mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[termenchecks 146]

I was just curious cause he said that christians say that you cant have sex at ALL. God intended sexual relations to be pure, not the crap they do these days (its disgusting). I actually have what is called a purity ring, its something you wear that says you are pure of heart and do not lust for sex like most people. I dont believe you cant have sex, but i do believe you shouldnt lust for and that it should be for what God intended it to be for. You shouldnt want to do it again, thats not the purpose of it. Its also intended for a husband and wife ONLY. Its not right if you have sex with someone you havent married or someone you have no relation or history with. Thats just my opinion.

 

don't take it that literally man, it's just satire. and yeah like the other guy said, your pretty much proving my point here. kremt Edited August 28, 2012 by anonymstol

[LisKira 6]

born Mormon later created my own religion called the church of the triad (name work in progress) people would still consider me Mormon but I don't care.

[Mrhnhrm 5]

I'm pretty sure the entire foundation for Christianity are the teachings of the New Testament

Christianity relies on the complete Bible. The New Testament often refers to and occasionally misinterprets what's been said in the Old one. So, you just have to accept this first half of the book for what it is. Besides, even the New Testament is by no means a kind story of magical unicorns and cotton candy clouds, metaphorically speaking. E.g. how about Herod's completely unreasonable slaughter of innocent infants in Bethlehem that the all-loving god didn't do a hand's turn to prevent? Of course, this completely overlooks that if you put what historians and church officials say together, it turns out that Herod had been already dead for 3 or 4 years at the time of Jesus' birth.

 

Would you pick up a novel and read through chapter 2 or just decide to read chapter 11 and then think you can understand it?

Such approach would make sense if we read a book of fiction. However, we're dealing with a product of what's supposed to be divine revelation and depiction of historical events, not to mention it de facto being a basis for what many people define their lives by. If there is no logic in any given part of the document, there's no way that the entire document is going to become logically sound once you're done with it cover to cover. Take scientific publications for comparison - each one is a relatively short self-contained declaration of facts that make sense and can useful on their own. And arising contradictions are eventually dismissed as previous mistakes. But no, in case of Bible you need to rely on dozens of interpretations to tie the obvious loose ends together by inventing new assumptions on the go, without even usually concerning yourself about whether any of them are correct.

 

There is also no physical proof in front of my that God exists. Though, I believe anyways because MAYBE it might be true. Maybe I can save myself from something that I need to be saved it.

But do you believe that what your religion says about what's going to come after your physical death? Is there any way of knowing that it's like what they describe? What if in reality it happens the other way around and good deeds here only earn you damnation, and there are just nobody who could return to warn about this?

[Vulpes 26]

I'm an atheist, in short there is no evidence for god, so no reason to believe. I don't want to get too contentious, so I'll try and avoid saying any more.

 

Also, just going to be a knit picker, atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of religion.

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

Christianity relies on the complete Bible. The New Testament often refers to and occasionally misinterprets what's been said in the Old one. So, you just have to accept this first half of the book for what it is. Besides, even the New Testament is by no means a kind story of magical unicorns and cotton candy clouds, metaphorically speaking. E.g. how about Herod's completely unreasonable slaughter of innocent infants in Bethlehem that the all-loving god didn't do a hand's turn to prevent? Of course, this completely overlooks that if you put what historians and church officials say together, it turns out that Herod had been already dead for 3 or 4 years at the time of Jesus' birth.

 

 

Such approach would make sense if we read a book of fiction. However, we're dealing with a product of what's supposed to be divine revelation and depiction of historical events, not to mention it de facto being a basis for what many people define their lives by. If there is no logic in any given part of the document, there's no way that the entire document is going to become logically sound once you're done with it cover to cover. Take scientific publications for comparison - each one is a relatively short self-contained declaration of facts that make sense and can useful on their own. And arising contradictions are eventually dismissed as previous mistakes. But no, in case of Bible you need to rely on dozens of interpretations to tie the obvious loose ends together by inventing new assumptions on the go, without even usually concerning yourself about whether any of them are correct.

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

 

Jesus’ birth is commonly dated to 6 B.C., while Herod the Great’s death is dated to 4 B.C., two years after the birth of Jesus.

 

It appears you are the one with the historical errors. Not the Bible.

 

And what do you think the Bible is? Much of it is historical accounts. Of course it says Herod ordered the death of the young boys of Bethlehem. So what?

