A New Earth?

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: JUhrman

Difference is that you see to religion on stereotypes and stigmatic paradigm, name the first society and the first law? You cannot without naming any religion can you?

I totally can. First societies date from at least the stone age. We are not capable to know if there was already organized religions back them. More likely they only had animistic beliefs like in most tribal societies today. This is supported by the art found from that time.

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: JUhrman

You sent me a link to google cause of your own ideals of how you think humans are? Welcome to the real world idealist

I send you a google link because you are not even aware of what the golden rule is yet to pretend to take part in a discussion about morals?

That's quite crazy if you ask me.

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Yes morals comes from a intellectual process, do you think the human race is smart?

Yes, the human race is better suited to meditate on morale than, lets say, a slug. Or an oppossum. That we are smarter than a bonobo oder a dolphin I dare not say.

But you said up above

Morals and ethics is/are created by religious belief

, and I criticise that point, I doubt that this is the only possible source for morals and ethics. Each one of us can hold onto Kant and come to the very point of "don't do this to that person, because I for myself wouldn't like to have that happen to me" - which is a cornerstone, if not THE cornerstone of ethics.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

What does morals and ethics mean?

a reply to: JUhrman

Names?

a reply to: JUhrman

The discussion is about it, now names on civilisation ? And you can google the meaning of morals and ethics

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: JUhrman

Names?

Stone age societies?

I don't know what you are trying to do but you are obviously starting to use fallacies just to prove your point.


It's up to you to prove religions already existed 20.000 years ago and thus shaped the evolution of human societies. It's your claim not mine.

I have the feeling I'm discussing with a teenager, I don't think this is going anywhere by the way you approach this exchange.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: JUhrman

Why I'm asking as im doing is because you are full of bull#. First civilisation was based on religion not golden ideals of philosophy but productive means on how to build a functional society.

When was the first modern man? When was the ice age? Point is if you don't understand what you are trying to say you sound like a Sam Harris fan who oppose religion yet don't understand the meaning of technocracy and when you can't answer sounds like a spoiled brat and say, quote Sam Harris agree on disagree, you know why he is winning points? Cause the symbols of religion is built on the philosophical deites on Hindu not golden rules.

The earliest signs of a process leading to sedentary culture and formation of a "civilised society" can be seen in the Levant to as early as 12,000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary, and it evolved into an agricultural society by 10,000 BC. The importance of water to safeguard an abundant and stable food supply, due to favourable conditions for hunting, fishing and gathering resources including cereals, provided an initial wide spectrum economy that triggered the creation of permanent villages.

This implies that the beginning of civilisation and humanitarian morality was not based on an enforced ideology so much as a need to survive and prosper, to ensure the security of future generations and the continuation of the species.

In ancient times, religion is indistinguishable from mythology. The world’s oldest religion still being practiced today is Hinduism (known to adherents as 'Sanatan Dharma’, Eternal Order) but, in what is considered "the west", the first records of religious practice come from Egypt around 4000 BCE.

The religion of Christianity made standard a belief in an afterlife and set up an organized set of rituals by which an adherent could gain everlasting life. In so doing, the early Christians were simply following in the footsteps of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Phoenicians and the Greeks all of whom had their own stylized rituals for the worship of their gods. After the Christians, the Muslim interpreters of the Koran instituted their own rituals for understanding the supreme deity which, though vastly different in form from those of Christianity, Judaism or any of the older "pagan" religions, served the same purpose as the rituals once practiced in worship of the Egyptian goddess Hathor (c.3000 BCE) over five thousand years ago: to lend human beings the understanding that they are not alone in their struggles, suffering and triumphs, that they can restrain their baser urges and that death is not the end of existence.

Now for what you outline in your op..

originally posted by: temudjin
Lets just say;

- You understood what and how religion works.
- You understood the history behind religion
- You understood humanity and instincts
- You understood what and how a society is buílt
- You understood how a human mind works
- You understood politics and its meaning
- You understood entertainment TV and sports

- Lets just say you understand the very basics the western modern society is built upon, and the rest of the world follows.

Let just ask;

Does the basics of theology still apply in this modern era, the very foundation our dogmatic society is built upon and does the philosophy still apply of a modern day technocracy.

Dogmatism aside, you need to clarify to which philosophies you are referring.. I'm personally of the opinion that fundamentalist ideology is indeed no longer relevant to modern society, and in fact impedes its progress, but with a little research I think you will find "western modern society" was not originally "built upon" these ideologies. Rather they were adopted from earlier pagan beliefs and traditions and used as systems of governance and control. It is perhaps more accurate to say that modern western society is built upon the foundation of imperialism, with religion used as a means to maintain order and control of the population.

