PDA

View Full Version : How to appear more intelligent on expat.ru



JPS
14-09-2015, 16:25
Internet forums are places for debate, giving information, advice, passing on jokes, telling stories and generally having fun. Unfortunately internet forums are also places where people through insults and threats at each other. And usually Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) takes effect sooner rather than later.

Here are some hints to make life happier for everyone:

Be nice. It's not difficult really. Would you say the same things face-to-face to that person (who is usually a complete stranger) as you do here?
If you make an extraordinary claim then have extraordinary proof to back it up. A classic, recent example is the "Jews did 9/11" comments I read. Where is the extraordinary proof? Providing links to conspiracy websites does not count as proof.
Forums are not the real world. Honestly. If you think that they are then you need to switch off your computer and get outside. Enjoy the sun / park / forest / whatever.
Never write something your mother would be embarrassed to read.
Think first before posting. Count to 10 and then think again. Especially if you like a drink or 5 while cruising the 'net.
If your claim that "x-y-z did this" is real then there will be proof somewhere out there. Wikipedia is usually a good place to start hunting. Give us links!
Religion will always be a catalyst for online grief. Rus is religious, most of the rest are not. Live and let live. Debate, don't troll.
If you have nothing nice or constructive to say then say nothing.
And finally, remember: TL;DR


And yes, I'm not perfect either.

Right, carry on boys and girls.

:goodbye:

AstarD
14-09-2015, 16:36
Nope. It's just judicious use of short, mysterious phrases, and a smilie. :music:

FatAndy
14-09-2015, 17:05
How to appear more intelligent
...or be? ;)

AstarD
14-09-2015, 18:21
A dog and his pancakes :silly:

Uncle Wally
14-09-2015, 20:26
Wikipedia a good place to start? You're joking right?

FatAndy
14-09-2015, 21:08
Wikipedia a good place to start? You're joking right?
Well, some people really think so. They never read the disclaimer in the bottom of the frontpage of wiki-puki. :)

americaninmoscow
14-09-2015, 21:22
tl;dr.
but in general, i agree. it is all Obama's fault!

Nobbynumbnuts
14-09-2015, 21:31
Well, some people really think so. They never read the disclaimer in the bottom of the frontpage of wiki-puki. :)

...give me only the facts, that i want to hear! :laughing:

TolkoRaz
14-09-2015, 21:42
TL;DR?

rusmeister
14-09-2015, 22:00
...give me only the facts, that i want to hear! :laughing:

This is really quite true. Facts, and extraordinary proof are useless when people don't want to hear it.
And irreligion will always be a catalyst for online grief.
:)

JPS
14-09-2015, 22:04
TL;DR?

Too long, didn't read

FatAndy
14-09-2015, 22:15
...give me only the facts, that i want to hear! :laughing:
Thank you, it's very exact description of modus operandi of so called reputable independent Western media. ;)


TL;DR?
aka Многабукаф, ниасилил :)


but in general, i agree. it is all Obama's fault!
Washingtonsky obkom as the brake of social progress in the world. ;)

AstarD
14-09-2015, 22:25
Great Indian Mountains :cat:

Nobbynumbnuts
14-09-2015, 22:45
This is really quite true. Facts, and extraordinary proof are useless when people don't want to hear it.
And irreligion will always be a catalyst for online grief.
:)

..and rumsendster will now produce the facts that Jesus arose from the dead! :winking:


Thank you, it's very exact description of modus operandi of so called reputable independent Western media....


....more facts from reputable, independent, western media! :winking:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/11/russias-economy-is-in-a-pit-according-to-economists.html

FatAndy
14-09-2015, 22:57
....more facts from reputable, independent, western media! :winking:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/11/russias-economy-is-in-a-pit-according-to-economists.html
I don't understand why they bother at all. BBB said a long time ago - torn into pieces. Dixi. ;)

Nobbynumbnuts
14-09-2015, 23:01
I don't understand why they bother at all...............

...just to remind you lol :big-grin:

FatAndy
14-09-2015, 23:04
...just to remind you lol :big-grin:
Once more, comrade - it's so for the last 400 years, we've got used to it. Tell them and BBB to relax.

nicklcool
15-09-2015, 20:56
Don't speak for me, JPS, about most of us not being religious.

Besides, haven't you heard the anecdote about how so many people "find G0d" only at the end of their lives, on thrir deathbeds. Convenient, no?

As for reputable sources all I can share is the story about me as a snot nosed liberal college student telling my friend, an Independent, about the concept of "objective" and "peer reviwed" sources being more trustworthy. Of course I sounded snobby as hell and deserved his smack down when the Climategate email scandal arose.

