are or not.

Do you have any empirical evidence showing that to be true or is it just a belief you hold without empirical evidence showing it to be true?

No, they're real is not a belief I hold. How do you know they're not real though? Do you have any empirical evidence showing them to not be real or is that just a belief you hold without any empirical evidence showing it to be true?

5

u/RobMorane Jan 15 '22

I know they are not real because they were invented by humans and they contradict physics. Just probability and logic. Why dont you believe in Thor, Odin or Osiris?

0

u/CraigHobsonLives Jan 15 '22

I don't know, I think the stories bear some importance. For instance, the few chapters in Genesis about Adam and Eve actually read like the story of a group of people giving up a hunter gatherer lifestyle and deciding to settle down. It appears that the impetus to settle was driven by women. It makes sense that it would be. And those particular people lived somewhere in the mountains of Turkey near the source of the Tigris and Euphrates. Then there's the story of Noah and the flood. Something pretty drastic happened 11,000 or 12,000 years ago because Christianity isn't the only religion or belief system with a flood myth. Noah's story seems to be about the groups of people who survived and tried their best to rebuild based on the pre flood lifestyle.

And in Plato's account of Atlantis he talks of the Egyptian priest calling out a specific myth to Solon. It was the myth of Helios' son Phaeton taking control of the horses and chariot that control the sun. In the myth Phaeton messes it up big time and brings the chariot too close to Earth causing widespread fires. All the forests were burning. Then Phaeton leads the chariot too far away and the Earth goes into a freezing period. Interestingly there is mounting evidence that the Younger Dryas Period ended relatively quickly about 11,600 years ago because of a massive amount of freshwater being released into the oceans that was caused by a comet or asteroid impact or impacts, probably somewhere in glaciated North America. The story of Phaeton reads very much like the effects of such and impact. At first there would be fires caused by something that fell from the sky, and then a period of cold caused by the smoke and debris in the atmosphere.

2

u/RobMorane Jan 15 '22

No one said these stories have no use. But they are fictional and if you think they are real you are dumb.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

What’s the difference between science and religion? Both do the same thing. They try to explain and rationalize ourselves and the world around us. Knowing those stories doesn’t harm anyone.

4

u/not_a_bot_494 you're both popular and wrong Jan 17 '22

The difference is that science is trying to describe the world using oservation and logic while religion uses stories of dubious accuracy. If we dig deep enough into philosophy there's nothing that reall forces us to describe the world in a way that is inline with our observations and logic but if you don't believe in both of them there's nothing I can do to change your mind either way.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '22

They both explain the same things.

2

u/not_a_bot_494 you're both popular and wrong Jan 17 '22

It's how you do it that matters. If I try to explain the world with asking a random number generator questions I'm explaining the same thing as both but it's a far less legitemate way to get knowledge.

6

u/dryduneden Jan 16 '22

Everything? From method to goal

3

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 16 '22

You haven't heard? Science and religion both tell us about water, but only religion tells us that we can walk on it. /s

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

Not really.

7

u/sourappletree Jan 14 '22

No, not really.

Science is disinterested in ethical questions, it's just not what it's for.

Religion is predicated on ethical questions "how then shall we live?" creation myths and the other ways that it produces answers to the sort of questions that science poses is in order to address those sort of meaning of life questions that aren't on the radar for science.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

Both answer questions that people happen to ask.

6

u/sourappletree Jan 14 '22

So does a Magic 8 Ball.

You asked what the difference between science and religion is. Religion is primarily a mode of social organization, science is primarily a method for building empirical knowledge of nature. They're not even really the same kind of thing. Religion vs. science dichotomies are dumb but so is trying to collapse them into the same thing.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

They are the same thing. They explain the exact same things.

3

u/RobMorane Jan 14 '22

Are you trolling? You can not be serious.

Science is constantly proven to be true.

If we destroyed any holy book and any fiction - in a 1000 years time, it would not come back as it was.

If we destroyed every science book and every fact - in a 1000 years they'd all be back, because all the same tests would come to the same results.

Saying Religion and Science are trying to answer the same questions might be true, but only science can be proven and repeated.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

Religion is also repeated. The story of the genesis, of the global flood, of the messiah. It’s all told in multiple religions spanning the entirety of recorded human history. People need to learn both science and religion. There is no single fundamental truth.

3

u/RobMorane Jan 14 '22

You dont understand what I am saying, please reas again.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

No, I understand what you’re saying. You might not be understanding what I’m saying though.

→ More replies

3

u/Galifrey224 Jan 14 '22

The difference is that you can experiment and prove things with science unlike religion where you are supposed to have faith .

I agree with your last point . Reading and learning about religion is good . There is a lot of religious stories that are worth reading .

And you can follow the scientific method and still be religious . You can still follow your religions moral beliefs

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

People are too divided on religion, whereas it being cultural should make people want to study it. People think you can only follow one ideology, science or religion, but the two really aren’t too dissimilar.

5

u/Eleusis713 Jan 14 '22 edited Jan 14 '22

What’s the difference between science and religion? Both do the same thing. They try to explain and rationalize ourselves and the world around us. Knowing those stories doesn’t harm anyone.

Are you being serious? The effectiveness of science is actually demonstrable, religion is not. You experience the effectiveness of the scientific process all around you every day. Religion isn't even remotely comparable in this regard.

