I can explain myself more in detail. You know how Intelligent Design people have a problem with ToE because the chances that life as we know it turning out the way it did, is infinitesimaly small. I have a problem with your arguments on the same grounds. Proponents of ToE will say, it didn't have to turn out this way. Evolution could have taken all manner of forms, the reason it turned out like this is just random chance.
That is incorrect. It's a very common misconception that evolution results from chance only. Evolution also depends on natural selection which is to say that the environment weeds out those individuals who do not succeed in reproducing and therefore don't pass their genes down to future generations. Of course, there are some traits some organisms have that make them more likely to reproduce than others. One such trait is strong, harmonious social interaction which helps to enhance the chances of finding a mate. That kind of behavior can be found in many species including hominids. That's where my hypothesis come in. People evolved the habit of regularly gathering in groups acting as a whole by engaging in rituals like singing and showing reverence toward strong dominant males. This behavior eventually became an integral part of religion which later became part of societies.
Jesus fucking Christ you tried hard to missunderstand the metaphor.
You have this extremely narrow view on the inevitability of organisations to be organised in highly specific ways, because of male domination. German, Chinese, Russian, Swedish, French, English, Argentinian, South African and American socialism all came from male dominated cultures, yet were extremely different in how they ended up being organised.
Actually, my view is very broad in that general behaviors like singing and worship become part of both secular and religious groups. Yes, the details may differ, but the overall behavior is much the same.
A huge difference between religions is how they are structured and organised. Who has authority, and what they are mandated to do. How subservient they are to the king. In Orthodox Christianity the church is just another wing of the government and acts to support the ruler. In Catholicism, officially, the king is the pope's bitch. This becomes a massive difference in how it shapes society.
What I'm talking about is on a completely different level than you you. Yes, people like to sing and dance together. Yay. Great argument.
Foucault criticised Secular Humanism on the same grounds. He said it's just more Christianity. But with the labels have been switched out. I completely agree. Why? Well, it's a first step towards secularisation. If you grew up in a Christian culture and you leave the church, your brain and your thinking is so steeped in Christianity you litterally can't think in non-Christian terms. The first step to rejecting God is to stay Christian, just to swap the labels around. This is what happened with socialists in Europe in the 19'th century. The Secular Humanist trend was a similar move, just a couple of generations later.
Do secular humanists believe in a savior figure who can grant them eternal life? Of course not, so secular humanism is not "just more Christianity" although secular humanists, like Christians, do exhibit the behavior I speak of above.'
No, but they believe that the dichotomy in society is good vs evil (Christian concept that came from Zoroastrianism via Platonism). And they believe that the meaning of life is to be good. They're highly moralistic. They also believe in progress, and that the goal is to embetter humanity. There's just so much Christianity in secular humanism. The only reason you might miss the blindingly obvious signs is perhaps because you live in a western country and therefor are so used to it that you don't react. Moralism isn't normal or natural for humans. It's not part of Buddhism, paganism or most religions.
I can try to find stuff. But no. No socialist leader said that. Not that I know of.
Then there was no conscious effort on the part of socialists to "model" any church. The similarities between them and Christians is behavior common to most humans.
No, there was a conscious effort NOT to model it on the church. They did it anyway. No. It's preposterous to claim that them making organisations extremely similar to the flavour of Christianity local to them is because that behaviour is common in most humans. It's a bizarre statement IMHO.
You have still failed to explain why socialists in Europe so closely modelled their movements on the Christian church specifically. Your evidence was on an incredibly high level and not applicable to this particular conversation.
I sure did explain it. Several times.
I can't find a hint of it in any of your posts.
there are many ways to express male dominated behaviour. It's silly to say that it will always look like Christianity. As religions go, historically, Christianity is weird. So if your rule held up, why are religions so different?
Male dominated behavior doesn't always look like Christianity, but most often Christianity resembles male dominated behavior.
