carepov

Of course there are refugee camps where the risks of staying would be greater than the risks of fleeing...

Would you go or stay?

I argue that without faith, there would be no Human Rights, no national unity, much less environmental activism, and maybe even no monetary system, no SETI program. All these things depend on various beleifs in ideas without evidence.

Sure. These are these are the types of people that are the most successful business and political leaders. If you and your family were in a Turkish refugee camp and had the resources to travel to Europe, would you go or would you fill out paperwork and wait for some government to reply?

I was just thinking the same thing. For the most part, these refugees are risk-takers and have been able to accumulate enough funds to pay hefty smuggling fees. Within reason, this refugee crisis can be a win-win-win situation: Win for Canada - more hard-working, risk taking workers and entrepreneurs Win for Canada - improve our reputation around the world for helping out Win for the refugees

What do you think the world would be like if these "good/bad books" had never been written? What would it be like if humans had no faith?

IMO, most people do not give their religion so much thought. To many, it is about having a personal relationship with God/Jesus and hanging out with others that do the same. For some religion helps to answer (or just put aside) questions like, what is the purpose of life, what happens after we die, how was the universe created? Some go to church for an hour of rest and meditation per week. Some go just for the doughnuts and coffee. Some go to widen their business network...

I think that your perspective is all wrong. IMO, most Christians give very little weight to the old testament. Their reasons for people being religious are as varied as the number of religious people.

There are plenty of religious people, including many homosexuals obviously, that do not fit your stereotype.

How about we play a game? If it's OK with you, let's define faith-based or religious wars as wars where a significant causal factor of the war is opposing religious views. Then let's compare the list of non-religious wars with a list of faith-based conflicts over the last 200 years? If you take religious stories figuratively, you can easily hold religious beliefs without any significant scientific contradictions.

I agree that there is a mish-mash of ideologies. I would also add nationalism, consumerism and romanticism to your list. Nonetheless it is individual rights that top the list as seen in our constitutions. My understanding of abstraction is that by definition it is not real. What is tangible about a corporation? Here is an excerpt that links these abstractions (no, they are not he same but have the same origins): http://www.ynharari.com/power-and-imagination/articles/the-most-important-things-in-the-world-exist-only-in-our-imagination/

This belief that individual rights are the top sacred value on which we base our ordered society is so well established in the West that we do not question it. The best example is out belief in human rights. Human rights are myths that only work if enough people believe in them. If it is so obvious that this is the proper order of things why has this been not the case for 99.9 % of human history? OK, going forward in our discussion we can use your definitions. You can certainly believe in more than religion at a time. It is called religious syncretism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism A good example is the combination of Hinduism and Buddhism during the Khmer Empire in the 12th century. You are misunderstanding me and prejudging Harari's work. I agree that they are separate things - but they do share many important commonalities, more than most of us realize. Understanding religion is certainly helpful (if not essential) to understanding ideology, philosophy, and even other imagined orders such as money and corporations. Humans capacity to create and share common myths is one of the distinguishing features that make our species unique and has allowed us to cooperate in large numbers.

Good question, I don't know the answer, but as he says: "calling them religion is a semantic quibble, and calling them ideologies instead of religion doesn't change the actual reality..." whether or not you call them a religion or ideology, each requires faith in an imagined order, similar to religions.

I too was very skeptical, and prior to reading Sapiens I looked at religion and ideology as very distinct. Now, I am not so sure...: For Dr Harari, a belief system has to fulfil two criteria for it to be called a religion: 1) Religion must believe in a superhuman (not necessarily supernatural) order 2) Religion establishes norms and values which are derived from the superhuman order http://awaisaftab.blogspot.ca/2013/11/religion-through-history.html Do you beleive in Human Rights?

Perhaps you are exaggerating the persecution of early Christians: “In the 300 years of the crucifixion of Christ to the conversion of Emperor Constantine, polytheistic Roman emperors initiated no more than four general persecutions of Christians. Local administrators and governors incited some anti-Christian violence of their own. Still, if we combine all the victims of all these persecutions, it turns out that in these three centuries the polytheistic Romans killed no more than a few thousand Christians. In contrast, over the course, of the next 1,500 years, Christians slaughtered Christians by the millions, to defend slightly different interpretations of the religion of love and compassion.”http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6846009-in-the-300-years-of-the-crucifixion-of-christ-to The key to Christian "success" was Constantinople: http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320hist&Civ/chapters/13XITY.htm

I was talking about income splitting. The Liberals say cancelling income splitting will help the middle-class. I disagree so strongly that I switched my voting intention from Liberal to Conservative.