So yes I agree there are some wackjob conspiracy sources out there, but even more untrustworthy are a ll the MSM "objective" sources that are biased, misport stories, or, most insiduously, pick and choose the stries to report in a way that fits a certain side's ahenda:/

Fantastika
16-09-2015, 10:13
Internet forums are places for debate, giving information, advice, passing on jokes, telling stories and generally having fun. Unfortunately internet forums are also places where people through insults and threats at each other. And usually Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) takes effect sooner rather than later.

Here are some hints to make life happier for everyone:

Be nice. It's not difficult really. Would you say the same things face-to-face to that person (who is usually a complete stranger) as you do here?
If you make an extraordinary claim then have extraordinary proof to back it up. A classic, recent example is the "Jews did 9/11" comments I read. Where is the extraordinary proof? Providing links to conspiracy websites does not count as proof.
Forums are not the real world. Honestly. If you think that they are then you need to switch off your computer and get outside. Enjoy the sun / park / forest / whatever.
Never write something your mother would be embarrassed to read.
Think first before posting. Count to 10 and then think again. Especially if you like a drink or 5 while cruising the 'net.
If your claim that "x-y-z did this" is real then there will be proof somewhere out there. Wikipedia is usually a good place to start hunting. Give us links!
Religion will always be a catalyst for online grief. Rus is religious, most of the rest are not. Live and let live. Debate, don't troll.
If you have nothing nice or constructive to say then say nothing.
And finally, remember: TL;DR


And yes, I'm not perfect either.

Right, carry on boys and girls.

:goodbye:


Oh, I just love it when I spend 15 minutes ruminating, and writing, an intelligent (well, I think it's intelligent) post and the forum's software algorithms send it straight into the virtual dumpster, unrecoverable.

Bill Gates, this is your fault. 25 years we have had to deal with your happy-crappy. Your bloated system, an over-aged juvenile delinquent running amok through RAM, makes a copy of everything, but can the user actually use it? Access it? No.

Anyway, the Original-Post is excellent, but I would differ about religion.

Although I haven't been inside a church for decades (well, exceptions, I went into the local Catholic House of Worship a couple of weeks ago for my friend's wedding, and I discreetly sit in the back pew on Christmas Eve to listen to the lovely carols sung by the concordant choir) I am religious, in that I use religion to make "good" decisions.

What is a "religion"? What is the purpose of religion? Or perhaps the query should be, "Why do many people find religion so important?"

As usual, Fantastika waits in vain for an answer...

...

I also like the part about " Forums are not the real world. Honestly. If you think that they are then you need to switch off your computer and get outside. Enjoy the sun / park / forest / whatever."

I call that "Look at things." Go outside, look at trees, look at the sky, look at other people, look at whatever is there, say "good morning" to others, touch things, etc. Looking at things in the real world, after a few minutes, you will escape from the virtual reality (unreality) of the computer screen.

rusmeister
16-09-2015, 11:00
One way to appear intelligent is to recognize that although religion in general CAN be used as a means of manipulation, it is not MERELY that, but that, at its heart, and for most of those who find one, it is about the human search for meaning, and since it recognizes the rationality of there being a Creator, a search for that Creator.

Some members have a problem with that, with the simple ability to recognize that the practitioners, and even organizers, of a religion might actually be sincere. Ultimately, I'll only defend Christian religion, and when my back is to the wall, Orthodoxy. But I can see the intelligence - and more important, wisdom - in the other major and ancient world religions, and the intelligent mind ought to recognize that the ones with serious longevity (over a thousand years) must have a great deal of truth to have lasted so long.

Armoured
16-09-2015, 11:28
One way to appear intelligent is to recognize that although religion in general CAN be used as a means of manipulation, it is not MERELY that

This makes the same underlying assumption that you're accusing others of, i.e. attributing a nefarious motive or lack of sincerity to a disagreement. Disbelievers can also be perfectly sincere.


but that, at its heart, and for most of those who find one, it is about the human search for meaning, and since it recognizes the rationality of there being a Creator, a search for that Creator.

'it recognizes the rationality of there being a Creator' assumes the answer to an unproven assertion. Is it rational to believe in a Creator (particularly since the Capitalization implies so very much that remains unspoken...)?


Some members have a problem with that, with the simple ability to recognize that the practitioners, and even organizers, of a religion might actually be sincere.

I suppose it's impossible to deny that 'some members' might believe that members of a religion are insincere, but you seem to be implying that any who disagree with you are guilty of this. There are lots of different possibilities here: some members/practicitioners/organisers might be sincere, some insincere, etc.

And equally, it might be that some practitioners (can I say proselytizers?) might fail to recognize that those who don't share their views and beliefs and are also perfectly sincere. And even members of a religion can disagree (entirely sincerely) on core understandings and teachings of that religion, its place in society, meaning in modern life, etc.

