Atilla's religion...

While it is true that Atilla was no Christian and paid little attention to traditional religious fan fair he did seem to be motivated by superstition.

Atilla was said to have found a sword of the war god Mars buried in the ground of a field, with which he was an invincible warrior. Atilla probably did find a sword of some dead warrior and believed it to be a sign that he was destined to rule the world.

hyperhistory.net

Once again we see a power hungry manic fueled by the thought that their destiny was ordained by some god or another.

Later

Frank - I stand corrected on the subject of Vlad.

Sigh......

I guess there are no depths to which the human race cannot sink....and yet there seems to be glass ceiling through which we cannot rise......

It has been said that religion or not good people will always do good and evil people will always do evil, but for good people to do evil it takes religion.

As far as the glass ceiling goes... I wouldn't give up on humanity just yet, we are still learning and it is a long process hampered by many things, one of which is religion but that is certainly not our only hurtle, despite these setbacks progress has been made and I hope will continue.

Later

Frank 013 wrote:It has been said that religion or not good people will always do good and evil people will always do evil, but for good people to do evil it takes religion.

Frank, again, I disagree. You would also know Keynes comment that "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." My point here is that all good action is theory-laden, dependent on an idea. You can't assume that 'good people will always do good' without a coherent shared narrative which provides a reason to do good. That is what Paul meant by salvation by faith

[quote]RT
You can't assume that 'good people will always do good' without a coherent shared narrative which provides a reason to do good. That is what Paul meant by salvation by faith

Is there such a thing as true altruism then Frank?

If there is.....we must have evolved far further than I realised......I hadn't noticed.


Hope your knee is better today.....you know what I think about the benefits of kneeling!!!

Penelope
Is there such a thing as true altruism then Frank?

If there is.....we must have evolved far further than I realized......I hadn't noticed.

I think that there is... I have seen it in the military and in law enforcement. The reward in the cases I have witnessed is not personal but in favor of the person being helped.

Penelope
Hope your knee is better today.....you know what I think about the benefits of kneeling!!!

My knee does not hurt, but it does ache and feels weak. Kneeling is out of the question for the moment.

Later

[quote="Frank 013"]

As far as the track record of secular government... currently on this planet the most civilized, crimeless, fair and free governments are the most secular ones.

I just wanted to quickly clarify that in no way was I suggesting that secular governments have a bad track record. Governments should always be secular, a view that puts me in conflict with most Muslims, probably. What I was trying to say was that ideology that declares itself as atheist has also seemingly been responsible for for millions of murders in the 20th Century. (I say "seemingly" because I don't necessarily agree that particular beliefs we ascribe to people are responsible for what they do.)

I admire the way you've patiently and logically pursued your argument. I might appear stubbornly resistant to your evidence for the inherent danger of monotheistic belief (are you less down on polytheism?). If I am stubborn, the reason is that, as a diagnosis of why things go so wrong in societies, the religion thesis seems so wanting. If you could remove a religious belief that apparently is perpetuating suffering in Africa, unfortunately the way would not then be paved to enlightened action. There could be many other "reasons", not based in religion, invented to not do what seems to be right. One leader in South Africa promotes belief that AIDS is a myth. This comes from no religion, but clearly could be harmful if others are taken in by his reasoning.

Bottom line for me, I guess: humans are just as dangerous without apparent religious motivation as with it.

DWill
I admire the way you've patiently and logically pursued your argument. I might appear stubbornly resistant to your evidence for the inherent danger of monotheistic belief (are you less down on polytheism?).

I am against any belief that demands that faith be observed above reason, and dogma above personal rights, but right now there is one belief in particular that invades my life regularly and that is the one I focus on the most... Christianity.

DWill
If I am stubborn, the reason is that, as a diagnosis of why things go so wrong in societies, the religion thesis seems so wanting.

I am not sure why you insist on this, there is in fact overwhelming evidence that in today's age less religious societies are the most civil, respectful and prosperous.

In short, modern societies where religion has the least amount of power have the most personal freedom and the best civil track records.

DWill
If you could remove a religious belief that apparently is perpetuating suffering in Africa, unfortunately the way would not then be paved to enlightened action. There could be many other "reasons", not based in religion, invented to not do what seems to be right. One leader in South Africa promotes belief that AIDS is a myth. This comes from no religion, but clearly could be harmful if others are taken in by his reasoning.

That is true to some extent but I will again point out that religion has elements that make it more dangerous and more sustaining in its dogma.

Religions encourage bigotry by setting one irrational belief against others; religions encourage blind devotion to their gods and in many cases to their religious leaders. Religions also encourage following dogma above reason or education. Finally what other belief can encourage action (any action) by offering everlasting paradise?

DWill
Bottom line for me, I guess: humans are just as dangerous without apparent religious motivation as with it.

This is true, but if you could remove one reason for acting violently towards your fellow man wouldn't that be beneficial, even if it did not completely eliminate the problem?

It seems to be working in the countries that have managed to make it happen...

Later

I am not sure why you insist on this, there is in fact overwhelming evidence that in today's age less religious societies are the most civil, respectful and prosperous

.

About this, I'd reply with the words Voltaire was supposed to have used about Christianity: "Important if true." You'll understand, I'm sure, why I'll need to see this evidence for myself, be satisfied that such ideas as civility and respect have been somehow measured, and see that there could really be a link of causation, not just correlation, between low religious affiliation and these positive qualities. In passing, I note that the U.S. is a religious society. It is prosperous, and I think if we are speaking comparatively, it is also a society in which civility and respect are the norm.

This is true, but if you could remove one reason for acting violently towards your fellow man wouldn't that be beneficial, even if it did not completely eliminate the problem?

But religion is not monolithic. It includes so many shades and degrees of belief, some of which may be harmful in the wrong hands, some of which are benign. A religious belief has little determined character in itself; everything depends on believer's use of it (compare it to a firearm, not dangerous unless misused). Religious beliefs can be conveniently singled out for elimination just by virtue of being under the umbrella of religion, while other beliefs that we have agreed can be just as dangerous in the wrong hands, escape being targeted.

I think what we need is a typology of belief that would encompass both secular and religious beliefs. Someone may have done something like this. We need more psychological precision to classify the things people are said to believe. I'm still strongly inclined to think that a rather militant stance against religion, per se, is never going to produce genuine understanding and consensus, only more culture wars.

Sorry to abuse anyone's patience with all of this. I don't speak as a believer of any kind, only as someone who values liberalism (my own idea of it, not the political version).