We (and the Libs) are talking about helping middle-income families. Of course income splitting does not help them, there are other way to help them. Prior to income splitting, middle and higher income families with one main earner unfairly paid much more taxes compared to other families - with the same total family income - that happen to be split more evenly. How is this fair? I suspect that the analysis/articles inflate the benefits of income splitting for the rich. The rich already split their income by allocating rental/investment income to the lower income earner and by incorporating their businesses and paying dividends to spouses and even children, etc... Income splitting has significantly helped many families earning 60-120k, the Liberal plan will cost more than a few "isolated" votes.

I earn about $80k, my wife makes $0 working at home (harder than me). Without income splitting, a couple of part-timers (eg: teachers) could be making $40k each and pay about $4k less in taxes. Unfair!

Bad plan. He lost my (middle-class) vote by promising to cancel income splitting.

I belonged to a group of friends that passionately loved the NHL. We followed every game and, knew all the stats, etc... When I finally awoke and decided that planning my life around hockey was a waste, my friends called me a ***** and told me to *******. When I looked around, it was not just ex-superfans of hockey, look at football or NASCAR! Look at all the kids coaches, what a bunch of paedophiles! Look at all the riots! Look at the rape and blatant misogyny in sports! These organized sports leagues brainwash weak-minded individuals to donate money, or else they will not belong! Throughout it's history sports have oppressed homosexuals! How can we just sit back and watch our kids get indoctrinated into sports! *** I recently read Sapiens by Yuval Harari. He shook up many of my beliefs including my definition of religion: I don't think the book criticizes religion. Rather, it argues that religion is the most important human creation, and the key to our conquest of the world. But first, we should understand what religion is. Religion is not belief in gods. Rather, religion is any system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief in superhuman laws. Religion tells us that we must obey certain laws that were not invented by humans, and that humans cannot change at will. Some religions, such as Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, believe that these super-human laws were created by the gods. Other religions, such as Buddhism, Communism and Nazism, believe that these super-human laws are natural laws. Thus Buddhists believe in the natural laws of karma, Nazis argued that their ideology reflected the laws of natural selection, and Communists believe that they follow the natural laws of economics. No matter whether they believe in divine laws or in natural laws, all religions have exactly the same function: to give legitimacy to human norms and values, and to give stability to human institutions such as states and corporations. Without some kind of religion, it is simply impossible to maintain social order. During the modern era religions that believe in divine laws went into eclipse. But religions that believe in natural laws became ever more powerful. In the future, they are likely to become more powerful yet. Silicon Valley, for example, is today a hot-house of new techno-religions, that promise humankind paradise here on earth with the help of new technology. http://www.ynharari.com/qa/questions-and-answers/ Harari argues that even Human Rights are simply an "imagined order" and therefore religious beliefs!

You keep repeating this - but it is not true, it is not a case of "all or nothing". I gave two important differences earlier: Religious vs. non-religious: If the word "religious" is "irrelevant semantics" then why bother freedom of religion into the Charter and UDHR? The swastika and KKK hoods are hateful symbols that represent violence and the deaths of millions. People that wore these symbols committed some of the worst crimes against humanity. The Nazis and KKK were organizations whose stated goals and actions were violent and hateful. The symbols are more than offensive, they are hateful and perhaps even psychologically harmful. We must have limits on freedom of expression, don't you think?

There are at least two important differences between the niquab and the swastika: 1. The niqab is sometimes worn for religious reasons 2. There is a direct link between those wearing the swastika and a mass violation of human rights. You may argue that the niqab represents the violation of women's rights , however women wearing the niqab have never committed mass human rights violations. This is why I support the freedom to wear a niqab and would support a ban of the swastika and KKK hoods.

Did you notice that I used the word "some" right at the beginning of my post? Do you agree that some Canadian women wear the niquab to be provocative/rebelious?

Paradoxically, I think that in Canada, some women that choose to wear the niqab are doing so as an act of rebellion - not an act of submission. Perhaps they want to be the "center of attention" (again a paradox). I base this opinion on an interview with three niquab-wearing women on The Current, all three had males family members that were strongly dissuading them from wearing the niquab, they didn't say it but my take was the niquab was their way of giving these men the finger. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-march-19-2015-1.3001074/2-niqabs-and-a-hijab-3-muslim-women-talk-about-the-face-covering-1.3001080 If the goal is to give the finger to society and stir up emotions, it looks like these niquab-wearing Canadians are very successful. niquab is the new punk

No problem. Do you have an opinion on Greenpeace's positions against Golden Rice? http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/