Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You are correct in the terminology. However, it is still a logical fallacy to present the idea that any such thing is "inevitable." Few things, especially when dealing with the collective of humanity, can be spoken of in certainties.
I have been, and rather than addressing them you dismiss them as cherry picking and redefining terms.
That's why I noted the longer term. Progress is not a straight line and decades are needed to see true trends.
Religion has long been a potent social corrosive agent and has been terribly divisive. We don't need it.
And those stories are not typically reported in the "if it bleeds, it leads" typical media outlets.
Ah, it was only a matter of time before this cropped up. And herein lies the problem; you get one group who comes along with "the answer" (surprise surprise, an Abrahamic group), and their way is the one true way that will lead the world to peace and prosperity.
Whatever.
I've not seen an indication that you understood the argument. You've offered one distortion of it after another.
yes. I don't think human nature would be changed in any way.
If I had claimed that humanity's moral progress could be graphed as a straight line upward, your hypotheticals might be relevant, I'm not sure. But I didn't make that claim.
"Backslide" refers to a slide back from an achieved level. Does that help?
The issue is the level of violence in human nature. Please explain how advanced weapons changes that level. Is a man with a bow and arrow morally better than one with an automatic rifle?
Will you quote me, please? Where did I claim that Pinker supported my entire argument?
What we need is religion that is not divisive but promotes harmony between religions and also promotes less selfishness between various groups of the world. There is no trend to true unity, we are dividing within our nations into divisive groups. There is less war between nations because the technology today makes war too horrible.
Does that include the human nature that started a nuclear war?
As we've found out before, that religion sure isn't Baha'i.
What the Baha'i Faith teaches will bring us unity and harmony. Otherwise the world won't. Man will try everything except the Baha'i Faith and find that it doesn't work. In the end, the world will turn to Baha'u'llah's teachings.
We may argue with other religions more than we should, but we will never divide the world over religion.
Yes you do. It's been covered with other baha'i on this very topic; there are religions and cultures that your group doesn't consider "valid", and who would not be included in baha'i citizenship. You can't truthfully claim "unity and harmony" when you exclude people.
We don't need any religion. We'll be stronger and better off if we collectively give up this crutch called religion.
We would not exclude anyone, even religions not started by a Manifestation of God. All cultures are valid. We are not the people of Islam.
True, but religion is very high on the list, sharing a platform with nationalism/tribalism.
I wonder, what does this mean and entail exactly?
The unforeseeable that I allowed for renders it uncertain.
I resorted to that only because you were cherry picking and redefining terms.
