Moderator: Dan~
Good point. It is certainly discussed publically, has legislation debated regarding it, and seduction and early stages of what leads to full intercourse are certainly public. One could argue that certain portions of religions - the individual's connection to God or sense of grace are ontologically necessarily private, while sex can take place publically in total.Mr Reasonable wrote:Sex is private?
Bad rhetoric. I stated religion specifically and not ideologies.Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't think religion should be a special case amongst ideologies. And once we decide that ideologies should be private then politics becomes nearly impossible.
But I don't know what this 'should
means
Is it legislative?
On what grounds does that moral should stand on? IOW how does someone demonstrate that that should is not ideological?
It is normal for them to talk about it, to have gay pride marches, which are based on the sexual choices of gays and tend to include sexual dancing and more. It is common to have very sexual dancing at clubs, making out in public, in other words clothed foreplay.Prismatic567 wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't think religion should be a special case amongst ideologies. And once we decide that ideologies should be private then politics becomes nearly impossible.
But I don't know what this 'should
means
Is it legislative?
On what grounds does that moral should stand on? IOW how does someone demonstrate that that should is not ideological?Bad rhetoric. I stated religion specifically and not ideologies.
I don't know what you are trying to say with 'bad rhetoric' since that would mean something like I used language poorly or ineffectively. Yes, you stated that you thought religion should be private. I said I did not think it should be a special case, which is what, as you say here, you were suggesting.
I don't see how one type of ideology can be banned and not others, and given that other ideologies have been incredibly damaging, a legislative body would have to explain why this was not discrimination. Why for example, communist ideology, should not be also banned. And ironicly communism did, in some coutries ban or drive underground religions.As far as sex is to be private, it is not the norm for people to be naked, perform foreplay or masturbate openly in every social function, before each dinner, etc.
By private I do not mean to the extent of being kept as an absolute secret.Karpel Tunnel wrote:Good point. It is certainly discussed publically, has legislation debated regarding it, and seduction and early stages of what leads to full intercourse are certainly public. One could argue that certain portions of religions - the individual's connection to God or sense of grace are ontologically necessarily private, while sex can take place publically in total.Mr Reasonable wrote:Sex is private?
Then on the issue of sex being personal....
it is obviously interpersonal.
And then even if group sex is not involved there are all sorts of professional and community discussions, educations, support groups, experts, panels, research, organizations, advocacy groups and media dealing with sex.
Sex is hardly private or personal, though most of us keep certain portions private.
If we include masturbation, which we should, then sex can be both private and personal, but in general it is not remotely restricted to this.
OK,but we can discuss sex much more than academically. We can try to get people to have sex with us. We can write books about sex. Make films and videos. And so on including processes mentioned above. Making religion parallel to sex in this context might conceivably eliminate public prayer - which in the analogy could possibly be considered analogous to the sex act. But otherwise religion's public/private would be unchanged. Most public religious behavior is talk. And we sure talk about sex.Prismatic567 wrote:By private I do not mean to the extent of being kept as an absolute secret.
Of course, if religion is to be private like sex, it can still be discussed academically, in specific institution and so on, but not that openly as done currently.
Note the current contrast between the openness of religion in comparison to sex.Karpel Tunnel wrote:It is normal for them to talk about it, to have gay pride marches, which are based on the sexual choices of gays and tend to include sexual dancing and more. It is common to have very sexual dancing at clubs, making out in public, in other words clothed foreplay.Prismatic567 wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't think religion should be a special case amongst ideologies. And once we decide that ideologies should be private then politics becomes nearly impossible.
But I don't know what this 'should
means
Is it legislative?
On what grounds does that moral should stand on? IOW how does someone demonstrate that that should is not ideological?Bad rhetoric. I stated religion specifically and not ideologies.
I don't know what you are trying to say with 'bad rhetoric' since that would mean something like I used language poorly or ineffectively. Yes, you stated that you thought religion should be private. I said I did not think it should be a special case, which is what, as you say here, you were suggesting.
I don't see how one type of ideology can be banned and not others, and given that other ideologies have been incredibly damaging, a legislative body would have to explain why this was not discrimination. Why for example, communist ideology, should not be also banned. And ironicly communism did, in some coutries ban or drive underground religions.As far as sex is to be private, it is not the norm for people to be naked, perform foreplay or masturbate openly in every social function, before each dinner, etc.
