PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

[MyUniBroDavis]

Damn, Diego really died. Equally expected and unexpected news.

For those who don't follow football, he was easily bigger than the other big sports death this year in Kobe. I'd say bigger than Jordan, even. His cultural impact is unparalelled in sports.

I really dont think people should compare sports deaths, and i dont think you should try to equate the impact of their death with the impact they had on their sport

[Jaivl]

Damn, Diego really died. Equally expected and unexpected news.

For those who don't follow football, he was easily bigger than the other big sports death this year in Kobe. I'd say bigger than Jordan, even. His cultural impact is unparalelled in sports.

I really dont think people should compare sports deaths, and i dont think you should try to equate the impact of their death with the impact they had on their sport

Just putting his name into context for people who may be unfamiliar with football, not "ranking deaths" or whatever you imply.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Just putting his name into context for people who may be unfamiliar with football, not "ranking deaths" or whatever you imply.

Boi you literally said this lol

he was easily bigger than the other big sports death this year in Kobe.

Saying "he had more of a cultural impact on soccer than..." is putting it in context, even, he was bigger in the sport of soccer respextively is

Saying "yeah he's death was easily bigger" is not putting it in context lol

[Jordan Syndrome]

Just putting his name into context for people who may be unfamiliar with football, not "ranking deaths" or whatever you imply.

Boi you literally said this lol

he was easily bigger than the other big sports death this year in Kobe.

Saying "he had more of a cultural impact on soccer than..." is putting it in context, even, he was bigger in the sport of soccer respextively is

Saying "yeah he's death was easily bigger" is not putting it in context lol

I don't have a horse in the race but the way I interpreted Jaivl was "He is bigger than Kobe". Jaivl didn't say his death was bigger, Jaivl said He is bigger than the other person who died (Kobe).

English is difficult but what Jaivl said he said is true.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Just putting his name into context for people who may be unfamiliar with football, not "ranking deaths" or whatever you imply.

Boi you literally said this lol

he was easily bigger than the other big sports death this year in Kobe.

Saying "he had more of a cultural impact on soccer than..." is putting it in context, even, he was bigger in the sport of soccer respextively is

Saying "yeah he's death was easily bigger" is not putting it in context lol

I don't have a horse in the race but the way I interpreted Jaivl was "He is bigger than Kobe". Jaivl didn't say his death was bigger, Jaivl said He is bigger than the other person who died (Kobe).

English is difficult but what Jaivl said he said is true.

I mean im guessing thats what he meant, but if you say

"If you dont know who he is, hes way bigger than the other sports death in kobe"

Doesnt mean "he was bigger than kobe in their respective sport"

Like by definition its comparing him, to the death

[Jordan Syndrome]

Boi you literally said this lol



Saying "he had more of a cultural impact on soccer than..." is putting it in context, even, he was bigger in the sport of soccer respextively is

Saying "yeah he's death was easily bigger" is not putting it in context lol

I don't have a horse in the race but the way I interpreted Jaivl was "He is bigger than Kobe". Jaivl didn't say his death was bigger, Jaivl said He is bigger than the other person who died (Kobe).

English is difficult but what Jaivl said he said is true.

I mean im guessing thats what he meant, but if you say

"If you dont know who he is, hes way bigger than the other sports death in kobe"

Doesnt mean "he was bigger than kobe in their respective sport"

Like by definition its comparing him, to the death

It isnt comparing him by death though--its comparing him as a person and the context of them being similar is "they both died". Jaivl isn't saying his death was more important, he is saying Diego was a megastar, even bigger than Kobe.

If you want to compare them as people maybe Jaivl can inform us if he ever had a run in in Colorado.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I don't have a horse in the race but the way I interpreted Jaivl was "He is bigger than Kobe". Jaivl didn't say his death was bigger, Jaivl said He is bigger than the other person who died (Kobe).

English is difficult but what Jaivl said he said is true.