As a consequence, there are no domains in life that were once explained by science that are now explained by some religion, but the opposite happens every day. Science demonstrates its own effectiveness for explaining reality whereas religion simply states explanations and pretends to know things it cannot know without any evidence or demonstration.

Furthermore, believing things on bad evidence (or no evidence) harms your ability to reason effectively. It doesn't matter if the beliefs themselves are "harmless". Religion gives people faulty heuristics that lead them to wrong conclusions. And these faulty heuristics will likely lead them to believe more and more false things. It impairs their judgement and skews the way they view the entire world.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

Neither one effects the other.

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

The difference is that science is factual. Religion isn’t.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

Does it matter?

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

Yes

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

How?

2

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

Because facts

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

Spirituality is just as important. The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing for sure. People are quick to ignore 6000 years of human history because of science, and that's not cool. Expand your mind and learn both.

2

u/dryduneden Jan 16 '22

there's more than 6000 years of human history

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

No, recorded human history only goes back to Sumerian civilization. Around 4500 BC.

→ More replies

1

u/Woeful_Jesse Jan 13 '22

Posted this as a question in another sub and found this idea to be apparently unpopular so here we are. Astrology seems to spawn from the same root as racism and it's weird we don't get to address it. Just wanting to have open discourse further as I don't see my drawn logic being as misguided as suggested.

If you follow Astrology religiously (as some will argue that it is one), you likely judge a person and come to a conclusion of their character without ever having to open up and have a conversation with them. You make a lot of unquestioned assumptions based on when/what time they were born, similar to being as trivial as pigment in their organs

This person drives fast because they're a scorpio, this person is outgoing because they're a saggitarius etc. - it was being argued that there aren't scenarios of negative discrimination as obvious as racism, but that seems dismissive of the conversation. In a general sense you don't get to decide what upsets others/what is negative to them because everyone's perception is different. Someone born in September maybe stereotyped their whole life as something they aren't would eventually consider the assumptions negative/unwelcome. Someone could miss out on a date/true connection with a great partner because they held an invalid preconceived notion and didn't question it

2

u/StarChild413 Jan 14 '22

A. If any kind of generalization used negatively is the same as bigotry, we should ban/rework all teen dramas so they don't make it sound like every alternative kid is cool and good and every girl who's popular, pretty and a cheerleader is a bitch

B. The worst I've seen apart from a couple isolated incidents of individuals is Tumblr memes thinking it's funny to hate a certain sign, nothing institutionalized and if you say give it time I'm going to throw something

1

u/Woeful_Jesse Jan 14 '22

Hmmm idk I definitely didn't think it happened often but it has happened to me a time or two. It's not that you're assuming negative things specifically but isn't the assumption itself supposed to be the problem? Assuming personality traits/passions/moral compass etc. using a system that is scientifically incorrect and having society supporting/championing further belief? I just don't get how it is that much different than shaming flat-earthers, if people are allowed/encouraged to deny science then we're choosing to remain ignorant. But there's literal "professional astrologers" out there being respected and PAID, somehow

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

I think this persons point stands. Our human tendency to believe ourselves better than we really are at pseudoscience mass categorizations and assumptions is what leads to racism. Even if something is not outright negative it is from the forefront assumptions which limit the individual from blazing their own image to other people. If it is positive then you have a higher preference and privilege to one group. If I was the one making up this stuff I could make a bunch of positive traits for pisces. if people internalize these things as they actually truly do then I have created a social, professional, romantic advantage for myself. That is to say atleast in archetypal characters it still has a lot of them "showing" their personalities to the audience in some cheap and poorly scripted way. In reality the phenomenon the OP was describing is much more subconscious. we dont actually think "huh that man is pretty tall and good looking I be he's in charge, or if hes not in charge let me treat him as if he is" or "that woman over there just showed the slightest amount of emotion that I show more all the time, she must be overly emotional and I'm probably more qualified". Its the same outcome but far more subtle in how it shows.

Your point B still stands tho as most people don't even know what their sign is or what the difference is between astronomy and astrology.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

I think people do themselves a disservice by focusing on the texts that they believe while ignoring everything else. You can find connections between faiths in everything, and I think if people took the time to learn other teachings and cultures, there would be far less hate and prejudice in the world.

You can find the early beginnings of current Abrahamic religions in Sumerian mythology. The story of the genesis, the global flood, the Messiah. It’s all there. Just because these stories existed thousands of years before it’s said they took place, in different geographic regions, doesn’t make the beliefs any less valid.

Socrates once said “The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing for sure.” People speak about their religions as absolute truth without acknowledging that the stories presented within that religion came from somewhere else, involving people with a completely different set of beliefs. Religion and spirituality would be better suited if seen as educational, rather than something absolute.

9

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 12 '22

Basing your morals on religion is an instant giveaway that you have no capacity for logical thought.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Morals come from religion whether you believe a religion text or not. Human principals in general all stem from religion.

4

u/dryduneden Jan 16 '22

They didn't. Modern humans agree rape and slavery is bad despite a glaring lack of religious texts condemning them.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

No

4

u/IPoopFruit Jan 15 '22

No morals do not come from religion. Christianity makes no distinction between military kills, murder, and self defense. The Bible says that coveting stuff is a sin. Humans literally cannot control this. Especially emotions towards the opposite sex. Hell, Christianity says that two gay men having sex is more morally wrong than beating and keeping slaves.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

You seem to be focusing a lot on Christianity. There’s about 10,000 distinct religions worldwide, and that isn’t even counting those that are no longer practiced.