One can try to legislate in relation to secuality and sex. One can have stores with sexual devices, films.
Yes, intercourse is generally private. And people tend to be private (though often with other members of their church or group) with their rituals.
White House Ramadan Observance President Trump hosted an iftar dinner at the White House. The iftar is the daily evening meal eaten by Muslims to break their fasts during the holy month of Ramadan.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?446634-1/ ... observance
I don't know what you mean by spiritual developments, but it is an odd choice of term. The words 'spirit' and 'spiritual' have to do with religious beliefs. The words have to do with non-material portions of reality as opposed to the physical/material. Philosophical development, ethical development, moral development, cognitive development. Those terms make sense for someone working from a scientific, materialist philosophical position. To speak of foolproof spiritual development or spiritual development of any kind is hypocrisy. I realize this can be based on a misunderstanding of the word, but there is no reason for someone from a scientific perspectiv to use a word based on the idea that there is non-material entities. And there are perfectly good alternatives that do not have the contradiction, such as the ones I mentioned above, others being possible.Prismatic567 wrote:The long run objectives it to get rid of ALL religion and religiosity and replace them with foolproof spiritual developments approaches to manage the inherent cannot-be-got-rid-of 'zombie parasite' within the brains of humans.
Speech is freer but I don't see there is absolute [anything goes] freedom of speech in the Western World.Karpel Tunnel wrote:If you mean, let's legislate so that religious talk is treated like the sexual act: allowed, but not to be visible for others who have not specifically chosen to be present when it happens. IOW religious talk or rituals is treated under the law like the sexual act and thus talking about religion publically would be like public sex...that is doable.
It does go against fundmental Western values, where we are generally allowed to talk about anything. Obviously you think it is worth restricted freedom of speech this much, but if this is what you meant, then I can at least imagine how the legislation would work.
I think it is a bad idea to cut back on freedom of speech to this degree, and that the law has enough teeth to deal with conspiracies to commit violence, etc.
I also think it is problematic to legislate against one type of speech (related to one ideology) when other ideologies are allowed to be spoken of freely.
Prismatic567 wrote:Of course not exactly as private as sex but religion should be kept to the minimum as far as being public is concerned and totally separated from politics and other social activities.
Agree?
If not, why?
Prismatic567 wrote:Of course not exactly as private as sex but religion should be kept to the minimum as far as being public is concerned and totally separated from politics and other social activities.
Agree?
If not, why?
Sure.Prismatic567 wrote:Speech is freer but I don't see there is absolute [anything goes] freedom of speech in the Western World.
I believe the concept and idea of the separation of religion from politics and be easily abstracted from serious open debates on the issue.
Hunger [eating], sex, security, water, are of the same deep primal level, but the fundamental religiosity drive is one level below.Karpel Tunnel wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:Of course not exactly as private as sex but religion should be kept to the minimum as far as being public is concerned and totally separated from politics and other social activities.
Agree?
If not, why?
I guess I also think it would be odd to think that religion should be kept as private as sex. I see little connection between the two. I understand from other threads that you see religion as coming from primal parts of the brain. But so does eating.
Setting aside how one could know this and why it is not present in animals, who have all those needs and brain counterparts, so why would religion which occurs in humans be lower since it must therefore later evolved, generally called higher functions....Prismatic567 wrote:Hunger [eating], sex, security, water, are of the same deep primal level, but the fundamental religiosity drive is one level below.
The sex drive can only lead to mass rapes with ideas. And it is no longer just a sex drive, like you have in animals, it is, generally a political act, based on racism, or some other category only humans can come up with.The point is the deeper the primal level for any primal impulse, the greater deeper intensity is its association with primal evil. This is how the sexual drive can lead to mass rapes [horror of horror] and an individual raped which is bad enough.
How can something ONLY PRESENT in humans be more primal than something found in the animal kingdom?The religio drive which more primal than sex and when combine with primal tribalism [us versus them] can trigger genocides [and a whole load of other evil] and religionist perceived threats to their religion.
Try to get animals to be violent with cartoons.Note the consequences when even because of MERELY the drawing of 'cartoons' had triggered a worldwide spread of evil, violence and killings across the World.