I mean im guessing thats what he meant, but if you say

"If you dont know who he is, hes way bigger than the other sports death in kobe"

Doesnt mean "he was bigger than kobe in their respective sport"

Like by definition its comparing him, to the death

It isnt comparing him by death though--its comparing him as a person and the context of them being similar is "they both died". Jaivl isn't saying his death was more important, he is saying Diego was a megastar, even bigger than Kobe.

If you want to compare them as people maybe Jaivl can inform us if he ever had a run in in Colorado.

I get he might mean that, but literally by definition thats what his sentence meant lol.

he was easily bigger than the other big sports death this year in Kobe.

He = subject
Other big sports death = object

English is hard yeah but thats what his sentence meant, obv it seems like he meant something else but thats what his sentence meant and he clarified after

Im assuming im misunderstanding part 2 of what you said lol

[Jaivl]

If you want to compare them as people maybe Jaivl can inform us if he ever had a run in in Colorado.

Gender violence and even alleged pedophilia, so... yeah I guess that counts.

[HeartBreakKid]

Damn, Diego really died. Equally expected and unexpected news.

For those who don't follow football, he was easily bigger than the other big sports death this year in Kobe. I'd say bigger than Jordan, even. His cultural impact is unparalelled in sports.

I really dont think people should compare sports deaths, and i dont think you should try to equate the impact of their death with the impact they had on their sport

Just putting his name into context for people who may be unfamiliar with football, not "ranking deaths" or whatever you imply.

In many parts of the world Kobe Bryant is a much bigger deal than Diego Maradona. Just because football is the biggest sport doesn't mean that the stars are the biggest athletes globally.

In Asia, North America and Oceania Kobe Bryant is a much more well known name. You could go to a place like Japan and 100/100 of them would know Kobe, not the same with Diego (and football is more popular in Japan than basketball). Diego is bigger than Kobe in Europe, Africa and South America, but Kobe is still reasonably well known in those regions (Africa is probably where he is most obscure).

East Asia alone is a larger population than Europe and Latin America combine.

Kobe Bryant is pretty comparable to any football player in cultural impact.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I really dont think people should compare sports deaths, and i dont think you should try to equate the impact of their death with the impact they had on their sport

Just putting his name into context for people who may be unfamiliar with football, not "ranking deaths" or whatever you imply.

In many parts of the world Kobe Bryant is a much bigger deal than Diego Maradona. Just because football is the biggest sport doesn't mean that the stars are the biggest athletes globally.

In Asia, North America and Oceania Kobe Bryant is a much more well known name. You could go to a place like Japan and 100/100 of them would know Kobe, not the same with Diego (and football is more popular in Japan than basketball). Diego is bigger than Kobe in Europe, Africa and South America, but Kobe is still reasonably well known in those regions (Africa is probably where he is most obscure).

East Asia alone is a larger population than Europe and Latin America combine.

Kobe Bryant is pretty comparable to any football player in cultural impact.

Ill add that, lebrons probably the easiest example of a player larger than the game. While he certainly isnt as popular worldwide as someone like messi or ronaldo, his worldwide impact is probably the biggest outside of soccer/football (eurofootball). When they do things measuring social media outreach and stuff like that. Hes usually around 4-7, reliably behind neymar/messi/ronaldo but in the range of the other top soccer guys, the mcgregors of the world, and far far beyond any other usa sports star

His social media outreach may not have been as strong, but to say that kobe dwarfs lebrons cultural impact would be a ridiculous understatement.