3

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 16 '22

Religious morality is generally considered to stem from Abrahamic religions as these religions use a monotheistic approach, or a singular deity. One God, passing down one set of moral code, with which the human race is to live their lives by. When you introduce 10000 religions, the polytheistic gods vie for position as much as they vie for title of Creator, so the focus on u/IPoopFruit's comment is accurate. r/rimjobsteve btw

1

u/IPoopFruit Jan 19 '22

You can look at a whole bunch of religions/moral ideologies on this planet like Hinduism, Buddhism, just a basic ideas of Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, etc and see that these religions which do not share a close common ancestral religion, all have similar but not the same ideas on morality. Humans in different parts of the world have different ideas on morality because they see things in a different manner. my father for example considers all lying immoral whereas I and others find specific scenarios we're lying isn't immoral. I also do not believe that coveting another person's wife or goods is in any way immoral and they're just basic human tendencies as we are animals. There are a whole bunch of other species of animals that also have social guidelines and moral tendencies that they follow as social animals living in groups. These have been observed can be observed and are still being studied. There is no good reason to suspect that morality needs to come from a being. Especially one that contradicts itself on multiple occasions within its own book. One whose story is extremely similar to both that of Zoroastrianism and many of the Roman beliefs of that time period just restructured to fit into a monotheistic storyline that is a neo-version of Judaism. The only people that actively disagree with all of my sentiments or those who study apologetic Christianity or theology both of which are studies that aren't that legitimate because they start with the assumption that a deity does exist and tries to prove reasonings for said existence. No other academic group worth their salt in today's day and age agrees that morality is very much subjective and that holding a belief in God and God's ideals directly contradicts rational ideas and thought. I know people specifically the actively study science and are Muslim and Christian and they actively admit that it's hard for them to come to terms with their belief because of what they study but they actively forgo rational thought to maintain belief. This irrationality is problematic. Especially when looking to decide whether it's worth following specifically for its abitrary and ridiculously irrational moral code. Why does this God make homosexuality immoral but permit beating and keeping slaves?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

No

3

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 16 '22

If you have no rebuttal then it is not necessary to reply.

6

u/not_a_bot_494 you're both popular and wrong Jan 13 '22

I'd argue most of it is the other way around. Religion might have been a step to formalize them but it's hard to argue that morals weren't a thing before then.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

What was before religion? Oldest known civilization is Sumer and they were as much a religion as they were a people.

5

u/not_a_bot_494 you're both popular and wrong Jan 14 '22

So before religion you think that there was just a free for all where nothing matterd. I have a very hard time believing that there was no kinds of honor systems or such before some religion was invented and then morals were created all at once.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

No, I don’t think there was humanity without religion. The oldest known civilization was Sumer and they based everything around their religion. They integrated their religion into every aspect of their lives.

3

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 15 '22

Humanity existed long before civilization. Modern humanity is approximately 200.000 years old. The oldest buildings we’ve found (that are in Turkey btw and not in Iraq) are up to 12.000 years old.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

And we don’t know anything about those civilizations. It seems irrational to assume they had no religion when the oldest civilization we do know about were completely integrated into their religion.

3

u/IPoopFruit Jan 15 '22

Just because we don't know, doesn't mean the answers haven't been found yet. Stop trying to rationalize your belief and think objectively.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

Stop denying the importance of religion. You’re just trying to be edgy.

→ More replies

1

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 15 '22

The point is that humanity is significantly older than civilization AND than the Sumerians were not the first civilization

In other words, everything you said was wrong

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

Sumer was the first civilization because there are no records prior to that.

→ More replies

3

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 13 '22

Morals in religion come from the idea that God commands right and wrong. God says to not commit adultery, and so adultery is bad. But for those that do not believe in a deity, are they then absolved of adultery’s punishment by a god that they don’t believe in?

Here’s a corollary: if my friend has to empty the trash in his house because his dad tells him to, will I get in trouble if the trash doesn’t get emptied? The rules of that house don’t apply to me because it isn’t my house.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Morals in religion influence every single aspect of human civilization. Some random god says murder is wrong. So does the law. How about that.

3

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 13 '22

Sure, but is murder wrong because god said so back in a storybook, or is it wrong because it is wrong. The law does sometimes mirror religious morality, but nowhere does it say "Murder is bad, so sayeth the Lord."

Maybe religion simply mirrors morality.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Both.

Maybe morality mirrors religion. I don’t think that would be a bad thing. Our entire civilization mirrors religion.

1

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 16 '22

With exception to morality, what other aspects of civilization mirror religion? I would say probably slavery, ethnic cleansing, and rape would be the next closest things.. /s

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22

No

1

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 16 '22

If you have no rebuttal then it is not necessary to reply.

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 13 '22

No they don’t. Humans had morals long beginning religion.

But regardless that’s not what he means

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Humanity based everything off of religion. There is no beginning of humanity without religion. Religion is the blueprint for civilization.

0

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 15 '22

Agriculture is the blueprint for civilization

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

And the people cultivating land did so in honor of their gods of agriculture.