And evidently, some sincerely believe that they know exactly what the teachings are and how they should be applied, and believe that any who disagree are contributing to the downfall of civilization.


But I can see the intelligence - and more important, wisdom - in the other major and ancient world religions, and the intelligent mind ought to recognize that the ones with serious longevity (over a thousand years) must have a great deal of truth to have lasted so long.

I can see the intelligence, wisdom, logic, social meaning, societal role and many other (mostly good) things about the major and ancient world religions, too.

That is not identical with 'truth', however, and even where there may be truth (a great deal or otherwise) in those religions, it does not seem proven that they lasted long _because_ of that truth, nor that society and individuals should not question and test the tenets of those long-lived religions for truth. Age of a belief doesn't make it right or true.

AstarD
16-09-2015, 11:31
And equally, it might be that some practitioners (can I say proselytizers?) might fail to recognize that those who don't share their views and beliefs and are also perfectly sincere. And even members of a religion can disagree (entirely sincerely) on core understandings and teachings of that religion, its place in society, meaning in modern life, etc.

And evidently, some sincerely believe that they know exactly what the teachings are and how they should be applied, and believe that any who disagree are contributing to the downfall of civilization.

This.

rusmeister
16-09-2015, 15:26
What I am speaking to, or against, Armoured, is the general assumption held by a number of our illustrious members, that sometimes seems to include you, that Christian religion, in particular, far more than Islam, with general passes given to Judaism and Hinduism, is organized and run primarily by insincere people. Of course I know that unbelievers can be sincere. If you knew me a little better, or just paid attention a little more, you would get that I do recognize that, and I can respect intelligent disbelief that honestly engages what it disagrees with. I think the height of such unbelief is fairly represented by GB Shaw and Christopher Hitchens, who I strongly disagree with, but think they actually grapple, however wrongly, with what they disagree with. What I hate is intellectual cowardice, people priding ithemselves on being intellectual, but refusing to engage what they disagree with, to smirk and say "It is beneath me to respond", disparaging ideas because they do not trouble to understand them, complaining of long, difficult, turgid texts, obfuscation, verbosity, etc, but then proceed to pretend to understand them, to respond as if they understood the ideas and clearly grasped the nature of errors, and so on.

I don't mind, and in fact expect, unbelievers to disagree with me. It doesn't bother me in the least. I know that my views are counter-cultural, and so, unpopular, all the more because their end run means that we have to change our way of life. And I am willing to engage with opponents that will engage, that will consider the arguments against them, as I consider the arguments against my own view (which is not merely mine).


It is not so difficult to know what the teachings are of definite organizations that state rather clearly what they believe. Suggesting that it is not possible to know the teachings, as your words here imply, is absurd. The question of whether any civilization might fall, or whether we are now living in the sunshine of an eternal civilization, seems most debatable to me. If any civilization has ever fallen (they seem to have a 100% fall rate) then there are certainly causes which might be divined.

Nor did I say that merely the longevity of a religion guarantees it being the most correct and true one. Hinduism is older than Christianity. I merely say that they all MUST have large measures of truth, which it does not do to dismiss with a wave of the hand and complaints about corrupt priesthoods.

Armoured
16-09-2015, 16:42
What I am speaking to, or against, Armoured, is the general assumption held by a number of our illustrious members, that sometimes seems to include you, that Christian religion, in particular, far more than Islam, with general passes given to Judaism and Hinduism, is organized and run primarily by insincere people.

I honestly don't think that. I think that you're simply running into an availability heuristic, in that most people in Russia/West are coming from a Christian _background_ and hence talk about Christianity and the Church(es) in society.

I do happen to believe the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy has specific issues but I don't fully associate that with Orthodoxy as a matter of belief.


What I hate is intellectual cowardice, people priding ithemselves on being intellectual, but refusing to engage what they disagree with, to smirk and say "It is beneath me to respond", disparaging ideas because they do not trouble to understand them, complaining of long, difficult, turgid texts, obfuscation, verbosity, etc, but then proceed to pretend to understand them, to respond as if they understood the ideas and clearly grasped the nature of errors, and so on.

Since that's clearly directed at me: well, you want people to engage with your arguments and beliefs on your own terms. Which, as I've said, consists of texts so long as to obfuscate meaning. We can agree to disagree on that.


I don't mind, and in fact expect, unbelievers to disagree with me. It doesn't bother me in the least.

True only if they engage on your terms and wade through your texts. Which, note, I've not referred to with an adjective this time, no matter how well they might apply.


Suggesting that it is not possible to know the teachings, as your words here imply, is absurd.

You refer to the teachings/beliefs of any definite organisation. But the history of Christianity and the, to guess, thousands of variants thereon indicates it's not absurd. "Christians" (writ large and broadly) do disagree with these things, both within organisations, and without. (Leaving aside the "none true Scots" type arguments that says those others aren't _really_ Christians). And also please note my qualifiers about what those teachings mean and how they should apply in different societies.