As someone who has family there, the amount of impact hes had on china for example is literally absurd, hes literally bigger than lin there lol

I would say guys like ronaldo and messi are undoubtedly bigger "stars" than lebron worldwide, just because of how ridiculous big of a sport soccer is, So i dont really agree with that point, but while kobes impact on basketball in terms of his accomplishments arent on that lebron or jordan level, at the end of the day in terms of how big they were as stars kobes definately the biggest bball star ever worldwide

Otoh i dont think their popularity matters much right now, both were huge stars with great global impact and legends lf their sport

[freethedevil]

Religion is very sophisticated topic, but I don't think a world without religion would be better. Personally, I can only speak about Catolicism as I'm from Poland (I know a bit about excint religions, but not much about other that still exist). Recently, we have very tough times for Catolic churches in Poland due to political and social environment we live in now (recent scandal with abortion). I'm clearly against what Catolicism say about these things, but it doesn't mean that I believe the world would be better without it.

I think there is a strong connection between the history of science and the history of european religions. I might be wrong, but I believe that Catolicism created better social environment for exploring and studying the whole world than any other religion. Many people still don't realize that our wester civilisation is built at two things: ancient Greeks thought and Catolic beliefs. Now a lot of people believe that the church slowed down the process of understanding the world but I don't see convincing reasons to believe that. Not to mention that Catolicism provided the purest and most beautiful (at least in my opinion, so if there's anyone with different beliefs don't feel offended) set of moral values - the values we still use as a foundation of our civilization.

Religion always had two purposes - to find a greater truth but also to organize societies. If there's one big problem for religion in recent time, it's with the second one - people don't need religion to organize our lives anymore. Due to globalization and capitalism, people have much wider pool of possibilites now. Catolicism has been doing a poor job at adaptation to these new world. I think it's fair to say that they live in a huge recession for over a hundret of years to this day. Again - this is from my experience, but priests aren't educated enough in most ways to do their job well and religion classes in schools are mostly a joke (I don't know if something like this exist outside of Poland). People don't realize that theology is a real study, people don't find it serious.

I will say one thing though - if the progression of science didn't eliminate religion (and it shouldn't, they act about completely different things),

It is not the progression of science that is elimianting religion, it is the progression of alternative, better written stories that don't ask their audience to trust in sky autocrats for their morality.

Science, rationalism, postmodernism are all bogey men so that religion can distract from its actual competition, a wide diversity of other stories, stories whose tellers generally dont try to make them seem 'sacred' or 'special' by saying they're "true" or "real"

Alot of your post seems to conflate correlation with causation. Monarchies also did wonders for science, would the world we be better if we were all under kings and queens?

If you want to assess the value of somethign, you must assess what it is. (note, i am using a rather specific definiton of religion here, that which relies on a higher power.) Religion promotes deference to higher authority. If the world is better with religion, than surely 'good outcomes' like life expectancy, happiness, ect, ect would occur in places which defer to higher authorties and 'special' singluar stories, aka autocracies. And yet, the less democratic a place is, te more likely the outcomes are to be bad.

Religious commit more crime than the non-religious? Why? Well, again, lets look at what religion is. Religion priviligies certain stories as truth. generally those telling religious stories to their kids do not tell them like they would tell other stories, no they are sacred, special, you must go to events you would not want to otherwise go, do things you would otherwise not want to do. When you treat a story as special, then your interpretation of tha one story will have a disproportiante influence on how you act. And unfortunately, while some people may vehemently aargue otherwise, there are no "wrong interpretations". This is the bread and butter of extremism, usually consensus and a wide variety of interpretations from a wide range of stories puts a check on one 'odd' one. Its better that many people must approve of a nuclear option than one, but when you make one story special, and you spread its specialness to others as something you must respect, now you're playing with fire.

Parents acting in good faith, would not demand anything extra of their children regarding their unicorn tales and would tell them like they would tell any other sort of story, alas, many parents aren't really acting in good faith, the interests of children are secondary to their desire to make their children an extension of themselves. "Teaching them values" is a cover for indoctrination and control.

[70sFan]

It is not the progression of science that is elimianting religion, it is the progression of alternative, better written stories that don't ask their audience to trust in sky autocrats for their morality.

Science, rationalism, postmodernism are all bogey men so that religion can distract from its actual competition, a wide diversity of other stories, stories whose tellers generally dont try to make them seem 'sacred' or 'special' by saying they're "true" or "real"

Again, can't say much about other religions but Catolicism is certainly deeper than that. Religion isn't about telling stories.