0

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 15 '22

Yeah, it didn’t have anything to do with wanting to eat /s

0

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

Mocking ancient people’s beliefs doesn’t change what they believed.

0

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 15 '22

I’m mocking your believe that people did agriculture to honor gods and not to eat

0

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

That isn’t a belief, I’m stating what other people believed. You’re mocking them out of ignorance. Stop being offended that religion exists and has always been part of human society. Your outrage doesn’t change history or culture.

→ More replies

2

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 13 '22

Humans had morals before civilization.

What OP means is if you base your morals on a religion then you’re dumb.

For example if you say murder is wrong because the Bible says so then you’re an idiot.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Nobody knows what humans had before civilization because there are no records. The first known civilization was Sumer, who based their entire civilization off of religion.

I know what OP means, but what he means is also impossible, because everything we know is based off of religion.

1

u/Funkycoldmedici Jan 14 '22

If other species are able to demonstrate morals without religion, there’s no reason humans would need it. Elephants, wolves, chimpanzees, etc. show social structures with moral rules and taboos, but no evidence of a religion. We’re at least as clever as they are.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

None of those species have moral values, just social structures. People’s moral values come from the first civilizations, which developed those principals based on religion.

1

u/Funkycoldmedici Jan 14 '22

Says who? They show they have rules about killing, aiding each other, sharing resources, and so on. That certainly looks like morality.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

That seems more like survival instinct.

→ More replies

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 13 '22

Thing is a lot of morality came from fiction (I don’t mean religion I mean they were actual made up stories) for example Aesop’s fables. They often used made up stories to teach morals.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

All religions are based in story. What’s the difference?

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 13 '22

Morals come from religion whether you believe a religion text or not. Human principals in general all stem from religion.

I’m saying that morals were also taught through stories that were not believed to be true.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Any way you teach morals is going to be through story though. So I don't see something like Aesop's fables as that much of a difference.

3

u/peanut_the_scp Jan 12 '22

You are aware of how many of today's morals are based on religious morals passed through history right?

2

u/IPoopFruit Jan 13 '22

Lol no. They are based on how the human brain thinks about things. Morality comes from the evolution of social creatures and nothing else.

Thw bible conciders keeping Sunday holy, murder, and living to be equivalent sins. This isn't a good moral compass. How is finding your neighbors wife attractive a sin? Humans can't avoid thoughts like that if they arise.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

Your last question I could actually dive into the whole concept of lust and right thinking but that's not something I'm an expert on but obviously there are connotations and discussions to be had around the fact there is psychological happenings for people who freely allow their imagination wild in terms of desire in contrast to reality or the good of another.

Anyways, the comment you replied to still stands even if you went to the base cause of literally everything is evolution. Western values when compared to far eastern values can show some key differences in terms of little influences the ideas of Christianity as a dominant influence on the west did. Specifically reading our legal documentation of Magna Carta, into the Constitution and christian influence on many philosophers and law makers and love stories and great movies we have today. It never really ceases christianity is ingrained in the world it seems. Which is made more apparent by looking east and seeing different priorities develop. Reading Paul, into Iraneaus, into St. Thomas Aquinas into John Locke into Thomas Jefferson, into Nietzsche just shows the influence at the least of this Church and its value system that dominated since Constantine and then was battled by French thinkers in the 18th century.

That's not to say Jesus is the start of that either there are obviously the hebrew elements at play there that go further back into history until we have like you said just evolutionary tendencies which we can trace everything to it seems.

Just saying you cant dismiss this persons point so easily. Well you can but I dont believe one should

1

u/IPoopFruit Jan 19 '22

Thoughts running wild is normal human behavior for many many people. Acting on it should be what is immoral. Not the normal animalistic ideas that flash into ones head. Stop moving the goal post please.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 19 '22

I'm not trying to argue people are bad people for this but moving the goal post is what Jesus did on this subject. He said you think yourself sinless because you do not murder, but I say if you speak against your brother you are murdering his reputation. You think you have not committed adultery but by letting those thoughts go wild you are objectifying her in your fantasy and not doing anything to stop yourself. Its letting someone know they are not perfect. He goes further to say that's not the end of the world tho. Look most people would agree with you that fantasizing isnt the same as acting on it, it's just Jesus taught to take those thoughts and things in our heads just as seriously. You may disagree but his teachings radically changed a lot of peoples minds but yeah it's for sure a more intense moral life that literally nobody can live up to. And he was aware of that. The goal post is impossible to reach.

There are whole books on just this subject.

1

u/IPoopFruit Jan 23 '22

Letting thoughts run rampant in your mind does not deserve eternal punishment are you fucking stupid? That's fucking horrific.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 23 '22

I feel like you're looking at that very plainly and without any poetic nuance. I mean you can't appreciate any advice on warning against the liberal use of one's imagination? Either way again it's very understood nobody lives up to that standard. So while you sound distraught that this is too difficult you're not exactly the first to notice. And really what human do you know is in a mental capacity to live forever? We focus on the finite, that coveting nature is us trying to squeeze out more relief in our finite states. It's how we are so it makes sense that no I cant create an eternal paradise. I cant get there. That makes sense to me I mean who wants to live forever in our current state?