When you look how most societies are built you see that the empathy lacks, cause of the abundant religious basics in most western societies.

I think empathy abounds in most societies, although often only toward others in said societies. Imperialist tendencies were part and parcel of the building of many societies, and this unfortunately resulted in the "assimilate or die" attitude towards outsiders. Modern society has pretty much outgrown imperialism though, moving more toward a protectionist attitude toward what it has conquered. Maintaining control of the populace and a desire for a feeling inclusiveness is the reason religion has proliferated, with individual groups sprouting up each with their own cliques and rituals.

Most follow a symbol of some sort and never go on a quest for finding true knowledge and follow blindly. The protect what is a priviliege based on the corpses of less fortunate and calls it.. Natures way.

I think the people to whom you are referring believe the "blind following" of such a symbol to be a "quest for finding true knowledge", ironically. There is little room for objective analysis and appraisal of a religion, when one is completely and unerringly faithful to it. It's almost a prerequisite to accept what you are taught unquestioningly in order to be included or considered "worthy" in many religions. It is in as much the way of the nature of organised religion.

I wish humans could follow a simple path of life to achieve something i would call human, instead of animals in a society.

What do you guys think?

I also think humans are in fact already following a simple path to "achieve something ... human". Being as we are all human to begin with.. Not sure what you mean by this line, humans are animals living in societies.. Unless you mean we should strive for something more like a "global human race" with less restrictive compartmentalisation. Individually considering ourselves equal, shared residents of earth, rather than of disparate nations and societies vying for control of it.

If so I agree and think that is what we should be striving for. There is, after all, no such thing as "race" in humanity apart from the all inclusive, human race. Likewise there is no difference between a person of Christian faith and an athiest, when it comes to moral decency, intelligence, ability or function. Labels for what you believe or where you live or are descended from should in no way separate you from your fellow man.

a reply to: spygeek

Humans dont exist

a reply to: Temudjin

What are you and I then?

a reply to: spygeek

You here to help me with my formulations of sustainable and relevant? My diplomacy skills are zero.

a reply to: spygeek

You and i are primates, humans are ideals. Ideals that once was about survival, civilizations needs ideals with fear otherwise primate instincts take over.
If you wanna know the civilization of tomorrow look at the ideals of today.

a reply to: Temudjin

Humans are primates, yes, but still humans. Or do you prefer the scientific term, homo sapiens? Humans are not an ideal, they have ideals perhaps, but they are still a species.

Civilisations can't have ideals or fears, they aren't sentient beings.. Humans obviously can and do.. The ideals of today may change tomorrow, and society along with them.. really don't know where you're going with all this....

a reply to: spygeek

You and I are primates, human and humanity are an ideal and ideals. They exist in your imagination. It's the rules for how society works and how you build civilizations. The Camelot ideals are based on the same way as an ant colony, you learn as a child until you are eight the boundaries in which you fit in. What we see as uncivilized are primates who hasn't learn the ideals of western societies. What you and I are domesticated primates to fill a function in a ant colony.
Do you know what you are or is it your fantasy, look in the mirror and tell me do you see a human or a monkey.

a reply to: Temudjin

In the mirror I see a homo sapien, a member of the primate family, specifically, evolved from apes to hominids, not monkeys..

It's scientific consensus, not imagination. There is a genetic distinction between "uncivilised primates" and our species..

If you mean it metaphorically, as in, humans are uncivilised apes, I understand your point but can't agree with such a generalisation.

What are Camelot ideas? How am I a domesticated primate fulfilling a function in an ant colony, and not a self aware human working as a mechanic for my fellow man? I learned from childhood what I was good at and how I could use my natural talent to assist my fellow man, it didn't stop at age 8...

I know what I am according to science and reality, not fantasy or methaphor..

a reply to: Temudjin

We have never been monkeys.
We just share a common ancestor.
Also bs on religion making our morals we have evolved them to live together in a social society.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Temudjin

We have never been monkeys.
We just share a common ancestor.
Also bs on religion making our morals we have evolved them to live together in a social society.

Lol, boymonkey xD !!

Totally agree.

a reply to: spygeek

Oh I wish I was a monkey maybe the next life.

a reply to: spygeek

You know what your reality is?, but science is not part of that equation. You believe in the fantasy and the metaphor, if you used science you wouldnt be blind.
You use science and reality to make your own reality not as it is.
You evolved from a fish at one moment in time.