It’s giving an honest record. Should they cut out that because it doesn’t sound very nice?

 

The Bible is not a list of rules (although it does have lists). It doesn’t direct people to go slaughter babies in Bethlehem. It just says that Herod did that. This should only be a problem for you if you have a weak stomach.

 

 

 

Who are you to say that they misinterpreted the Old Testament? That’s just placing your interpretation on them and telling them they’re wrong. What gives your interpretation more authority?

 

The Bible tells a continuous story from pre-2000 B.C. up until the end of the first century A.D. You shouldn’t be surprised by the inclusion of historical events.

 

There is no cherry-picking involved in Christianity. Why don’t Christians adhere to the Mosaic laws? Because Jesus fulfilled the law. As is stated outright in the New Testament.

 

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” – Matthew 5:17 (NIV)

 

Hebrews 6:20, Hebrew 7:11-12, and Hebrews 7:18-19 should also shed some light on that.

 

The Bible doesn’t rely on various interpretations. You just rely on various misconceptions.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Lady Rarity Pony

[termenchecks 146]

christianity is so complicated and the bible can be interpreted in so many ways. it's so abstract. i would just give up and choose life. it's much easier. (please don't bash me this is just my opinions)

[Thunderstorm 120]

Once again, I'm Christian. Not the one who gets mad if you're gay/non-Christian.

 

Should have known this topic might ring trouble.. happened on a site I used to love. Hope it doesn't happen here.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

Once again, I'm Christian. Not the one who gets mad if you're gay/non-Christian.

 

Should have known this topic might ring trouble.. happened on a site I used to love. Hope it doesn't happen here.

 

I wouldn't worry about it causing trouble. This thread is hardly unique on this forum, and the recent discussions are no more heated than what we've seen before.

[ErBoi 501]

I must say I'm rather impressed with my apparent ability to ask several "loaded questions" without using a single question mark or even inquisitive statement. I made no such accusations whatsoever to you, Lady Rarity Pony, that what I was saying applies directly to you. I posted already that I used the last bit of your post as a jumping point (sort of a, "which reminds me...", etc.) and that my post was not aimed at you.

Even so, I fail to see how what you said in response in any way negates the points I posted.

 

Disregarding the New Testament, whether or not you personally consider it coherent with 'true Christianity', is something that comes up time and time and time and time and time again in religious discussion; most often with Christians saying that it is indeed to be disregarded.

Accusations of quoting things out of context, ditto.

 

And, since you brought it up, while you say there is no cherry-picking in Christianity, there certainly is cherry-picking by Christians. For example, the aforementioned Leviticus verses condemning homosexuality have been brought up frequently in current times from those trying to keep gay marriage from being legalized; meanwhile the same Christians bringing it up will ignore other laws in Leviticus that ban (including but not limited to) shaving or certain kinds of haircuts (19:27), tattoos (19:28), wearing mixed fabric (19:19) and the eating of shellfish (11:10).

Although the fact is the Bible has to be cherry-picked because it is literally impossible to live by all the rules it sets out. When one of the most well-known bits of the Bible is "Thou shalt not kill", meanwhile another verse says to kill people for being gay, you have no option but to pick and choose.

A similar, and much more obscure, situation happens when comparing Leviticus 20:21 and Deuteronomy 25:5. The former forbids a man to marry his brother's wife, yet the latter demands that if brothers dwell together, one of the two is married and he dies, then the dead brother's wife is to be wed to the living brother.

You have Matthew 28:19 which commands to make disciples of all nations meanwhile 2 Corinthians 6:14 says not to team up with unbelievers and Deuteronomy 13:6-10 which commands you to kill those who encourage the worship of other gods.

 

These cannot all be followed. Cherry-picking is a necessity.

[Mrhnhrm 5]

Jesus’ birth is commonly dated to 6 B.C., while Herod the Great’s death is dated to 4 B.C., two years after the birth of Jesus.