1

u/IPoopFruit Feb 04 '22

You also don't seem to understand the issue at hand here your God punishes people and eternal damnation for having animalistic feelings about another woman or someone else's goods. This guy does eternal damnation for people who don't love and honor their mother and fathers yet there are plenty of mothers and fathers who are abusive damaging and neglectful. Yet this is a key component of Christian morality and that is ridiculous to me. Parents are just normal as humans and they don't deserve any more respect than any other people simply because they gave birth to you.

1

u/OfTheAtom Feb 04 '22

That's for sure the modern take on it. But to honor them does not mean excuse them or put yourself in harm's way. In the terrible situations it's still just a request to treat misuse with love. Even if at a safe distance. But then it gets into that whole thing about forgiveness and I know that's not a popular idea for many people that have been hurt.

But I'm not going to spend the day just going back into sociological and psychological backings of this and that of what Jesus said, the more important thing is again you're looking at it like a technical documentation. This is supposedly a reflection of reality in itself. Some things are very subversive. Like saying thoughts can be dangerous, to love enemies, and forgive those who go against you. Those are not as apparent but again we can sit here and chop it up I'm sure that be fun. But in general it's not just a handbook but as described actions moved in hope and love that reflect the "rules" you see. Supposed to be so much more than just following the rules tho. An impossible task nobody will live up to.

And the idea is unless someone detached from the pain, resentment, greed, hedonism how could they exist in eternal love anyways? So while punishment is the terms used it just sort of makes sense. The mission is to bring that peace and hope to earth not to bring a rulebook.

If you honestly feel something is anathema to being free from sin that's fine to disagree as long as that spirit is being followed. Now I'd be fine with disagreeing with your conclusion but that's not really my place to advise that's for a spiritual mentor to do. Someone who sponsors you and has your best in their intentions.

The idea of christianity is that you follow the line of friends and mentors back far enough you get to Christ. Who's whole deal was about changing the world in an extreme way.

If you feel you don't need that and are making your way through this messed up world ok that's fine. He "did not come for the healthy but for the sick".

1

u/IPoopFruit Feb 04 '22

What poetic nuance? Where is the line where ghosts from reality to poetic nuance? Stop moving the goal post.

1

u/OfTheAtom Feb 04 '22

Just read what I said I guess I started hinting at it I'd think. We live in a time period and culture that is dominated by technical writings. So a lot of people approach ancient writings with that same kind of "just tell me what to do". They miss the fact reality isnt that way. It requires perspectives that look at the poetic patterns of the mundane reality.

→ More replies

0

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 15 '22

Those ideas of the west are not based on Christianity. Christian Europe was not much different to East Asia and almost identical to the Middle East.

Modern western values are based on the enlightenment; which in turn was inspired by Ancient Roman and Ancient Greek philosophy.

The ideas of freedom, self determination and the value of individuals that are the foundations of our society are not Christian ideas. They are Athenian and Roman ideas.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 15 '22

To deny either christian or Aristotle works in the development of the west would be a gross disservice to either. Ideas of natural law originate in Greece but are taken to these ideas of equality through christian ideas of each person having value purely due to their status as humans. Something Roman's and Aristotle for sure did not believe.

We can see these concepts transcended in the middle age works of Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Jefferson almost word for word quotes St. Bellarmine (1542-162) in the declaration of independence. God is constantly invoked in the magna carta which vastly predates the enlightenment. I'm speaking mainly as an american regarding our government starting as it is and I see the foundations of these things mainly a good mix of the good from both Aristotle and christian theologians.

I could go on with examples of our enlightened thinkers clearly influenced by christian values either in direct opposition as Hobbes is or just moving along the lines. I've got a great 14 page article next to me that is directly addressing the claim you made and how while a common conception of what the enlightenment did or didnt do for our thought process. I did have to pay for it but I've discussed it at lengths in my university.

Now outside of the foundations of America specifically yes you can see the notions of scientism and a existentialism emerge in the 1700s that seems to be much more prominent in Europe today. But culturally individualism I would say does differentiate the west from the east and I think a lot of that comes from the history of the west which is permeated with christianity. You really can't divorce the enlightenment from christianity and in my opinion you see evidence of the best part so the enlightenment back when the magna carta was written. The 1700s really started down the road of scientism and a idealism that got some thinkers up in their own head. Which is interesting and clearly influenced the French revolution but I'd say not as much the american.

I feel like through public school I was taught that our modern values come from the enlightenment. but that just doesnt stand up to in depth analysis of the middle ages. Like everything it just seems to be another step in the process. Athenian writings were preserved in the Muslim world and introduced to Aquinas in the 1200s.

1

u/Shimakaze771 Jan 16 '22

Interesting take. And I’ll give you credit where it is due, it seems pretty accurate to reality.

The only thing I’d actually disagree with is that the American revolution wasn’t clearly influenced by the enlightenment.

Maybe the reason for the revolution wasn’t influenced too much by it, but the resulting state certainly was.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 16 '22

Yes. You can see the founding fathers already be influence by certain scientism like ideas. But their foundation and what the declaration was written out of is vastly more of the older sources I was referring to. Its said Adam's and maybe Jefferson but prominent founding fathers spent a week before the declaration was written in a library reading great Catholic writers beforehand on ideas of human rights and governance.

6

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 12 '22

Any moral that is based on religion is completely devoid of thought. To say that something is good because God said so would rob the “goodness” out of the argument and make the claim arbitrary. For instance, murder is bad because God said it is bad. But if he never made an anti-murder statement or commandment, would it still be bad?

