Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Dirius

Well-known member
Soviet Union and North Korea had/have state atheism thus banning and actively persecuting all religions.

I was referring to the fact that most Westernized countries do not have state religions - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Map_of_state_religions.svg

The Green countries are particular interesting cases for this topic, which is multifaceted. I wouldn't say religion (also which one of the thousands) breeds intolerance, but I don't feel the need to thank the priests for having goodness.
Religion played important role in history, and it probably has many evolutionary benefits. It is not very clever to claim that convergent evolution could not have led us to this point, in fact, I think in many ways it would have been a faster process (just think about the state of science in Hellenistic Antiquity compared to the Christian early-mid Middle Ages).

Well the argument for to the "dark ages" slowing down scientific development may have more to do with the fall of the roman empire rather than religion itself, which used to allow the flow of economic goods and ideas throughout the mediterranean. When the empire began to fragment the subsequent kingoms were at first closed and belligerant with each other, their economies slowed down, and the feudal system (which is originally of germanic origin) was put in place. The fact that the later period of the middle ages saw a resurgance in art, science and trade leading into the reinassance, would imply the problem was not religion at all.

As for the marxists countries, the problem comes with the fact that they not only persecuted religion, but tried to establish another type of culture. For example, in communist dictatorship the state encourages children to betray their parents in favour of the state, while in christianity family is upheld as the most important thing (respect your father and mother). We see this in cultural marxism today, when the state keeps trampling over the rights of parents to educate their children the way they would prefer.

In any case, I agree that religion can cause trouble like any other institution when given power, and to be fair, the catholic church was the first to break many of its own rules. However it has more to do with the values that are inherent to its society, which is usually secular themselves. Our definition of justice or freedom is (or used to) be very different than other cultures. We used to value respect, restrainment, kindness, etc. You could say these are mixed with Greek rationality, to create the modern day west.

Londonistan has abandoned all of these. So its not surprising people get attacked on the streets. I believe like you that immigration is in part, a huge factor. But I see it as a symptom of a decaying society, not its cause.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Every now and then we will hear of some genius coming up with a polar horoscope/house system. I ask, where are the risings, culminations, settings and anti-culminations at the poles?
 

petosiris

Banned
Our definition of justice or freedom is (or used to) be very different than other cultures. We used to value respect, restrainment, kindness, etc.

Are those values absent in Buddhist ethics (I get the feeling you think atheism makes baby-killers, so I am going to give a different non-Christian example)? Why Christianity? Why not Buddhism? Why not secular ethics?
 

petosiris

Banned
The Italian traditional/classical school (one of the earliest to my knowledge) Cielo e Terra uses reversed zodiac for Southern Hemisphere charts following Ptolemy and the Renaissance authors Cardanus and Campanella who thought that reversal was the way to go (Morinus was critical of this). I am not very familiar with their work so I don't know what they would personally do for equatorial charts. The famous modern astrologer Dane Rudhyar also was a proponent of reversed zodiac (for david).
 

petosiris

Banned
Just to clarify, whether you reverse the zodiacal names, or you simply uses the opposite rulerships does not matter tropically. The usage of sidereal considerations like the constellation imagery is a separate error and topic on its own. I still hold the opinion that constellations are discordant with the tropical signs even in Antiquity, and that the Lascaux cave and a few Aboriginal constellations are testimony to that.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Are those values absent in Buddhist ethics (I get the feeling you think atheism makes baby-killers, so I am going to give a different non-Christian example)? Why Christianity? Why not Buddhism? Why not secular ethics?

The problem with atheism (or secular ethics as you call it) -is that it will inevitabely devolve into utopianism. If there is an idea that there is no God, and thus nothing to what humans should answer to or fear then there is no reason at all but self benefit. This is what happened with the Nazis or the Communists, in which they placed the state as the official icon to be worshipped, an artificial God created by men, which all citizens were dependant on. While this is true for any form of organized religion (the catholic church being an example), we can at least point out to the inconsistency between the teachings and the actions of the institution, while in an atheistic way, we can't.

You brought abortion into the discussion, which is a good example, so let me ask you: do you think abortion si a good or a bad thing?

---

As for Buddhism, to my knowledge there isn't any buddhist country that evolved into a democracy without the interference of western power. Which would make the example quite bleak. I do agree with you buddhism has some nice teachings, but certainly not the impact christianity did.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
The problem with atheism (or secular ethics as you call it) -is that it will inevitabely devolve into utopianism. If there is an idea that there is no God, and thus nothing to what humans should answer to or fear then there is no reason at all but self benefit. This is what happened with the Nazis or the Communists, in which they placed the state as the official icon to be worshipped, an artificial God created by men, which all citizens were dependant on. While this is true for any form of organized religion (the catholic church being an example), we can at least point out to the inconsistency between the teachings and the actions of the institution, while in an atheistic way, we can't.

Not impressed with that No true Scotsman argument. :andy:

You brought abortion into the discussion, which is a good example, so let me ask you: do you think abortion si a good or a bad thing?

I was thinking about actual murder, not abortion.

I personally dislike abortion, and there are also physiological and psychological health risks that come along with it (science can give us objectivity in this). I can see where in some cases it may be a lesser evil though. Is giving birth to unwanted babies to be given for orphanage a good thing (for the parents especially)?

