Simon Paynton

I think, if someone pisses you off, there are two choices: break off the relationship, or forgive them and continue the relationship.

Forgiveness means to move on past the troublesome behaviour without necessarily overlooking it.  It’s important because it allows a relationship to continue.

Without forgiveness we can end up with an eye for an…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

The Christian Churches, mainly the Catholic Church, spend several centuries burning women to death

I’m guessing that was a toxic brew of patriarchy, supernatural beliefs, the authority of the Church, and group-think.

tom sarbeck wrote:

please define “institutional reasons”.

Factors such as blind adherence to the Bible, or divergence from the ethics of human rights towards the ethics of extremism.  Reasons that are a result of the structure of religion.

For example, religion caused witches to be burnt at the stake (didn’t it?), and blessed fascist armies.

tom sarbeck wrote:

Because a very few people “on the dark side” create religions.

That’s a good point.  But are there institutional reasons why religion can be dark?

I’m interested in the reasons why religion turns to the dark side, morally, and away from the “light” of universal compassion etc.  I’m not sure if the two sides are mirror images of each other, religiously speaking.  Probably, each case is unique in itself.

I don’t see what’s so wrong with fundamentalism, or maybe it’s just an inappropriate word.  Surely it’s good to take everything back to fundamentals, because that’s how we understand things.  What Harris is talking about is surely extremism vs moderation.  Extremism doesn’t care about human rights.  Moderation allows people flexibility in dea…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:

the central spiritual thrust of religion

If you think about it, there is a logic to it.  Why not worship the thing that “created” us and “sustains” us?  That’s what atheists should do, without the God.  If religious people want to do it in their way, they’re partially correct, so why not accept it?

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wr…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

religions are based on a delusion.

But the central spiritual thrust of religion is largely missing from the non-religious world.  It’s not just a case of explaining the universe.  It’s also a question of doing well in the long term.

@asianne – how do you define spirituality?  I see it as: 1) personal transformation; 2) nurturing what sustains us.  But it carries an ethical component too.

jakelafort wrote:

I think meditation and love and friendship are good substitutes. But that is just a guess on my part. How about exercise, drugs and appreciation of nature and the cosmos?

I think one of the big ones is cooperation – it fulfils many basic human spritiual and emotional needs.

I think the major problem with fundamentalism is that its doctrines too often clash with human rights.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics,

If we do this then we find that Sam Harris is missing at least one point – that religion isn’t “just” a giant fairy tale: it has genuine things to offer that are not found in the secular world so far (its appreciation of the pressure to thrive).

Even when things…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

a moral framework that puts the principle of human dignity, survival, individual rights as the fundamental axioms

This is assuming the values of human dignity, survival and individual rights (which assumes the values of thriving and surviving).

Davis wrote:

they mostly have to look after themselves, be very careful when walking…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

You’re not describing rights in any legal or philosophical sense.

I’m giving what I think are some of the reasons for the legal and philosophical positions we take on rights.

There are reasons why people choose or value certain values.

Most people value cooperative thriving.  Adolf Hitler, or Isis, value(d) wholesale murder.  Both sets of values are chosen for different reasons.

Simon Paynton wrote:

rights and responsibilities go together

I can see how people also have a responsibility not to abuse their rights – for example, in passing off hate speech as free speech.

Davis wrote:

some values are obviously derrived from facts.

And this is an arbitrary assumption: other values could equally have been derived from those facts.