Alot of your post seems to conflate correlation with causation. Monarchies also did wonders for science, would the world we be better if we were all under kings and queens?

Well, it's another debate that has no wrong answer (but it's political). It's not unreasonable to say that democracy has a lot of problems that wouldn't exist in monarchy. Nothing is white and blacj.

If you want to assess the value of somethign, you must assess what it is. (note, i am using a rather specific definiton of religion here, that which relies on a higher power.) Religion promotes deference to higher authority. If the world is better with religion, than surely 'good outcomes' like life expectancy, happiness, ect, ect would occur in places which defer to higher authorties and 'special' singluar stories, aka autocracies. And yet, the less democratic a place is, te more likely the outcomes are to be bad.

Is this true? The truth is that the "best outcomes" happens in western Europe (and the US of course) which was the case before democracy became a thing. I think that the mutual start of democracy and industral revolution was coincitental. I may be wrong, but we'll never know. Besides, all of these countries come from Christian culture.

Religious commit more crime than the non-religious? Why? Well, again, lets look at what religion is. Religion priviligies certain stories as truth. generally those telling religious stories to their kids do not tell them like they would tell other stories, no they are sacred, special, you must go to events you would not want to otherwise go, do things you would otherwise not want to do. When you treat a story as special, then your interpretation of tha one story will have a disproportiante influence on how you act. And unfortunately, while some people may vehemently aargue otherwise, there are no "wrong interpretations". This is the bread and butter of extremism, usually consensus and a wide variety of interpretations from a wide range of stories puts a check on one 'odd' one. Its better that many people must approve of a nuclear option than one, but when you make one story special, and you spread its specialness to others as something you must respect, now you're playing with fire.

Again, religion is much more complex thing than that. I think that looking at religion from extreme perspective isn't fair and I think a lot of that is because people don't have any theological knowledge. Catolicism is not something I'd call "telling stories". It's our history, our legacy in large way. People don't realize that our way of thinking is largely caused by our cultural legacy.

Again, I'm not someone you'd call a believer but it goes beyond pure belief. Christian theology and philosophy gave us gigantic legacy and I'm not sure we'll be able to accomplish everything we did without this huge influence.

[Zeitgeister]

It is not the progression of science that is elimianting religion, it is the progression of alternative, better written stories that don't ask their audience to trust in sky autocrats for their morality.

Science, rationalism, postmodernism are all bogey men so that religion can distract from its actual competition, a wide diversity of other stories, stories whose tellers generally dont try to make them seem 'sacred' or 'special' by saying they're "true" or "real"

Again, can't say much about other religions but Catolicism is certainly deeper than that. Religion isn't about telling stories.

Alot of your post seems to conflate correlation with causation. Monarchies also did wonders for science, would the world we be better if we were all under kings and queens?

Well, it's another debate that has no wrong answer (but it's political). It's not unreasonable to say that democracy has a lot of problems that wouldn't exist in monarchy. Nothing is white and blacj.

If you want to assess the value of somethign, you must assess what it is. (note, i am using a rather specific definiton of religion here, that which relies on a higher power.) Religion promotes deference to higher authority. If the world is better with religion, than surely 'good outcomes' like life expectancy, happiness, ect, ect would occur in places which defer to higher authorties and 'special' singluar stories, aka autocracies. And yet, the less democratic a place is, te more likely the outcomes are to be bad.

Is this true? The truth is that the "best outcomes" happens in western Europe (and the US of course) which was the case before democracy became a thing. I think that the mutual start of democracy and industral revolution was coincitental. I may be wrong, but we'll never know. Besides, all of these countries come from Christian culture.