I am not trying to link religion to sex in general.Karpel Tunnel wrote:Setting aside how one could know this and why it is not present in animals, who have all those needs and brain counterparts, so why would religion which occurs in humans be lower since it must therefore later evolved, generally called higher functions....Prismatic567 wrote:Hunger [eating], sex, security, water, are of the same deep primal level, but the fundamental religiosity drive is one level below.
it now makes no sense to have us guided by sex. And since sex and hunger are on a par, in your schema, we have no reason to model religion, as far as privacy, on sex rather than food.
In recent years, Damasio has become increasingly interested in the role emotions play in our decision-making processes and in our self-image. In several widely popular books, he has shown how certain feelings are cornerstones of our survival. And today he argues that our internal, emotional regulatory processes not only preserve our lives but actually shape our greatest cultural accomplishments.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -emotions/
You got it wrong here.The sex drive can only lead to mass rapes with ideas. And it is no longer just a sex drive, like you have in animals, it is, generally a political act, based on racism, or some other category only humans can come up with.
Right but then eating is driven from deep in the brain and we tend not to require it is private.Prismatic567 wrote:I am not trying to link religion to sex in general.
My point is to draw attention to the fact that religion is driven from deep in the brain and because of its potential link to evil, religion should be kept private and personal.
Atheists will fast and be celibate for other reasons, in fact reasons coming not from primitive parts of the brain, but from modern parts of the brain. People control, test, restrain primitive parts of the brain - a phrase I dislike - with the modern parts of the brain for all sorts ABSTRACT ideals and goals. Ones that no animal will use. No animal would decide to fast to cleanse their system or as an anti-aging techinique or for religious reasons. Here you seem to be arguing that since people will fast for religious reasons this indicates that religion is more primitive than hunger. But this is ridiculous. To fast for religion or for reasons that non-religious do this, requires higher cognitive functions around meaning and relationship and symbols that are not primitive and not possible in any other species as far as we know. Just as religious and non-religious people can suppress aggression and dominance behavior in the name of ethics or ideals or pragmatic consequentialism. The fact that people use ideas to suppress urges does not mean that these patterns are more primal. In fact it is precisely the opposite. This doesn't mean they are necessarily good. One can have bad ideas and many urges that get suppressed need not be. One need only look at some of the ways religion has taught people to hate their own drives to see this.I will not dispute comparatively hunger is more dominant that sex but roughly they are around the same level, but the religio drive [existence] is more deeper than hunger and sex. For religion sake people are willing to fast for days and be celibate.
That was a point I made to you.I believe you missed the point that all our cognitive and reason activities are grounded on the primal drives.
Which is undeniable. I have also stated that the primal drives are involved.You keep insisting that religion is driven significantly by our cognitive functions.
Sure, I knew this.In recent years, Damasio has become increasingly interested in the role emotions play in our decision-making processes and in our self-image. In several widely popular books, he has shown how certain feelings are cornerstones of our survival. And today he argues that our internal, emotional regulatory processes not only preserve our lives but actually shape our greatest cultural accomplishments.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -emotions/
I've said this elsewhere.According to the Damasio, our cognitive functions do not function independently but are significantly influenced by our emotions. In a way the 'deeper' limbic system is a critical factor that determine how the cortical parts of the brain function. e.g. reasoning, decision making etc.
Yup.Damasio presented cases where a person higher cortical functions are intact but when certain emotional parts are damaged, the smart person cannot function effectively.
Nope Damasio does not support this. Of course the primal drives are present, as they are in all endeavors. Damasio pointed out that all sorts of mundane activities and higher choice activities get messed up if you damage the limbic system.My point is the forms of religions are reducible to the emotions and deeper still to the primal religio drive which is deeper than the hunger, sex and other instincts. As I had stated, it is almost as near as the impulse and the need to breathe.
The sex drive can only lead to mass rapes with ideas. And it is no longer just a sex drive, like you have in animals, it is, generally a political act, based on racism, or some other category only humans can come up with.