Stones are heavy. Father is heavy. Therefore father is a stone.
Taking time out of your day to check in with yourself and think about what is the most important for you is a healthy exercise for anyone.
While I'm not sure what you mean by "check in with yourself," I think my time is better spent learning.
It means to stop and pay attention to the thoughts in your head. To explore your feelings, your tensions in your body. I'd argue that is learning.
Sure, not praying won't kill you. So in that sense you don't need it. But it will make your life better
I used to pray. It didn't make my life better.
There's a multitude of ways to meditate/introspect. Perhaps pick one that works for you instead?
Nope. That's specific to Christianity and Islam. No other religion (including Judaism) puts any emphasis on belief. When people talk about what your "faith" is they've loaded the deck. For the rest of religion, contemporary and past, religion is an activity. Not a belief. The pagan gods don't care what you believe.
That's not true. Religions are based on beliefs.
en.wikipedia.org
Jews (or the Jewish God) doesn't care what you believe, as long as you do the correct rituals. These details they are super fussy about. But not belief.
It's the same deal for Hindus. As long as you make the correct sacrifices and do your Hindu duty your community is cool. You're free to believe whatever. Just follow the rules. Advaita Hinduists are atheists. They're straight up atheists. Also Hindu.
Buddha doesn't care what you do or believe. The point of being a good Buddhist is that it has an instant pay-off in this life.
The pagan gods both existed and didn't. They were both real and metaphorical. In pagan theology, this was not a problem. Because it was a type of religion without a central authority. If you were a pagan nobody else could tell you that you were doing it wrong. So atheistic pagans and woo pagans could cheerfully worship side by side. Pagans don't care about good vs evil. The cosmic conflict for pagans is order vs chaos (you know... that thing that is written in the Bible, Genesis). If your life was working out you were blessed by god or the universe. Pagans didn't care which. It's just magical thinking elevated to a religion.
Pantheists worship nature. As it is and in accordance to science. Because they like the idea of the sacred for it's own sake.
Confucianism is about the optimal way to organise society for the maximum benefit of the nation. They have a laser focus on outcome in this life.
Zoroastrianism does focus on belief. But not belief in God. Zoroastrianism teaches you to have beliefs beneficial to your community. Because they believe that good thoughts, lead to good words, which leads to good deeds. Not just for you, but for your community. In Zoroastrian cosmology life is the constant struggle between good (Ahura Mazda) and evil (Angra Mainu). But humans aren't passive recipients of the goodness of God. Zoroastrians are the instrument of goodness. Ie, if you're not making a constant effort to improve yourself and your community, life will go badly. This isn't a supernatural belief. Everybody alive realizes the wisdom of this teaching. It's pretty commonsensicle. Or to put it another way, if you reject Zoroastrian beliefs your life will turn to shit. Just like Confutians Zoroastrians have a laser focus on outcome.
What is interesting is how the blending of Judaism and Zoroastrianism led To Christianity (and Islam). Because the two faiths are not compatible. They're two fundamentally different ways of organising thought and life.
Judaism is, follow these incredibly strict rules for life, don't question them and don't think of better ways. If you do this God will see to it that everything will be great. Zoroastrianism is, it's super important what you believe because your beliefs shape the outcomes of your life. These were blended into Christianity as, it's super important that your thoughts are correct because otherwise the thought police will get you. That's a rediculous non-sensicle theology. And you're treating it as the standard definition for all religion. It's not at all. Christianity is a bizarre blend of two non-compatible ethical systems. And if you think all religion is this stupid, then of course you won't have any respect for religion. Don't do that. Lot's in religions are great.
I mean... Satan. The eternal cosmic conflict between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainu makes sense. Ahura Mazda is not omnipotent, and needs the help of humans for it to be defeated. Exactly why doesn't the Christian God just obliterate Satan? It makes no sense. Yes, I know the standard Christian arguments for this. They're all dumb.