Religious commit more crime than the non-religious? Why? Well, again, lets look at what religion is. Religion priviligies certain stories as truth. generally those telling religious stories to their kids do not tell them like they would tell other stories, no they are sacred, special, you must go to events you would not want to otherwise go, do things you would otherwise not want to do. When you treat a story as special, then your interpretation of tha one story will have a disproportiante influence on how you act. And unfortunately, while some people may vehemently aargue otherwise, there are no "wrong interpretations". This is the bread and butter of extremism, usually consensus and a wide variety of interpretations from a wide range of stories puts a check on one 'odd' one. Its better that many people must approve of a nuclear option than one, but when you make one story special, and you spread its specialness to others as something you must respect, now you're playing with fire.

Again, religion is much more complex thing than that. I think that looking at religion from extreme perspective isn't fair and I think a lot of that is because people don't have any theological knowledge. Catolicism is not something I'd call "telling stories". It's our history, our legacy in large way. People don't realize that our way of thinking is largely caused by our cultural legacy.

Again, I'm not someone you'd call a believer but it goes beyond pure belief. Christian theology and philosophy gave us gigantic legacy and I'm not sure we'll be able to accomplish everything we did without this huge influence.

Western Europe's democracy is largely built off of the French Enlightenment and the following French Revolution and the French Enlightenment was in part, a rejection of religion. The Founding Fathers of America were by and large Deists, which is to say they were not far removed from Atheists, they believed that a God created the universe but they reject this idea of a God being personally invested in anyone's life.

For a long time, religion was the only game in town, it is an inseparable part of most cultures, even as society today becomes more secular. Sure, religion is more than just a collection of stories but it does rely on a collection of stories to exist.

[70sFan]

It is not the progression of science that is elimianting religion, it is the progression of alternative, better written stories that don't ask their audience to trust in sky autocrats for their morality.

Science, rationalism, postmodernism are all bogey men so that religion can distract from its actual competition, a wide diversity of other stories, stories whose tellers generally dont try to make them seem 'sacred' or 'special' by saying they're "true" or "real"

Again, can't say much about other religions but Catolicism is certainly deeper than that. Religion isn't about telling stories.

Alot of your post seems to conflate correlation with causation. Monarchies also did wonders for science, would the world we be better if we were all under kings and queens?

Well, it's another debate that has no wrong answer (but it's political). It's not unreasonable to say that democracy has a lot of problems that wouldn't exist in monarchy. Nothing is white and blacj.

If you want to assess the value of somethign, you must assess what it is. (note, i am using a rather specific definiton of religion here, that which relies on a higher power.) Religion promotes deference to higher authority. If the world is better with religion, than surely 'good outcomes' like life expectancy, happiness, ect, ect would occur in places which defer to higher authorties and 'special' singluar stories, aka autocracies. And yet, the less democratic a place is, te more likely the outcomes are to be bad.

Is this true? The truth is that the "best outcomes" happens in western Europe (and the US of course) which was the case before democracy became a thing. I think that the mutual start of democracy and industral revolution was coincitental. I may be wrong, but we'll never know. Besides, all of these countries come from Christian culture.

Religious commit more crime than the non-religious? Why? Well, again, lets look at what religion is. Religion priviligies certain stories as truth. generally those telling religious stories to their kids do not tell them like they would tell other stories, no they are sacred, special, you must go to events you would not want to otherwise go, do things you would otherwise not want to do. When you treat a story as special, then your interpretation of tha one story will have a disproportiante influence on how you act. And unfortunately, while some people may vehemently aargue otherwise, there are no "wrong interpretations". This is the bread and butter of extremism, usually consensus and a wide variety of interpretations from a wide range of stories puts a check on one 'odd' one. Its better that many people must approve of a nuclear option than one, but when you make one story special, and you spread its specialness to others as something you must respect, now you're playing with fire.

Again, religion is much more complex thing than that. I think that looking at religion from extreme perspective isn't fair and I think a lot of that is because people don't have any theological knowledge. Catolicism is not something I'd call "telling stories". It's our history, our legacy in large way. People don't realize that our way of thinking is largely caused by our cultural legacy.

