Your point still stands. Whatever.

What about that point?

That, too.

Have listened to Dawkins debate some Muslim guy and came to a few conclusions...

1. Dawkins focuses on the fact of Islam, or Christianity or any other religion being factually incorrect.
But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion?

2. Giving moral guidance in a form of only 10 commandments or 4 noble truth, etc. just printed on a page would not have much interest, so it need to be wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes.

3. The fact of the wrapper-story being factually correct or not has very little to do with whether the content is useful. After all, the 'secular humanism' Dawkins is promoting, is pretty much the same Christianity, just without the supernatural wrapper.

4. Looking at Afghanistan, it looks like the Muslims are winning. We might laugh about their religion being archaic, but they aren't the ones hanging from the helicopters. ;) So their religion, while being incorrect to say the least, gave them thumos and cohesion to take over the country in a week, yet Christians and atheists, while being much more powerful, don't have the balls to do anything about it. — stoicHoneyBadger

@Banno Were you responding to the OP?

Christianity in the fourth and fifth century went out of its way to destroy temples and burn books; not just religious texts but all philosophical texts. It closed down the great philosophical schools in Alexandria and Athens, martyring not just Hypatia but others. Books were burned gleefully in the town square. Thousand-year old masterpieces were smashed and disfigured.

Something in the order of ninety percent of classical literature was destroyed in that period.

Christianity was the first of the Abrahamic monotheistic religion to achieve large scale political power. It immediately started persecution of non-Christians. Monotheism is an inherently intolerant doctrine.

Them's the facts. — Banno

.

The OP is such obvious special pleading it doesn't warrant a reply.

But Ciceronianius is worth reading.

There was no problem of tolerance until Christianity began its relentless destruction of antiquity. The Abrahamic religions are inherently intolerant. — Ciceronianus

I actually hadn't read that until just then, when I tried to go back to find the post to which I originally replied. He's a clever fellow, our Tullius. Must be - he agrees with me.

Pretty sure I didn't say that. Reich was a Psychceramicist.

Pretty sure I didn't say that. Reich was a Psychceramicist. — Banno

I didn't say you did.

His books were burned by science. Is there a law against freely experimenting by a psychceramist?

I didn't say you did. — Thunderballs

Yea you did, by putting your comment in my quote:

Christianity in the fourth and fifth century went out of its way to destroy temples and burn

This did scientists too in America: the unhappy case of Wilhelm Reich. Jis books were burned all in a NewYork garbage incinerator. His lab was destroyed and his organone accumalators forbidden. He died lonely in prison to which he was sent in 1957. — Banno

His books were burned by science. — Thunderballs

...and so Christianity did not destroy classical literature. Is that your argument?

Hmm. Looks to be supporting my contention rather than refuting — Banno

Your position is historically inaccurate, so there's not much to argue. Amenhotep is not representative of Egyptian religion generally, but an interesting example of short lived pre-Judaic monotheism.

In any event, to what I was responding to, oppression and monotheism don't correlate. They've existed independently of another as much as at the same time.

Monotheism and prostlisizing don't go hand in hand. You can believe there's one god without demanding others follow. If your objection is simply to the forced conversion of others, I'm with you, but there's nothing specific to monotheism that demands that, nor is that aspect of religious persecution any worse than declaring someone an untouchable, as in Hindu.

Your position is historically inaccurate, — Hanover

My contention that Christianity was largely responsible for the destruction of classical literature, and culture generally, is that presented by Gibbon, and one or two others since. You will need something more than just naysaying.

I have a spare copy of The Darkening Age, which I will happily send to you for your errudition. PM me.

Christianity in the fourth and fifth century went out of its way to destroy temples and burn — Banno

I stand corrected...

Sigh...

Christianity was largely responsible for the destruction of classical literature, — Banno

Can you blame them after what Roman empire did to them? Sometimes only a Jesus can turn his other cheeck. Im not sure they were eaten asinging by the lions. Alife yes.

MLK preached tolerance! — Wheatley

So?...

For me it's not that difficult when you realize that if you want to live in organized societies, it is for your own benefit at the end to behave "good". — dimosthenis9

In that case you are taking "if you want to live in organized societies" as a priory. :) How those societies should be organized? Should you be good just to members of your society or should you also be good towards those, who want to destroy your society?

ones instincts take into account his capabilities and select a best survival strategy. — stoicHoneyBadger

Well, besides being very subjective, instincts are quite vague both as an idea and in practice. And then, "best survival strategy"? It reminds me of chess and games theory! Even using pure reason (logic) I don't think that such a thing could be "computed". But this is a secondary subject, of course.

a strong person would see it as ethical to fight the enemy — stoicHoneyBadger

There are a lot of reasons why people in history have started a war. Most of them were of course for pure domination purposes, which make them automatically "unethical": lifes were taken and the survival of whole countries was threatend. Other wars, were started to gain independence (liberated from the yoke of an oppressor, etc.) These were done with the purpose to pretect the survival of the oppressed. So they can be considered ethical endeavours rather than unethical.

a weak person would whine about "let's all be friends", not because he is "ethical", but because it is his best strategy. — stoicHoneyBadger

This sill complete my thesis that I started in the previous question, that is, considering now the position of the person who is under (the threat of an) attack.
If he is strong enough or has enough courage, he could fight back. And this would be to protect his survival, so it would not be considered totally unethical. That is, he would still be responsible for the loss of lives.
On the other hand, he could prefer peace (really or because of fear, it doesn't matter) as a solution and won't fight back but try instead to find ways to avoid the confrontation. This is the more clever (intelligence, reason) and ethical thing to do. No lives would spared!

You see, ethics and reason go hand by hand.

This clearly explain origins of Christianity - they could not win over Romans by force, so they opted for whining — stoicHoneyBadger

1) Romans had conquered Greece about 150 years before Christianity was born.
2) Christians had no guns. How could they figjht Roman armies?
3) Christians have never whinned. They withstood mass slaughter, martyrdom and humilation with exemplary courage.
4) Christianity has finally won the whole Roman Empire!

(Not that I am some fanatic Christian ...)

So?... — stoicHoneyBadger

Just saying...

In that case you are taking "if you want to live in organized societies" as a priory. — stoicHoneyBadger

Well yes. The other alternative is to go live alone in mountains and caves. If someone wants that, it's fine too. But if you want to live among others you have to follow some rules.

Should you be good just to members of your society or should you also be good towards those, who want to destroy your society? — stoicHoneyBadger

If someone wants to destroy your society,i don't see being "good" with him very helpful. Of course the "threats" and the "ways to deal with them" varies in each occasion. But I think it's irrelevant with my point.

My point is that being "good" turns into your own benefit at the end in organized societies. Respecting others, realize that you should help if you want to get help when you need it also, don't harm others as not others to want revenge and harm you back etc etc. These are "morals" that can be provided by simple Logic.

But told you my main doubt is the way that people could be convinced to follow that path.Reasoning all people in the world (especially since the average humanity intellectual level is yet low) just by talking them about Logic without the "laws" of a powerful creature (God) might not be possible at all at the end.

This is the more clever (intelligence, reason) and ethical thing to do. No lives would spared! — Alkis Piskas

Why? No, I mean I clearly see that you are operating from the point of view of "ethical = conflict avoidance, spare lives, etc." but why do you consider it ethical?

2) Christians had no guns. How could they figjht Roman armies? — Alkis Piskas

Well, by whining and ideological subversion. Romans had lots of slaves, who were not welcome into their religion. So Christians tailored their message so it would appeal to slaves an all sort of other outcasts and, basically, united them under their banned. Pretty much what the left is doing in the US/EU right now.

But told you my main doubt is the way that people could be convinced to follow that path. — dimosthenis9

Easily, if they harm others, they go to jail and get butt-raped. :)

why do you consider it ethical? — stoicHoneyBadger

I quote myself: "Ethical behavior based on helping and enhancing survival and well-beingness"
So, doesn't preventing a war help survival? If so, isn't it an ethical decision and action?

So Christians tailored their message so it would appeal to slaves ... — stoicHoneyBadger

Well, I hate to say this again (not esp. with you), but it's not OK to turn the discussion away from the main subject of the topic and start new discussions based on secondary subjects that were just brought up in the process. It happens too often!

and so Christianity did not destroy classical literature. Is that your argument? — Banno

No, but intolerance is not limited to or invented by Christianity. It's just a nasty human quality. Science is the most intolerant culture. Inconsistent? So be it!

Science is the most intolerant culture. — Thunderballs

I think you'll like this guy.
:point: https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

I had one book of him! About panpsychism. The guy is great. In any case non-standard! I dont agree volatile stars are an explanation of dark matter.

Thanks for the link! :smile:

My contention that Christianity was largely responsible for the destruction of classical literature, and culture generally, is that presented by Gibbon, and one or two others since. You will need something more than just naysaying. — Banno

Ever consider the possibility that what really happened is that Christianity provided people with the freedom to do what they wanted? And what they wanted was to destroy classic literature. The reason? Because it was full of lies, deception, and immorality, being the medium of a deprived culture..

So perhaps, what Christianity really provided was freedom from a corrupted, degenerative regime, by enabling revolt. And destruction of the medium through which the oppressors have operated was the final symbolic rejoicing, as they reveled in freedom. It's not mere coincidence that the acts you refer to coincide with the fall of the Roman Empire.

Ask Hypatia. — Banno

What has she got to do with brotherly love?

So Christians tailored their message so it would appeal to slaves an all sort of other outcasts and, basically, united them under their banned. Pretty much what the left is doing in the US/EU right now. — stoicHoneyBadger

To which modern slaves you refer? Loan slaves?