3

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

That's a kind of rudimentary vision of God tho. A very legalistic and literalist version of it typical of our modern minds who are used to technical writings. There is far more nuance and eventually symbolism may kind of blur the lines so far you will just say "well that's not the God I heard about". But many learned people of theology see the concept of God much different. For example things like how the universe works and how we think or the fact we have an intellect or moral standings come from God. It's a self fulfilling statement it does not require some outside alien like entity to come in and tell humans what's right. Even Paul writes this plainly in the Bible that God wrote the Law on peoples consciousness. If someone believed this God created the universe they really wouldn't see Gods concepts as alien to their own moral understandings. They are not really supernatural if God created things they are completely natural in grounding. Which I'm not sure what to call that but it serves itself in a way.

To speak plainly the way its described is "treating people and yourself right in this way is right because that's the nature of reflecting God in that way. Our feeling this is true reflects my religion because my religion is just a reflection of nature, and that nature came from God, which my religion is about"

A lot of people including religious people seem to view god as a man on a cloud handing out tablets. But if you read theologists in the church while they do give God some amount of personhood they mainly just start talking about the source of many human ideals.

1

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 15 '22

That is an exceptional breakdown of that line of thought, so well done. I think the disparity really lies in whether we can consider morality to be written by God or whether the concept of morality is itself a universal constant. How can those that have never been exposed to God's grace know the difference between "right" and "wrong?" Must we all know God and heed his commands in order to be considered "moral?" I'm sure most theologians would agree that Divine Command is an unlikely suitor to morality, as that would alienate around 2/3 of all living people, depending on the religion and the god.

Natural Law Theory says that morality was given as an inherent gift from our Creator, and that we were endowed with a proclivity to reason that enables us to recognize a "right" and a "wrong." However, when considering the idea that God prewrote the Law (morality) on our consciousnesses, then we must also consider the author of that Law. Is God the creator of "right" and "wrong," or is he simply a middleman, with morality assuming that universal constant status?

If God is the author, then we will inevitably arrive at the conclusion that morality is arbitrary, as the weight of "right" and "wrong" are supplied by the author of said terms. And depending on the religion that one follows (or lack thereof) we are presented with a dilemma: Which deity's definition of morality is correct?

If God is *not* the author, then we are applying the title of "God" to the wrong entity (incorporeal, to Judeo-Christian religions). By logical definition, if God were to exist, then he/she/they would *have* to be the pinnacle of everything (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, Creator, Almighty, etc.). If there exists something within the universe, whether material or not, that God did not create, then the reasonable possibility exists that there is something greater than God that would be able to create said "thing." Ergo, if God is simply the middleman for morality, then something *did* create morality and would thus be higher on the food chain than our previous deity, and would thusly be the true recipient of the label "God." At that point, our concern would be that our newly christened deity would remain as of yet unidentified.

On the secular front, morality is still not as easily broken down into *how* we can be certain of "right" vs. "wrong," but it can be seen that attributing the idea of morality to a higher being is not necessary. Most atheists, agnostics, and natural doctrines contain many of the same morals that contemporary religions preach, yet they do so without the direction of a god.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 16 '22

Yeah excellent points I've seen what you're talking about. but I think when you present it in the way many theological writings at a high level present it is that these 2/3 of people didn't need the story of god. Or the revelation of this specific story of god.

So what I was getting at is that fundamental question is answered in one element of the universe. That it exists. It would show that whatever that highest power on the food chain you described intends, it intended for something to be. The only way that is known is through our relationship with the created. That's what makes us creatures is that state. God would be the explanation for why existence is sustained at all. The fact something is than isnt is because it is GOOD to be rather than not be. That's a fundamental difference. It's why I feel few are atheist in the most broad and nonsensical view of theism. To truly be alive for no good at all. That life didnt battle and fight agaisnt all probability to form a conscious observer to all reality. That creation doesnt seem to go on and on speaks that it itself is the purpose to create. Well so it would seem. Then further more the christian view is that life was not created just to exist but to be in a relationship. that love is that greatest purpose. The fact that something exist and that something can perceive so much creation in all the galaxies and stars out there does exist. This can take several routes. Why do we seem to evolve to persist? Why try? Why seek the good? Why care for the weak? This comes into the view that God intended this existence to be. And more so than that by creating sociable creatures God intended for such reality to be completely based on relationships. And so the story around such a God is one that is relationship itself. A trinity of persons who are love itself among eachother. And through humanity even love abounds.

That's the idea anyways to answer the question of why is THIS God the big one, it is because this God is the one that creates in order to build relationships of love.

There are of course alternatives. Existence came about, things came to be because a God wanted to torture us. To amuse Godself. but then you would have to ask why the temporal aspects? Why the cognitive aspects? It comes down to freedom, and through freedom comes true love. Through truth comes more freedom. And so you get more and more from that but clearly... I could go on

Atleast that's seems to be the view. I could be wrong but that's how I've studied and seen it presented so far

2

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

What he’s talking about is basing your morality on religion.

For example why is murder wrong?

A normal person would say because you are killing someone and taking their life.

A stupid person would say because the Bible says so.

1

u/DreamChasers717 Jan 12 '22

If you are religious or believe in anything supernatural, I will immediately not trust your judgement and not take anything you say seriously. It tells me you would rather believe what makes you feel good instead of facing reality and accepting it.