Again, I'm not someone you'd call a believer but it goes beyond pure belief. Christian theology and philosophy gave us gigantic legacy and I'm not sure we'll be able to accomplish everything we did without this huge influence.

Western Europe's democracy is largely built off of the French Enlightenment and the following French Revolution and the French Enlightenment was in part, a rejection of religion. The Founding Fathers of America were by and large Deists, which is to say they were not far removed from Atheists, they believed that a God created the universe but they reject this idea of a God being personally invested in anyone's life.

For a long time, religion was the only game in town, it is an inseparable part of most cultures, even as society today becomes more secular. Sure, religion is more than just a collection of stories but it does rely on a collection of stories to exist.

Well, I don't think I agree that French Revolution had any positive influence but that's another debate.

Being a Deist isn't that close to being Atheists in my opinion. I don't think that all Catholics believe in an old grandpa in the sky who gives us good and bad moments in our lives. This includes most theologists.

[Odinn21]

What one wants to see and what's written are different things with religions.

It's like spirit of the law and letter of the law. But in religions case, letter of the law is full of outdated and wretched morals, practices and commands to begin with.
And the end result being relatively positive shouldn't mean that religion leading to the positive result. Europe began to improve when they started to show resistance to religious practices/ways.

Another thing is religion is the leading cause of death in human history. It took more lives than any other concept. On an individual level, some of those hurt the improvement curve of human development.

Religion is like monopolized capitalism in a way. To have positive results, there shouldn't be a monopoly, there should be a competition.
If someone wants to improve human life via trying to prove god exists, or not even that, just a religious person who has the best interests of humans at heart, very nice. If someone wants to improve human life via trying to god doesn't exist, or just an irreligious person who has the best interests of humans at heart, equally nice.
One of 'em undercutting the other is hurtful. And people in Europe started to move forward when they started to stop that undercut. I don't think attributing good results of that process to Catholicism is accurate.

[MyUniBroDavis]

JAKEPAUL VS NATEROBINSON TOMMOROW WOOT WOOT

[freethedevil]

It is not the progression of science that is elimianting religion, it is the progression of alternative, better written stories that don't ask their audience to trust in sky autocrats for their morality.

Science, rationalism, postmodernism are all bogey men so that religion can distract from its actual competition, a wide diversity of other stories, stories whose tellers generally dont try to make them seem 'sacred' or 'special' by saying they're "true" or "real"

Again, can't say much about other religions but Catolicism is certainly deeper than that. Religion isn't about telling stories.
The MCU, GOT, Anime, Obscure Art house FIlms, cinematic universes all can be potrayed as "its deeper than that." This post really exncapsulates the problem with religion, its desperate to be more than it actually is. Value systems are not something unique or exxclusive to religion. Morality standards that 'claim' to be objective are not unqiue to religion. Religion is not special and it is not sacred realtive to its 'secular comeptition'.

Culure, community, values were not invented by judeo-christian culture and more importantly they are not exclusive to it, so saying things like "democracies ar ebuilt on christian culture" is conflating correlation with causation.. Unless you can show that the notion of 'for the people, by the people.' require 'christian culture' to exist, there is nothing 'chrstian' about them. On the contrary, the all good all powerfl sky guy u should listen to is very much the opposite of how democracies function. The christian world is very much not democratic, it is autocratic at best, tyrannical at worst.

The cultures being 'christian' is just historical cherrypicking. They are no more 'christian' than they are egyptian or greek. It was Egypt, btw, which was the economic and food captial of the world and it was Egypt that fed and funded Rome, so much so that when they refused to sell grain, Rome, starving, invaded. Tell me how 'chrsitan' Pre-Roman Egypt was.

Alot of your post seems to conflate correlation with causation. Monarchies also did wonders for science, would the world we be better if we were all under kings and queens?