And what exactly is the chain of calculations that leads to this date of Jesus' birth? There exist no direct indications for when it occurred. Herod's death is a different matter, with him being an important figure and all, evidently some records remained that allow to date his passing quite conclusively. So, did everyone choose the easy way and just decided to attribute Jesus' birth to a date that doesn't contradict with Mathew's description of the Massacre? There are two curious things to consider then. One is that no direct evidence of the Bethlehem Massacre exists; in fact, the only indication that it happened is in Mathew's Gospel. Seeing as many other acts of mass violence done by Herod were actually properly recorded, this raises some doubts whether the Massacre happened at all. The other thing being: from where do you think came the idea that the line between 1BC and 1AD should be drawn exactly where it is now? Courtesy of a monk named Dionysius Exiguus who just took the liberty to state that the year when he invented the AD dating system (a date quite accurately attributed to consulship of a certain Roman politician) was 525th since Christ's incarnation.

 

Should they cut out that because it doesn’t sound very nice?

The important thing is not whether it is nice. It's about what sort of implications it raises about consistency of the text and of what preachers attempt to teach. In case you didn't know, there is such a thing called logic. E.g. it's written that God loves humanity dearly. It is also at least once explicitly stated in the Bible that everything that happens does so by God's will. Then there is the record of the Bethlehem Massacre. That the dearly loving god willed to happen. I'm not sure what kind of strange love is that, but it's not something I'd like for myself.

 

Who are you to say that they misinterpreted the Old Testament? That’s just placing your interpretation on them and telling them they’re wrong.

I don't have time for interpretations. Why should I care for them when there are factual fallacies? For example, Galatians 3:16 states "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ." Where exactly such thing is told in the Old Testament? Don't bother seeking, it's just Paul's imagination gone wild. Besides, Christ is by no means Abraham's seed. Even if Joseph is indeed direct descendant of Abraham, Jesus is technically not Joseph's son.

 

If someone believes that it's acceptable to build a belief system on something as inconsistent as this book, it's their own business. However, some people would be in their right to regard such a teaching as an insult to their sentience. Somewhere between these two extremes are those who doubt and will accept Bible if given some sort of explanation for the most obvious quirks. But you can't fix the flaws of the book themselves. And none of the possible interpretations of these flaws are going to be inherently flawless or true themselves.

[Mu Nova 66]

Atheist. I was raised Christian (though never did too much with it, like, no church and stuff, it's just what we were), though fortunately not by my much more religiously-concerned paternal side. But by my early teens, I randomly read about agnosticism and found I really identified with it, or felt I did. After a couple years I reevaluated my beliefs, and decided I didn't believe in any sort of religion or deity.

 

I just find myself quite a logical person when it comes to my perception of reality (and of course other things), I personally don't find the idea of such things believable.

 

And I'm very happy just not being very concerned with what I or anyone else believes--I just try to hold good personal values and be a good person.

Devout religiousness admittedly tends to bug me, but so long as people are civil and don't push their beliefs on anyone, I don't really have a beef--I respect those who are levelheaded about things. People can believe what they want, so long as they don't force it on others.

 

:U

 

Sometimes lately, when I think of death, I consider how some atheist people have converted nearer the end I our lives--I've thought about maybe trying to believe in something so I can feel less afraid when my time comes. But I'm 20, so I have lots of time left. And I don't want to compromise my own beliefs or falsely follow someone else's just to feel better. I have lots of time to come to terms with that crap... lol

 

And that's my post. >.>

 

Edit: And things such as those that are being discussed in this thread... "interest" me, as in such logical fallacies, and inconsistencies and whatnot. And how some pick and choose things for their own purposes and ignore things from the same source that wouldn't benefit them. But that's not the fault of religion itself. I think.

 

I just know this stuff brings up a whole bunch of boring, annoying drama I don't care for. I'm quite content not involving myself with this stuff, and just living my life. lol

Edited August 28, 2012 by Mu Nova

[Princess_Molestia 1,460]

I've studied a lot of religions in my life though never believed in any of them

the only one I held any sort of belief in was neo paganism

 

now I don't much think of it, not something my life hugely needs

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

You are merely shoving your own interpretation on the Bible and then saying the Bible contradicts itself because it does not agree with your interpretation.

 

And what exactly is the chain of calculations that leads to this date of Jesus' birth? There exist no direct indications for when it occurred.

Jesus’ date is placed by historians and scholars as being between 6 and 4 B.C. and before the death of Herod the Great. If you wish to counter the work of these experts on the subject, you can go right ahead. Simply stating it’s wrong dating means absolutely nothing.

 

One is that no direct evidence of the Bethlehem Massacre exists; in fact, the only indication that it happened is in Mathew's Gospel. Seeing as many other acts of mass violence done by Herod were actually properly recorded, this raises some doubts whether the Massacre happened at all.

