What's the most evil/controversial thing the Prophet has asked you to do?

[Archaea]

Woot you are beginning the questioning process of Master's students, believing your questions are the answers.

A reading of anthropology would show that religion has played a significant role in the development of modern society.

To argue otherwise is insanity.

The more important question is what is its future role in modern society. Reasonable minds could disagree on that point, but if you wish to argue religion has not played a significant role in the development of civilization, then you have no credibility and we have nothing to discuss.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I'm looking for bad things that would not have happened if not for religion. 9/11 should be an obvious example. The question is so obvious that the only point is to set up the second question. If you think civilization would not have occurred without religion, you're beyond ignorant.

You're asking a question which I refuse to examine because it's a red herring.

However, I challenge you to find one primitive civilization and any major ancient society that would not have been created and coalesced without a religion at its center or periphery.

The question about bad things arising from religion is non sequitur. Religions involve people and anything involving people will necessarily involve bad and good. Ask a relevant question not a non-sequitur. I don't answer dumb ass questions from Masters students with no life experience.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Woot you are beginning the questioning process of Master's students, believing your questions are the answers.

Yet more empty platitudes. Why can't you just say what you mean?

A reading of anthropology would show that religion has played a significant role in the development of modern society.

Yet again, you completely miss the point. I happen to be a graduate student in anthropology, by the way, so you might want to reconsider the lecturing about anthropological ignorance. I asked for a good thing that couldn't have happened except for religion, and you offer "civilization." Society, which has existed for many million years among various animal populations, if combined with agriculture or some other nutrition source that allows for a stable location, equals the beginnings of civilization. The rise of agriculture correlates very well with the archaeological evidence suggestive of civilization, no matter where it occurred in the world.

We don't have great knowledge of what most early civilizations believed, but the evidence that we have suggests that they all had some sort of metaphysical belief system. This is not evidence for the usefulness of religion. You're making the exact same mistake I already corrected you on earlier. That they happened to be religious isn't evidence that religion was necessary, or even helpful. If it was in fact helpful, and an argument can be made that it was in certain areas, that still doesn't mean it was necessary or even a net positive.

The more important question is what is its future role in modern society. Reasonable minds could disagree on that point, but if you wish to argue religion has not played a significant role in the development of civilization, then you have no credibility and we have nothing to discuss.

And if you want to argue that the moon landing was a hoax, then we have nothing to discuss. Luckily, I am able to recognize that you didn't actually make that argument.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're asking a question which I refuse to examine because it's a red herring.

However, I challenge you to find one primitive civilization and any major ancient society that would not have been created and coalesced without a religion at its center or periphery.

The question about bad things arising from religion is non sequitur. Religions involve people and anything involving people will necessarily involve bad and good. Ask a relevant question not a non-sequitur. I don't answer dumb ass questions from Masters students with no life experience.

Arch, you go girl!

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're asking a question which I refuse to examine because it's a red herring.

However, I challenge you to find one primitive civilization and any major ancient society that would not have been created and coalesced without a religion at its center or periphery.

The question about bad things arising from religion is non sequitur. Religions involve people and anything involving people will necessarily involve bad and good. Ask a relevant question not a non-sequitur. I don't answer dumb ass questions from Masters students with no life experience.

It was used as a rhetorical device in order to set up the second question. That should have been obvious, and if you are offended that it took you an hour to figure out what I was even asking (and I'm still not convinced that you have figured out what I'm asking) isn't my problem. I love the talk about real world experience. Yet more irrelevant, empty rhetoric. For now, I'll go ahead and not explain to you how completely wrong you are on that point to see if we can get back on track.

[Archaea]

woot we know full well you're a grad student, not a Phd in anthropology, one of the "softest" of all sciences, unlike the hard sciences of physics, chemistry and biology. Yours is a blend of both, but anthropology is still a lot of guesswork.

We will have difficulty "proving" the necessity of a metaphysical belief system, but I've settled it in my mind. Until contrary evidence of a great society formed without one, you'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that the belief system did not play a significant role in the formation of that civilization. My proof is of the recorded societies from about 3000 BCE on, all had some sort of metaphysical belief system. Pre-historical societies don't appear to have achieved much greatness, until writing developed, and writing is usually linked to religion, governmental and liturgical rites. At least initially.

The only societies which reject religious thought are basically later societies which took the earlier benefits of an existing society, i.e., Chinese society.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

It was used as a rhetorical device in order to set up the second question. That should have been obvious, and if you are offended that it took you an hour to figure out what I was even asking (and I'm still not convinced that you have figured out what I'm asking) isn't my problem. I love the talk about real world experience. Yet more irrelevant, empty rhetoric. For now, I'll go ahead and not explain to you how completely wrong you are on that point to see if we can get back on track.

You are asking the question bassackwardly.

I saw the ruse you were setting up and refuse to go through the door. Hitchens and his kin like to set it up. A lawyer never walks through the door of a ruse.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

woot we know full well you're a grad student, not a Phd in anthropology, one of the "softest" of all sciences, unlike the hard sciences of physics, chemistry and biology. Yours is a blend of both, but anthropology is still a lot of guesswork.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. The whole division between soft science and hard science is largely bullshit, but if you, as many other do, define the difference according to the use of empirical data, then biological anthropology is as hard as they come.

We will have difficulty "proving" the necessity of a metaphysical belief system, but I've settled it in my mind. Until contrary evidence of a great society formed without one, you'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that the belief system did not play a significant role in the formation of that civilization.

Argh. I've never argued that it didn't. There's no evidence that religion was necessary. I never said that it didn't play any role.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. The whole division between soft science and hard science is largely bullshit, but if you, as many other do, define the difference according to the use of empirical data, then biological anthropology is as hard as they come.

Spoken like an anthropologist. Yeah sociology is a hard science, give me a break. The division has merit, even if it is not a bright lined as we make of it.

Originally Posted by woot

Argh. I've never argued that it didn't. There's no evidence that religion was necessary. I never said that it didn't play any role.

The very fact they always seem to have played a role dictates in favor that they were necessary. That is the point, which seems to fall short of your soft scientific senses.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by woot

The degree to which a Muslim is peaceful is generally similar to the degree that they disobey their religion.

A day or two after 9-11 I went to a meeting of concerned American expatriots (we were living overseas at the time) discussing what we should do next, how we were to protect ourselves, even whether or not we should send our children to school. One woman stood and noted the "fact" that "a major tenet of the Muslim religion is to kill Westerners."

Now that was an eye-roller.

I'm rolling my eyes again.