You're being sure is not evidence. Further the concept of tribe was present. But even those tribal encounters were local and not systematic. Nothing like the intentionally political rapes of those in Bosnia, where the idea was to psychologically undermine the enemy - the other group - by not just raping but impregnating the enemy women. We are not talking about after the heat of battle raping the women in a tribal group. We are talking about lining them up and coldly organizing systematic rape. That depends on higher cognitive functions, planning, and symbolic thinking, and psychological insight into the effects of women appearing again with their people pregnant with half enemy babies.You got it wrong here.
I am sure when a group of men attacked another group [tribe] of people 100,000 years ago it is likely all [or most] the women were raped. There were no political elements like we have have today. The significant factor here is the unmodulated primal sex drive.
I am not sure of your point here.Karpel Tunnel wrote:Right but then eating is driven from deep in the brain and we tend not to require it is private.Prismatic567 wrote:I am not trying to link religion to sex in general.
My point is to draw attention to the fact that religion is driven from deep in the brain and because of its potential link to evil, religion should be kept private and personal.
Your bringing in atheists who fast for health and other reasons is off the point.Atheists will fast and be celibate for other reasons, in fact reasons coming not from primitive parts of the brain, but from modern parts of the brain. People control, test, restrain primitive parts of the brain - a phrase I dislike - with the modern parts of the brain for all sorts ABSTRACT ideals and goals. Ones that no animal will use. No animal would decide to fast to cleanse their system or as an anti-aging techinique or for religious reasons. Here you seem to be arguing that since people will fast for religious reasons this indicates that religion is more primitive than hunger. But this is ridiculous. To fast for religion or for reasons that non-religious do this, requires higher cognitive functions around meaning and relationship and symbols that are not primitive and not possible in any other species as far as we know. Just as religious and non-religious people can suppress aggression and dominance behavior in the name of ethics or ideals or pragmatic consequentialism. The fact that people use ideas to suppress urges does not mean that these patterns are more primal. In fact it is precisely the opposite. This doesn't mean they are necessarily good. One can have bad ideas and many urges that get suppressed need not be. One need only look at some of the ways religion has taught people to hate their own drives to see this.I will not dispute comparatively hunger is more dominant that sex but roughly they are around the same level, but the religio drive [existence] is more deeper than hunger and sex. For religion sake people are willing to fast for days and be celibate.
My point is in term of weightage the primal drives is 90% while the conscious part is merely 10%.Which is undeniable. I have also stated that the primal drives are involved.You keep insisting that religion is driven significantly by our cognitive functions.
I did say Damasio does not support it because his focus is on emotions and thus did not venture below the limbic system.Nope Damasio does not support this. Of course the primal drives are present, as they are in all endeavors. Damasio pointed out that all sorts of mundane activities and higher choice activities get messed up if you damage the limbic system.My point is the forms of religions are reducible to the emotions and deeper still to the primal religio drive which is deeper than the hunger, sex and other instincts. As I had stated, it is almost as near as the impulse and the need to breathe.
In general ALL [with some exceptions, e.g. in madness, etc] activities are reducible to the ultimate primate drives, i.e. survival instinct, the Will to Live.This cuts against your point. It is not just activities that you consider irrational, but rationality in general that depends on the limbic system.
If you want to reduce religion to the primal drives, you then have to reduce all activities to primal drives.
Note the principle 90%-subconscious 10%-conscious apply here.The sex drive can only lead to mass rapes with ideas. And it is no longer just a sex drive, like you have in animals, it is, generally a political act, based on racism, or some other category only humans can come up with.
You're being sure is not evidence. Further the concept of tribe was present. But even those tribal encounters were local and not systematic. Nothing like the intentionally political rapes of those in Bosnia, where the idea was to psychologically undermine the enemy - the other group - by not just raping but impregnating the enemy women. We are not talking about after the heat of battle raping the women in a tribal group. We are talking about lining them up and coldly organizing systematic rape. That depends on higher cognitive functions, planning, and symbolic thinking, and psychological insight into the effects of women appearing again with their people pregnant with half enemy babies.
My point is the majority of people are ignorant of the primal drives that compel the majority into religion.Just because I disagree with your idea that religion comes from more primal drives than eating and sex - for which there is absolutely no evidence in neuroscience and your evidence based on religious suppression of those urges does not work - does not mean that religion is good. Bad ideas can do all sorts of damage. And I do not think that religion is only higher cognitive functions - I have mad this clear in responses to you elsewhere, here or at Philosophy Forums. Of course it manipulates primal drives and these gives the kinds of passion, for good and for ill, that drive religious people's acts in the world.