The Gospel of Matthew is a historical account, and it records the event of the Massacre. The writings of the contemporary historian Josephus make it clear that Herod was willing to kill anyone who threatened his position.

 

The fact that there are other records of massacres by Herod only increases the credibility of the account. It shows it was not only possible, but very likely. And Matthew recorded it down, plain and simply.

 

There is no basis to say it did not happen other than baseless personal incredulity.

 

-snip- "God wills everything rebuttal" -snip-

 

The only quote I can see you misinterpreting as God willing everything that happens is Matthew 10:29-31.

 

If you believe that means everything happens by God’s will, then you’ve entirely missed the point of the analogy given.

 

It was stating that those who proclaim the Gospel are not immune to suffering, but even if they suffer, it does not mean God has abandoned them.

 

For example, Galatians 3:16 states "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ." Where exactly such thing is told in the Old Testament? Don't bother seeking, it's just Paul's imagination gone wild. Besides, Christ is by no means Abraham's seed. Even if Joseph is indeed direct descendant of Abraham, Jesus is technically not Joseph's son.

Correcting your errors is getting boring at this point.

 

Joseph is Jesus’ adopted father. Having been adopted does not remove him from the lineage.

 

And even if you want to think it does, Mary is still his biological mother, who also descends from Abraham.

 

You don’t know very much on the subject. If you wish to regard the Bible as a pile of inconsistencies, go ahead. But don’t go around telling others it is unless you know what you’re actually talking about.

 

how some pick and choose things for their own purposes and ignore things from the same source that wouldn't benefit them.

Correction: How others accuse people of picking and choosing.

 

An uneducated accusation of cherry-picking doesn't mean anyone actually cherry-picked.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Lady Rarity Pony

[BlimpAtomic 16]

I don't have any spiritual beliefs. Won't change. I even have a hard time hearing that I was baptized, a decision which has been taken against my will to please other members of my family.

 

I won't go into this matter any further, as I do not wish to offend.

 

Don't worry. I think being controlled against your will is wrong, and I'm a Baptist. I've been baptized, but I'm not offended. Good day!

[Hushabye 47]

I'm Catholic simply because I was raised Catholic and I'm heavily involved in the concept of confessing one's sins. I also like that my religion has a structure and hierarchy to it. ((Not meaning to offend any other Christianity / Abrahamic based / Other Religions))

 

I also like that Catholism just feels so...old...you know? It's got a rich and torrid history that's very interesting to learn about. I also feel the same about Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism.

[Haven Celestii 9,385]

Christian. Cause my mom said so. Yea, bad reason I know, but I haven't exactly tried to find one of my own just yet.

I would possibly say Agnostic, though. I don't exactly follow the Christian way to a 't', but at the same time I don't completely disregard it as nothing. Its kinda confusing.

[Mrhnhrm 5]

You are merely shoving your own interpretation on the Bible and then saying the Bible contradicts itself because it does not agree with your interpretation.

Logic is logic, whether you like it or not. It's not my fault that the book contradicts itself, anyone who is meticulous enough will find those contradictions; I'm by no means the first one to try, and some even went as far as to publish their findings for all to see (just that you might have something to fall back to if you somehow choose to disregard what I say). Why do you avoid the logical approach so much? Science (pretty much based on logic) has given you food which is produced without the need to mess around in mud for a significant part of your working time, it has given medications without which some of your close ancestors might not even have been born, it has given you a device to instantly communicate with any place on the planet. What can uncritical acceptance of religion boast, other than many religious wars and extracting billions of dollars that are exempt from taxation?

 

Jesus’ date is placed by historians and scholars as being between 6 and 4 B.C. and before the death of Herod the Great. If you wish to counter the work of these experts on the subject, you can go right ahead. Simply stating it’s wrong dating means absolutely nothing.

Argumentum ad populum? If you don't care where do statements that you believe come from and whether they are worth reflecting upon, it very likely means that you don't understand what you believe in (and apparently, nor do you even want to); at very least, no evidence for the contrary is given. Besides, I was asking pretty much rhetorical questions in my previous message - that's the condition of historicism regarding this very issue that I've been able to come up with. If you possess any different information that could shed some further light here, I humbly ask to provide the references.

 

The Gospel of Matthew is a historical account, and it records the event of the Massacre.