Well, it's another debate that has no wrong answer (but it's political). It's not unreasonable to say that democracy has a lot of problems that wouldn't exist in monarchy. Nothing is white and blacj.
Going off the Economist's democracry index, the countries ti ranked highest tend to have
-> higher life expectancy
-> higher average income
-> Happier citizens(at least according to the ctiziens)
-> Lower crime rates

Off course since good is subjective, you could argue all these things are bad, but I have a feeling you won't.

If you want to assess the value of somethign, you must assess what it is. (note, i am using a rather specific definiton of religion here, that which relies on a higher power.) Religion promotes deference to higher authority. If the world is better with religion, than surely 'good outcomes' like life expectancy, happiness, ect, ect would occur in places which defer to higher authorties and 'special' singluar stories, aka autocracies. And yet, the less democratic a place is, te more likely the outcomes are to be bad.

Is this true? The truth is that the "best outcomes" happens in western Europe (and the US of course) which was the case before democracy became a thing.
This is revisionist history. Democracy was never a full thing until recently, but constituional monarchies well predate liberal democracies and were a step in that direction. Before colonialism, china was the most 'advanced' rivalling and in some ways surpassing Rome. Rome off course was not 'western' it was funded and fed by egypt and its culture came from fetihshing the Greeks who were middle eastern.

I think that the mutual start of democracy and industral revolution was coincitental. I may be wrong, but we'll never know. Besides, all of these countries come from Christian culture.
Citation needed on your "christian culture" claim. Again correlation=/causation and even then correlation only supports your point here if you aggressively cherrypick.

Religious commit more crime than the non-religious? Why? Well, again, lets look at what religion is. Religion priviligies certain stories as truth. generally those telling religious stories to their kids do not tell them like they would tell other stories, no they are sacred, special, you must go to events you would not want to otherwise go, do things you would otherwise not want to do. When you treat a story as special, then your interpretation of tha one story will have a disproportiante influence on how you act. And unfortunately, while some people may vehemently aargue otherwise, there are no "wrong interpretations". This is the bread and butter of extremism, usually consensus and a wide variety of interpretations from a wide range of stories puts a check on one 'odd' one. Its better that many people must approve of a nuclear option than one, but when you make one story special, and you spread its specialness to others as something you must respect, now you're playing with fire.

Again, religion is much more complex thing than that. I think that looking at religion from extreme perspective isn't fair and I think a lot of that is because people don't have any theological knowledge.
The idea that one must have theological issue to treat religion fairly is ridiculous. Does one need "comic" knowledge to have an opinion on the societal value of comicon?


Again, that religion keeps trying to treat itself as "more" than what it is, is why religion is dying. Its root is a collection of stories, and nothing it does is unqiue to the stories it chose to base itself around. In fact those stories suggest questionable things, like the notion that we must follow 'higher powers'.

Catolicism is not something I'd call "telling stories". It's our history, our legacy in large way. People don't realize that our way of thinking is largely caused by our cultural legacy.
Our cultural 'legacy' far predates catolicism, and is the result of geography, psycholgy and biology of which has nothing to do with chrsitanity.

Elephants are roughly as intelligent s 8 year olds and have formed nuturing communities, pass on non-evloutionaly insticutal knowledge, and remember the dead. Dont tell me you think catolicism is why elephants do what they do?

No, catholics need to stop trying to take credit for human behavior:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8tluk9/is_western_civilization_based_on_judeochristian/

Its psuedo-historical psuedo-scientific nonsense.

Again, I'm not someone you'd call a believer but it goes beyond pure belief. Christian theology and philosophy gave us. again correlation=/causation. There's zero reason to assume that if the carthigians had won the punic wars, we would have been set centuries back, or we wouldn't have been ahead of where we are now. It is baseless correlative specualtion and is hence useless.
Christian 'values' aren't chrstian and there's nothing to suggest autocratic hiearchies have a positive influence on what we would consider 'progress'.

[freethedevil]

What one wants to see and what's written are different things with religions.