Agree.spiderbat wrote:I think it should be one of those things that is openly known, but should be frawned against bring up in a public setting that isn't strictly meant for the discussion. What I mean is say it's openly known that I am x religion and someone is y religion, neither of us should bring it up unless we are at a religious gathering for such.
Re religion, there is the possibility of misinterpretation by those who are evil prone but you missed the point where the religion itself, especially Islam is inherently, intrinsically and glaringly evil & violent.As far as the evilness of religion, that is something that is subject to interpretation and isn't always a religious motive. There are "evil" people in every religion that interpret what they do as being right or wrong based on personal bias and understanding. Hence why there are so many subsects of Christianity.
Prismatic567 wrote:Re religion, there is the possibility of misinterpretation by those who are evil prone but you missed the point where the religion itself, especially Islam is inherently, intrinsically and glaringly evil & violent.As far as the evilness of religion, that is something that is subject to interpretation and isn't always a religious motive. There are "evil" people in every religion that interpret what they do as being right or wrong based on personal bias and understanding. Hence why there are so many subsects of Christianity.
The main message of the Quran is, for Muslims to be assured of a place in Paradise they have to obey the words and commands of Allah to the best of their ability. Killing and oppressing non-believers dictated in the Quran is not an impossible task for the majority of Muslims. Their prophet Abraham was very willing to kill his own son for Allah.
In the case of Islam the majority of Muslims are ignorant of or misinterpret the true essence of Islam which is intrinsically evil and violent. The majority of Muslims just do the basic and assumed Islam [claimed as a religion] like all other religions is supposed to be peaceful.
If you are doubtful of my point, I suggest you read the Quran thoroughly to understand its real messages and the intended objectives. (nb: I have spent lots of time researching the Quran).
The OT has loads of evil elements but the NT has abrogated ALL evil elements with an overriding maxim, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies.'
The main Buddhist Sutras and the Jain texts do not contain any leading evil elements.
The Bhagavad Gita has some evil elements which are vulnerable to misinterpretations.
Judaism's OT has loads of evil elements but it has a very loose hold on Jews.
You seem to have missed all my points.spiderbat wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:Re religion, there is the possibility of misinterpretation by those who are evil prone but you missed the point where the religion itself, especially Islam is inherently, intrinsically and glaringly evil & violent.As far as the evilness of religion, that is something that is subject to interpretation and isn't always a religious motive. There are "evil" people in every religion that interpret what they do as being right or wrong based on personal bias and understanding. Hence why there are so many subsects of Christianity.
The main message of the Quran is, for Muslims to be assured of a place in Paradise they have to obey the words and commands of Allah to the best of their ability. Killing and oppressing non-believers dictated in the Quran is not an impossible task for the majority of Muslims. Their prophet Abraham was very willing to kill his own son for Allah.
In the case of Islam the majority of Muslims are ignorant of or misinterpret the true essence of Islam which is intrinsically evil and violent. The majority of Muslims just do the basic and assumed Islam [claimed as a religion] like all other religions is supposed to be peaceful.
If you are doubtful of my point, I suggest you read the Quran thoroughly to understand its real messages and the intended objectives. (nb: I have spent lots of time researching the Quran).
The OT has loads of evil elements but the NT has abrogated ALL evil elements with an overriding maxim, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies.'
The main Buddhist Sutras and the Jain texts do not contain any leading evil elements.
The Bhagavad Gita has some evil elements which are vulnerable to misinterpretations.
Judaism's OT has loads of evil elements but it has a very loose hold on Jews.
This statement proves my point entirely. You interpret it as evil, so much so that you just mentioned Abraham strictly being an Islamic prophet even though he is also a Christian prophet who was supposed to do the same thing is the Christian texts. I consider myself Buddhist but I'm not blind to the fact that people still do evil things as and for Buddhism. You could interpret Islam and Christianity as being inherently evil. Their god is all seeing and all knowing past, present, and future but created Lucifer and all the other things that people considered to be evil and punishes his creation for them doing everything he made them to do and everything he knew they would do. You're proving the point that evil is interpretation and you could yourself be considered evil for the way you interpret another's religion.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users