And how does history work? In fact, how does any science work? Have you heard of problems related to reliability of evidence, to scientific errors and statistics? When you have only one piece of evidence (especially coming from such a mess of information that the Bible is), you're firing without aiming when making far-going conclusions based on it. That's why experiments are supposed to be repeated several times to minimise the effect of random errors, and several different historical accounts are to be processed before writing any theories down. This is especially true for history, where you obviously can not verify a theory by experiment.

 

The fact that there are other records of massacres by Herod only increases the credibility of the account.

A deduction fallacy. The fact that a person is known for doing something repeatedly does not necessarily mean that any rumour of them doing the same thing again is true.

 

The only quote I can see you misinterpreting as God willing everything that happens is Matthew 10:29-31.

Excellent. You've taken the first vague idea that had come to mind in an attempt to somehow prove me wrong. Instead of actually searching for closer matches of my clauses. Way to go. Try John 3:16, 1 John 4:7-8, then Isaiah 45:7, Ecclesiastes 3. Then, assuming that all those are true, again consider God's involvement in the Massacre and what his love is like.

 

Joseph is Jesus’ adopted father. Having been adopted does not remove him from the lineage. And even if you want to think it does, Mary is still his biological mother, who also descends from Abraham.

Joseph's involvement is up to debate at the same scale as is the meaning of 'seed'. And Mary's lineage is not explicitly given in the Bible. If you want to retaliate with a common belief that Luke 3:23-and-on is Mary's genealogy, I have to disappoint you: she is never mentioned in the chapter, in fact it's stated in no ambiguous terms that the provided lineage is Joseph's. See, a common interpretation is that if Luke's version is somewhat different from Mathew's one, the former inevitably has to relate Mary's lineage. How much sense does that make?

 

You don’t know very much on the subject.

Maybe. But as far as your statements go to this point, so do you. If you really feel that you're more in the right to judge others' knowledge than any John Doe, learn how to use Google at least (like I do).

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

Google at least (like I do).

 

You're a bloody genius!

 

I've had enough of your petty arguments. If you want to keep saying the dating contradicts, and the theology contradicts, and if you want to keep invoking the word logic as if you actually have mastered it's usage, then you can keep doing so.

 

I can claim a recorded event did not happen. But unless I actually give an argument for it, beyond saying the "dating is wrong!" without specifying why, then the claim is meaningless.

 

No one was using a deduction fallacy. I didn't say it happened because similar events happened. But certainly if we had records saying Herod was a lover of children and didn't harm a fly, then a record of him ordering the death of children would be rather odd.

When you have records of him slaughtering anyone who dared threaten his reign, and you have another record of a similar incident, it doesn't prove the incident took place, but it certainly shows that the claim is not outlandish.

 

If you wish to continue blabbing, feel free to carry this to pm.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

I can claim a recorded event did not happen. But unless I actually give an argument for it, beyond saying the "dating is wrong!" without specifying why, then the claim is meaningless.

 

It's supposed to be the other way around. Rather than trying to prove that something (anything) didn't happen, it would be more productive to demonstrate that something (whatever) did happen in whatever way your respective arguments claim. Otherwise I could claim that God spoke to me through golden tablets in my hat, and then smugly claim that it's true until somebody can prove otherwise (why does that sound familiar?).

 

Basic debating strategies, guys.

[Mu Nova 66]

I have to ask myself why I'm even involving myself at all, but... Respectfully, I'm with NLR. Lady Rarity Pony too seems to be a reasonably intelligent individual, but a bit too fired up over what--as far as I can tell--is civil argument (mostly). Civil argument that imo makes a whole lot of sense, no less.

 

Hopefully he/she has enough tact, at least, to let the ad hominem go.

[Mrhnhrm 5]

You're a bloody genius! I've had enough of your petty arguments.

Oh, you flatter me so. And exactly what makes my arguments any pettier than any others? Who's cherry-picking now?

 

I can claim a recorded event did not happen.

And here I was hoping that mentioning the problem of scientific validity could get you to somehow consider this subject, but... so much for hoping. Why should a recorded event be trusted? You were not there when it happened. As soon as no eye witnesses of an event remain, there is no way of ensuring authenticity of any document describing it! And you don't have to go far to find examples of data manipulations in writing: I've already mentioned Paul's interpretation of God's promises to Abraham. And science effectively goes in such a way as that unless something is reliably proven, you can't put any conclusions from it to use. As far as written evidence goes, history is just a bunch of tales, some of which give a more consistent impression than others, but the true course of events is pretty much lost forever. And to choose a sole writing as grounds for saying that something happened?