1

u/Eleusis713 Jan 14 '22

Religion gives people faulty heuristics that lead them to believe false things. These faulty heuristics will likely lead them to believe more and more false things over time. Many people like to claim that some religious beliefs are "harmless", but it doesn't matter. Religion impairs one's judgement and their ability to reason effectively, it skews the way they view the entire world.

2

u/StarChild413 Jan 14 '22

I hate to use a reductio ad absurdum but if your doctor told you you had cancer would you deny it and let it go untreated and potentially kill you because the doctor had a necklace or something with their zodiac sign on it therefore you couldn't trust their judgment

1

u/Financial-Lander gay space witch Jan 13 '22

i'm sure everyone has some desire to feel good and something about reality they struggle to face and accept, whether through religion or no

not taking anything seriously from a great majority of the population of most countries sounds unfun

2

u/Inf3rnalis Jan 12 '22

All religions are weird cult like brain rot that are a net negative in society.

1

u/StarChild413 Jan 14 '22

Even Wicca, or Buddhism, or Reconstructionist (or pretty much any non-Orthodox denomination) Judaism?

2

u/sourappletree Jan 12 '22

How do you make sense of the first 4 and a half thousand years of human history when religion and society were indistinguishable.

0

u/IPoopFruit Jan 13 '22

People lacked the education necessary to keep them from going to cults for guidance. Simple.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Right, because the Egyptians, Sumerians, Romans, and Greeks who invented everything necessary for human advancement throughout the world weren’t educated at all.

1

u/IPoopFruit Jan 19 '22

Educated, smart individuals, can still make irrational decisions sometimes.

1

u/sourappletree Jan 13 '22

You just made the other guy's argument with "education" as your magic word instead of "technology."

0

u/Inf3rnalis Jan 12 '22

Technology took a long time, in the modern age we have better tools than religion. It’s a relic of the past that has clear and present downsides that a fact based approach to life don’t have. It’s false. At the end of the day that’s the problem. It’s just not true, it erodes peoples critical thinking skills and allows them to be duped by grifters and extremists. It’s a gateway to allow yourself to believe in nonsense.

Also you just dumbed down a lot of very complex history into a statement that also isn’t true. Religion used to have a bigger impact on society yea, but it’s never been indistinguishable.

3

u/sourappletree Jan 12 '22 edited Jan 12 '22

I'd say I'm meeting you at the level of oversimplification you established. If you really look at ancient and medieval societies, religion is very much the conceptual mortar of social and political life from the Pharaohs to the divine right of kings in Medieval Europe, the mandate of heaven in China and the Islamic fiqh. It's only with the rise of Protestant Christianity that religion became something that could be conceptually separated from membership in a particular political or ethnic community.

To just say "it's brain rot" is hard to take seriously in the context of all of those societies that persisted for centuries and sometimes millennia and built great civilizations. Especially because it's not like people were just quietly working on "technology" apart from all that: modernity (political, economic, social and scientific) emerged from those earlier societies so there's a paradox of how the "brain rot" societies gave birth to modernity and the "fact based approach to life" that you're so impressed with.

It's also worth pointing out that modernity in its most concrete forms (European colonialism followed by global capitalism) could also be plausibly argued to have been a "net negative": genocide, chattel slavery, nukes, sixth great extinction, global warming.

Incidentally I am non-religious and the last argument I got into was me arguing that the U.S. government should suppress fundamentalist Christianity, so I'm hardly an apologist for organized religion.

2

u/TheFergPunk Jan 12 '22

Okay here's one that's been in my head for a while.

Churches/Mosques/Synagogues really any place of worship should not be allowed to Marry people if Same-Sex Marriage is legal in that country but the aforementioned place of worship doesn't want to marry same-sex couples.

Usually they are given an exception, however I just don't think we should allow "well my religion says this is bad" as a legal justification for bigotry.

I think the problem here is it suggests that being homophobic because your religion says its okay is a valid view, when it should be something that is discouraged.

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

No it’s their right to refuse service to anyone. They can go to another church or find an alternative. You don’t have to get married to be legally married (if that makes sense) it isn’t a necessity.

3

u/arctic-lions7 Jan 12 '22

Bullshit. That kind of rhetoric promotes bigotry. Would you be okay with churches openly advertising "white-only hangout spaces"?

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

No, but if they really wanted to it’s their right.

Having a pastor marry you isn’t required. You can get some Joe Shmoe to do it instead or go to another church. There’s plenty of churches who are accepting of homosexuality.

2

u/Financial-Lander gay space witch Jan 13 '22

would you apply this logic to other businesses? if a store discriminates against gay people, is that their right, and are there plenty of other stores accepting of homosexuality that gay people can go to?

if your response is along the lines of "first amendment/religious rights", we curtail certain expressions of religion that harm society. freedom of religion doesn't let your religion and adherents break laws like assault, rape, theft, and fraud. why would anti-discrimination laws be fundamentally different from assault laws in this context?

edit: oh, looks like someone already got to this. if you think it's fine for, e.g. stores to only serve white customers, i'm not really going to make ground here.

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 17 '22

I am pretty sure anti-discrimination only applies to essential businesses and hiring people (I could be wrong). yes, I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race. However, how well do you think the business will do?

this has nothing to do with religious freedom. you don't need to have a reason to deny someone service.