It's like spirit of the law and letter of the law. But in religions case, letter of the law is full of outdated and wretched morals, practices and commands to begin with.
And the end result being relatively positive shouldn't mean that religion leading to the positive result. Europe began to improve when they started to show resistance to religious practices/ways.

Another thing is religion is the leading cause of death in human history. It took more lives than any other concept. On an individual level, some of those hurt the improvement curve of human development.

Religion is like monopolized capitalism in a way. To have positive results, there shouldn't be a monopoly, there should be a competition. I think religion in this analogy would be a state owned market. Nitpick, but still.

If someone wants to improve human life via trying to prove god exists, or not even that, just a religious person who has the best interests of humans at heart, very nice.
Trying to prove god exists seems like a rather dubious method of 'improving lives' and is intrinscitally likely to lead to negative outcomes.


If someone wants to improve human life via trying to god doesn't exist
It doesn't have all the issues of the first, but how does this even work? How does one improve the other of lives by trying to prove a negative definiteively?
, or just an irreligious person who has the best interests of humans at heart, equally nice.


One of 'em undercutting the other is hurtful. And people in Europe started to move forward when they started to stop that undercut. I don't think attributing good results of that process to Catholicism is accurate.

[MyUniBroDavis]

What one wants to see and what's written are different things with religions.

It's like spirit of the law and letter of the law. But in religions case, letter of the law is full of outdated and wretched morals, practices and commands to begin with.
And the end result being relatively positive shouldn't mean that religion leading to the positive result. Europe began to improve when they started to show resistance to religious practices/ways.

Another thing is religion is the leading cause of death in human history. It took more lives than any other concept. On an individual level, some of those hurt the improvement curve of human development.

Religion is like monopolized capitalism in a way. To have positive results, there shouldn't be a monopoly, there should be a competition. I think religion in this analogy would be a state owned market. Nitpick, but still.

If someone wants to improve human life via trying to prove god exists, or not even that, just a religious person who has the best interests of humans at heart, very nice.
Trying to prove god exists seems like a rather dubious method of 'improving lives' and is intrinscitally likely to lead to negative outcomes.


If someone wants to improve human life via trying to god doesn't exist
It doesn't have all the issues of the first, but how does this even work? How does one improve the other of lives by trying to prove a negative definiteively?
, or just an irreligious person who has the best interests of humans at heart, equally nice.


One of 'em undercutting the other is hurtful. And people in Europe started to move forward when they started to stop that undercut. I don't think attributing good results of that process to Catholicism is accurate.

Why do you quote like this tho lol

[freethedevil]

What one wants to see and what's written are different things with religions.

It's like spirit of the law and letter of the law. But in religions case, letter of the law is full of outdated and wretched morals, practices and commands to begin with.
And the end result being relatively positive shouldn't mean that religion leading to the positive result. Europe began to improve when they started to show resistance to religious practices/ways.

Another thing is religion is the leading cause of death in human history. It took more lives than any other concept. On an individual level, some of those hurt the improvement curve of human development.

Religion is like monopolized capitalism in a way. To have positive results, there shouldn't be a monopoly, there should be a competition. I think religion in this analogy would be a state owned market. Nitpick, but still.

If someone wants to improve human life via trying to prove god exists, or not even that, just a religious person who has the best interests of humans at heart, very nice.
Trying to prove god exists seems like a rather dubious method of 'improving lives' and is intrinscitally likely to lead to negative outcomes.


If someone wants to improve human life via trying to god doesn't exist
It doesn't have all the issues of the first, but how does this even work? How does one improve the other of lives by trying to prove a negative definiteively?
, or just an irreligious person who has the best interests of humans at heart, equally nice.


One of 'em undercutting the other is hurtful. And people in Europe started to move forward when they started to stop that undercut. I don't think attributing good results of that process to Catholicism is accurate.

Why do you quote like this tho lol

so I dont have to worry about couting the # of [quote} and

boxes.
[/quote]