mothra
|
MeisterEckhart wrote on Oct 6 th, 2023 at 7:41pm: mothra wrote on Oct 6 th, 2023 at 7:36pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Oct 6 th, 2023 at 7:29pm: mothra wrote on Oct 6 th, 2023 at 7:26pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Oct 6 th, 2023 at 7:22pm: mothra wrote on Oct 6 th, 2023 at 7:17pm: Look neckbeard, what i said is that religion is at the heart of most of the world's misery not the cause of it. So, you're now saying that what you meant is that religion is at the heart of most of the world's misery not the cause of it. What could 'at the heart of' mean other than 'the cause of'? A distinction without a difference? Or are you saying that religion just happened to be hanging around on the sidelines (an accidental witness?) when misery was upon the people? Think. What do people, particularly throughout history, think when a disaster or ill-fortune of any kind occurs? And how have people (and do some still) react to this? So you're saying 'at the heart of' refers to ancient peoples, in lieu of a rational understanding of actual causes, often blaming god(s) for their misery. Is that it? Jesus. No. I'm saying that religious people have a propensity to lay account for any happening at the feet of their god or gods. So when a natural disaster occurs, religious people may think that they angered or displeased the god, that it's some kind of sign. Throughout the ages, this translates into all sorts of misery for people; from living in fear to being sacrificed on an altar or slaying their last goat. What shouldn't require saying, for the love of god, is that religion permeates all levels of existence to the believer. The idea that that is a benefit to the majority of those believers is a relatively new idea. How many Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims etc sacrificed their co-religionists on altars because of natural disasters? Another strawman. I never said they did. You're simply argumentative. You do not debate.
|