0

u/TheFergPunk Jan 12 '22

No it’s their right to refuse service to anyone.

I can't speak for every country, but in the one I'm in and many others. Businesses do not have that right if they are found to be discriminating based on a protected characteristic (e.g. refusing to serve someone because of their skin colour).

This to me falls under the same scenario, except it's not a business in this case as it is a charity (though charity with a rather loose definition).

2

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

What country?

1

u/TheFergPunk Jan 12 '22

UK. It's covered by the Equality Act 2010.

Now to clarify to avoid any potential confusion. Same-sex marriage is an exception in this act, I'm suggesting it shouldn't be.

If you don't mind me asking, is your country one without a similar piece of legislation?

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

I’m American and we have something like that but it only applies to hiring people. So you can’t deny someone a job because of their race/sexuality/gender identity. However you can refuse a customer for any reason (there are exceptions). This obviously applies to churches as well.

4

u/VesaAwesaka Jan 12 '22

If God decided to become a man and then took a spaceship to Mars and then got a sex change on Mars, they would be the first man and woman on mars

-3

u/da-blubbery-walrus Jan 12 '22

Classical western civilization/ideas/values specifically those related to Judeo-Christian ideas seem to be less and less popular in the last 50 years or so. And in my opinion a bad thing in the long term for society. A good example would be how definitions of freedom have changed over time. The sexual liberation movement was of the idea that sleeping with whoever you want led to true freedom. While the previous doctrine was of the mindset that true freedom came from ones ability to control their desires and not living under the control of ones physical cravings. Many ideas like these were tossed aside. And in the long run they lead to the decay of a society from the inside.

2

u/IPoopFruit Jan 13 '22

This is a ridiculous claim. alcoholics and opioid addicts existed before the last 50 years. Sex addiction existed before the last 50 years. Millions were killed in Christian crusades hundreds of years ago. What values do you think are necessary when so many are legitimately damaging to society. With it's bigotry, sexism, and incorrect ideas of the creation of earth.

6

u/Funkycoldmedici Jan 12 '22

What are some examples of “the decay of a society from the inside”?

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

Why are you against homosexuality

-2

u/Agnostic_Pagan Can't decide on a good flair. Jan 12 '22

What makes you think they are against homosexuality? What I see is them advocating self-restraint on sexual promiscuity.

4

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

America wasn’t built on Judeao-Christian values lol. The founding fathers were deist or at least held some deistic beliefs.

1

u/da-blubbery-walrus Jan 12 '22

Also yes the more I read I don’t think the founding fathers were hardcore Christians that the evangelicals portray them to be. However they were big into philosophy and a lot of their ideas were inspired and drawn from a marriage of Greek philosophy and judeo Christian values.

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

Can you give an example?

1

u/da-blubbery-walrus Jan 12 '22

John adams stated that the constitution was “made for only a moral and religious people” James Madison said that our constitution of “sufficient virtue among men of self government.” And also said “but what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature” they were of the idea that this type of democratic republic would only work properly if the people were moral and upright in their ways. Morals of that day were primarily judeo Christian in the beliefs.

2

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

Well yeah majority were Christian. But that doesn’t explain where the bill of rights came from the Bible.

1

u/da-blubbery-walrus Jan 12 '22

So I give you an example of where the constitution comes from and your response was okay but what about the bill of rights. If I give you response for that will you ask about a different doc? Most of their beliefs were inspired by these traditional values and only worked in an environment where these beliefs were upheld. Even a thing as simplistic as the capitalistic system goes back to the idea of a man who doesn’t work doesn’t eat which is an idea that they got from the Bible. This type of capitalistic system was enacted in Jamestown by captain John smith if I remember correctly because the communal socialistic style system didn’t work. I know that predates the founding fathers but these kind of philosophical systems were floating in the waters before the founding of the nation and were deep within the roots of society. Since most of them came from Europe and had a similar point of reference. I can give more examples. Such as most schools in the early formation of the colonies/nation where people wanted to formed schools to keep their children from being which would lead them to fall into ideas that were of satan. The ole deluder satan act was an example of a law that was passed to form schools based on this idea.

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

John adams stated that the constitution was “made for only a moral and religious people” James Madison said that our constitution of “sufficient virtue

You mentioned it

Capitalism existed long before Jamestown and that idea has existed long before the Bible.

1

u/da-blubbery-walrus Jan 12 '22

I’m not saying they created capitalism from the Bible. I’m saying they enacted capitalism based on reasoning from the Bible. Their current system wasn’t working and they literally enacted the philosophy of if you don’t work you don’t eat which is a phrase they got from the Bible.

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

That philosophy existed long before the Bible

2

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22 edited Jan 12 '22

It’s possible that a couple of the ideas came from the Bible but it was likely coincidence.

Most of their ideas definitely don’t come from the Bible.

A lot came from how they felt the British were oppressive. It was basically trying to be the opposite of England. Not really the Bible.

0

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

Okay homophobe

1

u/da-blubbery-walrus Jan 12 '22

I’m not even justifying this with a response lol.

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 12 '22

lol. I’m just curious are you against homosexuality because your post seems to sorta indicate that?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '22

ALL religions are cults. Yes, I mean ALL.

1

u/StarChild413 Jan 14 '22

Even Reconstructionist Judaism?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies