:up:

how would we demonstrate what that law is and what that higher power is? — Tom Storm

There was this one time where God zapped it into some pieces of stone, whereupon the guy carrying them threw them down on the ground and busted them. They swept up the pieces and put them in the Arc of the Covenant.

It's a pretty amazing story. It's etched on everybody's psyche. It's our epic.

Cannot any position be justified as the will (or law) of some higher power? — Tom Storm

Sure. There were these Mormons who believed God spoke directly to them. One heard God say he should kill his wife, so he did.

That story sucks. It's not etched on anybody's psyche.

Emotivism then? And if I don't share those emotions, then what's bad to you is good to me and there is no one correct answer? — Hanover

Jesus' answer was that all of the law means one thing: have love.

The Neoplatonists continued that theme with: "Love and do what you will."

The basic idea is that by loving, you come closer to your basic nature. If you don't have love, it's because you don't love yourself.

I'm partly Neoplatonic and partly profoundly nihilist. Strangely enough, the two blend pretty well.

So you accept a law from a higher power?

Alright, so for all here who have settled upon relativistic morality, explain the basis of your moral outrage against the rapist and why I should find your reasons compelling. — Hanover

It hurts to think of women I know being raped. I just extrapolate out from there. It's a feeling with a "no" at the center of it.

If the role of religion is really to bind people in a tribal group then dependency on the group is essential. Personal development of virtue leads to independence and is therefore at odds with the purpose of religion. — praxis

I've long thought the solution to climate change is a new global religion. The binding and what not.

They're huge. It's awful.

I got off of processed foods a while back and then discovered how the whole American scene is geared toward obesity.

As always, it's corporate interests vs the health of the people. In this case the sugar industry. :groan:

It has absolutely nothing to do with "defending Putin" — Isaac

I don't think you understand what I was asking, but I think I do get it now.

. I think Putin and Russia in general are much more rational than people want to give them credit for because it doesn't fit the narrative of a "butcher" or "mob boss" — Benkei

Mob bosses aren't evil or irrational. They're a form of governance. You pay the mob as part of the price of doing business. That's exactly what Putin is in Russia.

They butcher, sure, but in an environment where the police can kill minority Americans and get away with it, it's good to align yourself with someone who has established a relationship with the police. It's corrupt, sure. But it provides some stability for people who would be vulnerable.

I think the point is that it's not Russia that just invaded Ukraine. It's Putin. A number of pundits have made that point. It's not insulting.

. The more secure and respected Putin feels the less trouble he should be. — Benkei

If that's true, we should expect trouble going forward. His actions have eliminated Russia's market economy. He's transitioning to some sort of command economy, like N. Korea's.

So he is headed backward economically speaking. Ties to the west: gone. Russian middle class: severely reduced. His economy: permanently contracted.

That doesn't bode well for the overall health of Russian society.

The will to effectively dismantle democracy? — praxis

Sure.

My take is that's a naïve form of anti-americanism. They really really think Biden is worse or scarier that Putin. That kind of ideas is more likely to exist in parochial folks who never travelled much beyond their little country, because it takes only a few days in a dictatorship to understand what's happening. The difference with your average semi-healthy democratic country is hard to miss. — Olivier5

So you're different because you've traveled more?

I admit to highlighting a particular view when I believe it broadens the context. I would do the same when talking about the Netherlands but unfortunately nobody here is interested in my little country. — Benkei

I understand. I actually am interested. You guys just haven't invaded anybody recently. :smile:

Not a peep from the public school system about the American Empire, the blood on our hands. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Depends on the teacher.

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good. — Benkei

I think I might understand what's going on.

Americans don't see the US the way you do. It's just our home. The rest of the world is like a big glob of non-American. Sort of.

I don't have access to the view you have where there's an unbalanced message wrt the US and Russia. For me, all narratives are internal, American narratives, whether critical, nationalistic, or just flat (as much as there is any unbiased point of view.)

I don't need to worry about balance. So most of the stuff you're saying is just misunderstood by me. I don't have the same concerns you do, so I don't get the intent.

Thanks! That actually helped.

So if you presented a balanced attitude about the US and Russia, you think you'd be contributing to an overall unbalanced narrative that's in the world?

You see yourself as having an obligation to create balance by being biased in both cases, in favor of understanding Russia and condemning the US.

Is that right?

I see. I think you might be affected by media that I'm not exposed to.

Do you watch televised news?

can't speak for Benkei but he may have some bizarre legal idea that both sides of a dispute deserve to be heard — boethius

But he wouldn't have that attitude if the culprit was American. He'd happily go in the other direction of being as unfair as possible (I think).

So I don't think it's a matter of valuing fairness.

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money. — Olivier5

I meant people like that in general.

All prayers are delusional by their very nature. — Michael

Sometimes prayer is effective though. It focuses the will.

Why don't you quote me where I defend him? — Benkei

I wasn't attacking you. I'm trying to understand people like you. If you have any helpful hints, I'd appreciate it.

I think Omicron ended up being the universal immunity maker.

Where I am, covid is practically gone. A few stragglers is it. Everybody's heads are spinning from it.

What's left is that people who are vulnerable still need to get vaccinated. Cancer patients, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and people of color definitely need to be taking D3 supplements.

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president.

What is behind that? Does it come down to anti-American sentiment where any enemy of the US is a friend? If not, then what? Do you have an idea?

What do we do when these works tell us different and conflicting things? — Fooloso4

And that's an important question. What is the value of conflict on this forum? I'd say ideally it allows for deeper examination and reflection.

That’s one reason to respect opposing views. Another is that it allows a diverse population to exist peacefully. Acceptance promotes recognition of humanity. That's a value from our time.

There is no necessity that what has historically been transmitted by religious tradition must be transmitted by religious tradition. — Fooloso4

I agree. I think an important point alluded to in the OP article is that the remnants of religion are all around us. We don't recognize them until we start doing a little exploration of history. So religion isn't over there somewhere in those people. It's here. Within you. In the way you speak, think, and act.

This is the main reason religion is hard to define now.

Although religion may play a role here, it is not a necessary role. — Fooloso4

Our concept of goodness is complex because it's a fusion of a number of different cultural attitudes. It can be about duty, progress, victory over adversity, etc.

Most of these concepts were transmitted by religious traditions, so we could say that's the role of religion here.

You have the arrogance of the lucky. :grin:

I think what you're missing is that dictatorship works better during a crisis. That's why ancient democracies evolved into monarchies over and over.

If you have a functioning democracy, that's because you're lucky, not because you had good soil. Your country hasn't faced any major crises or wars in a while.

then the "ritual" is non-religious. — Harry Hindu

And since there are non-religious rituals, and religions that don't have specific rituals, ritual is not the essence of religion.

It shouldn't be surprising that after 5000 years of drastic change in world views, the word "religion" is hard to define.

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety.
— frank
So practicing a religious ritual shows that you are religious? — Harry Hindu

Yes. Plus it lessens your chances of food poisoning.

Washing your hands before you eat isn't necessarily a Jewish ritual — Harry Hindu

It actually is. It was a whole thing.

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety.

As ssu says: learn history.

Isaac Asimov despised Alexander.

How about the Jewish ritual of washing your hands before you eat? Effective or not?

Don't you think the Chinese, being human beings, will judge for themselves if unleashing death and destruction on Ukraine makes President Putin a hero — FreeEmotion

A few will. There was a time when Russians and Chinese tried to face the truth about what communim did to their countries in the 20th Century.

It's incredibly hard to face that kind of thing. There's a strong impetus to turn away from it and say it didn't happen.

I'm afraid that lauding Stalin as a great man is is line with denial.

Right. I think it is the motive behind the ritual that makes it religious or not. If the motive is to achieve some goal where there is no evidence that such rituals achieve such goals, then that is a religion. — Harry Hindu

Shaking hands is a ritual. Is there any evidence that it achieves its goals? :lol:

From the NY Times;

"While Russian troops have battered Ukraine, officials in China have been meeting behind closed doors to study a Communist Party-produced documentary that extols President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as a hero."

"The humiliating collapse of the Soviet Union, the video says, was the result of efforts by the United States to destroy its legitimacy. With swelling music and sunny scenes of present-day Moscow, the documentary praises Mr. Putin for restoring Stalin’s standing as a great wartime leader and for renewing patriotic pride in Russia’s past."

Disgusting

So far as the topic goes, do we at least agree that ritual practice of some sort seems central to the concept of religion? — Banno

Human life is pervasively ritualistic. Much of it is non-religious, so no.

In this case, many oil companies are very very happy. Not to mention Lockheed and company.

And seeing as this war may escalate again, they are even happier. It's savage. — Manuel

Yep.

think one can make a case that there is a certain "ideal" element to this, who is against "democracy" or for Nazis? But more often than not, the arguments are bs or vastly exaggerated as is the case now . — Manuel

Definitely. I think with any war, someone who's making a profit off of it is facilitating it.

Maybe sometimes those facilitators tip events toward war, so the real reasons for it are many and sometimes not known far and wide.

The late Christopher Hitchens, most of the Bush Administration. The Kremlin now. — Manuel

I think Christopher Hitchens was a piece of decaying fungus shaped like a human.

The Bush administration didn't invade Iraq because they had romantic notions about war.

The Kremlin now? I really don't know.

Just like those who love war (or romanticize it) are willing to shout and support it till' the end of other people's blood. — Manuel

I don't really know anybody like that. Do you?

Can what is good in religion - charity, ritual, what you will - not happen without the mythical background? — Banno

As we noted before, science has been an aspect of religion for longer than it was separate.

So maybe we could back off of religion in general and specify a particular religious group.