 

But unless I actually give an argument for it, beyond saying the "dating is wrong!" without specifying why, then the claim is meaningless.

You insist on imagining things. I never said that any dating is wrong, I was only trying to tell you what's behind the things that get crammed down your sensory organs, things that you accept as facts. And if you actually paid any attention to what I've been writing, you would have noticed that I expressed my position on why those dates can be very well questioned. It's your turn to provide some references in your defence.

 

No one was using a deduction fallacy. I didn't say it happened because similar events happened.

It doesn't become something else if you call it something different. 'Wishful thinking' is another good term. You were willing to give more validity to a piece of evidence for an event simply because someone was known to cause similar events, which is still faulty. It's not any better than a statement that the same piece of evidence should be considered less valid because there is no official record for the same event despite the officials' habit of recording everything. In fact, the latter position would be more acceptable in scientific context since doubt regarding a researcher's position always works against him.

 

If you wish to continue blabbing, feel free to carry this to pm

Why should I leave this thread? And why should you? You can hardly embarrass yourself any further than calling what I do by inappropriate terms when at lack for better words.

[Bunches 81]

If you wish to continue blabbing, feel free to carry this to pm.

 

^wish i could brohoof just one line of a post ^^;

 

...now unrelated... we had an interesting discussion yesterday on the first day of my biology class. i wish i could pull out my notes and directly quote from them right now, but i can't (they're at home)... but it was something like this.

 

we had to explain "what is science". which i will not bore you with since this is a discussion about religion.

 

we then talked about "why study science?" - to understand & explain the world around us. some people use religion to do that instead. (from the perspective a scientist) science is testable and reproducible. if it is not testable, it is religion. if it is not reproducible, it is not useful to science.

 

so i wonder, how would you answer "what is religion?" if you had to, in your own words. not copy and pasting a definition from wikipedia or dictionary.com

Edited August 30, 2012 by Bunches

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

so i wonder, how would you answer "what is religion?" if you had to, in your own words. not copy and pasting a definition from wikipedia or dictionary.com

 

^^ first useful contribution to this thread in a long time

 

Back when I was religious, I would have defined it as a manuscript and guide for life, the universe and existence. Although I no longer consider it a useful (or even accurate) guide, I suppose my definition of it hasn't changed that much.

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

You were not there when it happened.

 

A very scholarly approach to history!

 

Why should I leave this thread? And why should you?

 

Because this thread is not for arguing over history, science, and religion. Moderators have already addressed the issue of arguments here and stated to move them to pm or don't post them at all.

 

Yeah, you find out a few things when you read back a few pages in the thread.

[Mrhnhrm 5]

we then talked about "why study science?" - to understand & explain the world around us (...) so i wonder, how would you answer "what is religion?"

Actually, what's no less important, science is kinda useful. But if you wish to dissect the definitions, one would naturally want to know what usefulness is. Well, I think that the definition of religion is very closely linked to the definition of faith. Yes, I choose to separate them. Faith is whatever you can not put to test by experiment. A lot of things fall into this category: morality, aesthetic criteria, human values and priorities. Even if you reflect upon how e.g. a shift in artistic tastes affects the society, you still judge it by subjective arbitrary criteria (even if they are shared by many). Then comes religion. This is a special flavour of faith that compels to do things that are effectively a waste of time and resources which could otherwise be used elsewhere and give the desired result in a more cost-effective manner. For example, Ramadan fasting serves no practical purpose other than wearing out potential labourers.

 

-=-=-=-=-

 

A very scholarly approach to history!

You are confusing uncritical reading for history.

 

Because this thread is not for arguing over history, science, and religion. Moderators have already addressed the issue of arguments here and stated to move them to pm or don't post them at all

Oh really? Would you be so kind as to provide a prooflink? The search engines are useless when searching for the two letters 'pm', and 'private' finds nothing. But a brief look through the first half a dozen pages of this thread suggests that arguments have been going here since the beginning, and it's not like the thread author minded. So, unless I break the forum rules or someone can explain why this specific argument should be taken down while all the prior ones remain, I will say whatever I see fit here and I refuse to leave the comforts of this public discussion.