There are also plummeting fertility rates in Western countries which could make it a civilization issue. But while I think there are more pros to ''pro-life'' (since life is sometimes a good journey), I think abortion should be legal and possible (maybe discouraged, and definitely not encouraged) not really due to liberty's sake or the fetus, but for the sake of the female, and therefore the society.

Is abortion a good thing? Only if life is a bad thing.

As for Buddhism, to my knowledge there isn't any buddhist country that evolved into a democracy without the interference of western power. Which would make the example quite bleak. I do agree with you buddhism has some nice teachings, but certainly not the impact christianity did.

It hasn't because Western countries had science and secularism. I would say that the teachings of Buddhism are far more noble when it comes to the tolerance aspect, would you not agree?
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Not impressed with that No true Scotsman argument. :andy:
It isn't one. Acknowledging that the church has done things that go against their own teachings doesn't deminish the argument. And internal diferences prevailed through out christianity's history. The important thing is what side eventually became dominant, that gave rise to our modern society.

I was thinking about actual murder, not abortion.

I personally dislike abortion, and there are also physiological and psychological health risks that come along with it (science can give us objectivity in this). I can see where in some cases it may be a lesser evil though. Is giving birth to unwanted babies to be given for orphanage a good thing (for the parents especially)?

There are also plummeting fertility rates in Western countries which could make it a civilization issue. But while I think there are more pros to ''pro-life'' (since life is sometimes a good journey), I think abortion should be legal and possible (maybe discouraged, and definitely not encouraged) not really due to liberty's sake or the fetus, but for the sake of the female, and therefore the society.

Is abortion a good thing? Only if life is a bad thing.

I don't think people who have been adopted would agree. But in any case, the purpose is that eventually we side on the god-like attempt to determine whether they should be born or not. Which is what I was talking about.

What gives us the authority to say that his life won't be good if he is an orphan?
It hasn't because Western countries had science and secularism. I would say that the teachings of Buddhism are far more noble when it comes to the tolerance aspect, would you not agree?

China and North Korea had plenty of scientifical knowledge in the 1950's and 1960's (at least on the level europeans had in the 18th century) and they still haven't been able to bring democracy. So did Japan in the 1920's. So I don't think it has to do with science.
 

petosiris

Banned
I don't think people who have been adopted would agree. But in any case, the purpose is that eventually we side on the god-like attempt to determine whether they should be born or not. Which is what I was talking about.

What gives us the authority to say that his life won't be good if he is an orphan?

The lives of many adoptees turn out to be great, but imagine what kind of life the parents have to be living. What gives us the authority to say that the life of the mother won't be better without a child?
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
The lives of many orphans turn out to be great, but imagine what kind of life the parents have to be living.

It still doesn't really gives us the authority to end an innocent life for our sake (or percieved sake of others). Its a slippery slope from there. And one human beings tend to follow if allowed.
 

petosiris

Banned
China and North Korea had plenty of scientifical knowledge in the 1950's and 1960's (at least on the level europeans had in the 18th century) and they still haven't been able to bring democracy. So did Japan in the 1920's. So I don't think it has to do with science.

Yeah, it probably has to do with communism.
 

petosiris

Banned
It still doesn't really gives us the authority to end an innocent life for our sake (or percieved sake of others). Its a slippery slope from there. And one human beings tend to follow if allowed.

I think the orphan was a really bad example.

''According to the latest statistics, 67-85% of preborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted in the United States. As a result, the population of people living with the condition has decreased by 30%. In other countries, the abortion rate for Down syndrome can be as high as 90% in the United Kingdom, 98% in Denmark and 100% in Iceland.''

Do you think those people are doing something immoral by being technically murderers (yeah ok)?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
I think the orphan was a really bad example.

''According to the latest statistics, 67-85% of preborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted in the United States. As a result, the population of people living with the condition has decreased by 30%. In other countries, the abortion rate for Down syndrome can be as high as 90% in the United Kingdom, 98% in Denmark and 100% in Iceland.''

Do you think those people are doing something immoral by being technically murderers (yeah ok)?

If you consider that moral, then why not murder those already born with down syndrome too? After all isn't it the same case considering they are still trouble for those dependant on them? Whats the diference in aborting a baby with down syndrome or an adult with down syndrome?

And I think the question still stands, what gives us the authority to decide on the life of other people? -
 

petosiris

Banned
If you consider that moral, then why not murder those already born with down syndrome too? After all isn't it the same case considering they are still trouble for those dependant on them? Whats the diference in aborting a baby with down syndrome or an adult with down syndrome?

Zygote or a fetus =/= baby or an adult.

If God chose one of few zygotes and fetuses he doesn't kill to be the baby with Down, then people generally look after it.

And I think the question still stands, what gives us the authority to decide on the life of other people?

This is a good question, but when it comes to the life of people with Down syndrome, other people have to give themselves the authority to decide their lives, because they can't. So some people somehow come to the conclusion that there is some slight possibility their life might not be very fortunate you know.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
If there are fewer fetuses with Down syndrome, there are fewer adults with Down syndrome, and perhaps more adults without Down syndrome. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.
 
Top