Christianity has constantly modified and adopted aspects of especially the rituals to 'conform' to local societies (and win converts). We can say that the 'core teachings' haven't been modified but that's also debatable.


The question of whether any civilization might fall, or whether we are now living in the sunshine of an eternal civilization, seems most debatable to me. If any civilization has ever fallen (they seem to have a 100% fall rate) then there are certainly causes which might be divined.

I agree this is fully debatable. As to what causes might be 'divined', I think it's potentially false to search for one single explanation, as there may well be multiple explanations in each case.

Personally I think it's also likely that all civilizations fall - eventually. Some dramatically, some less so. I think that 'dramatic' part matters, because some fall/decline or are eclipsed by others that absorb parts of the previous civilizations. My point being, I'm not sure that it is necessarily a bad thing - or alternatively may be seen as a terminology question. Is the current USA a different civilization than the UK, or are either distinct from European civilization? Can we really say that e.g. the dark/middle ages were/are the same civilization as we have now? I don't think those points or distinctions are trivial. (And it can easily turn into a definitional issue - e.g. our 'civilization' defined as one that is Christian and comprises some set/subset of Christian practices that have remained relatively constant...such as marriage, even though I think there is a lot of false history about marriage in the context of the Christian tradition and specific churches.)


Nor did I say that merely the longevity of a religion guarantees it being the most correct and true one. Hinduism is older than Christianity. I merely say that they all MUST have large measures of truth, which it does not do to dismiss with a wave of the hand and complaints about corrupt priesthoods.

I don't believe I said anything about corrupt priesthoods.

Anyway, I don't think it's evident that they MUST have large measures of truth. And if e.g. longevity doesn't guarantee being most correct and true, what use is longevity as a guide? Truth must be defined otherwise.

Fantastika
18-09-2015, 07:51
I honestly don't think that. I think that you're simply running into an availability heuristic, in that most people in Russia/West are coming from a Christian _background_ and hence talk about Christianity and the Church(es) in society.

And so Christians think like Christians?


I do happen to believe the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy has specific issues but I don't fully associate that with Orthodoxy as a matter of belief.

All systems seem to have a degree of corruption. I find non-religious organizations to be far more corrupt than religious ones. Religion defines, for a non-religious organization, what corruption is. Unless said org has its own internal code of ethics. But at least you admit the religious ideal is good, or you don't?


Since that's clearly directed at me: well, you want people to engage with your arguments and beliefs on your own terms. Which, as I've said, consists of texts so long as to obfuscate meaning. We can agree to disagree on that.

What are your terms?


True only if they engage on your terms and wade through your texts. Which, note, I've not referred to with an adjective this time, no matter how well they might apply.

Why don't you set the terms? Instead of criticizing religion, what is your ethics system? Or are you some kind of existentalist?


You refer to the teachings/beliefs of any definite organisation. But the history of Christianity and the, to guess, thousands of variants thereon indicates it's not absurd. "Christians" (writ large and broadly) do disagree with these things, both within organisations, and without. (Leaving aside the "none true Scots" type arguments that says those others aren't _really_ Christians). And also please note my qualifiers about what those teachings mean and how they should apply in different societies.

So you're saying, because some of the rules change in the game, that the game is no longer playable, and not only that, that all games are meaningless and unplayable. And you haven't said what a "definite organization" is.


Christianity has constantly modified and adopted aspects of especially the rituals to 'conform' to local societies (and win converts). We can say that the 'core teachings' haven't been modified but that's also debatable.

Modifying the surface trappings of rituals does not imply abandonment of basic morality. Painting a house does not alter the lives of the people who live there.


I agree this is fully debatable. As to what causes might be 'divined', I think it's potentially false to search for one single explanation, as there may well be multiple explanations in each case.

What is debatable? Truth is truth. Well, if it's false, then what is true?


... Is the current USA a different civilization than the UK, or are either distinct from European civilization?

Is it or is it not?


Can we really say that e.g. the dark/middle ages were/are the same civilization as we have now?

Are they or aren't they?


I don't think those points or distinctions are trivial. (And it can easily turn into a definitional issue - e.g. our 'civilization' defined as one that is Christian and comprises some set/subset of Christian practices that have remained relatively constant...such as marriage, even though I think there is a lot of false history about marriage in the context of the Christian tradition and specific churches.)

And what "false history"? Would be nice to know what you're talking about. And what "definitional issue" are you talking about? Seems to me you are the one who is lacking definitions. If our civilization is not based on Christianity, then what is it based on?

The Ten Commandments have not remained constant? They're the "Ten Suggestions"?


Anyway, I don't think it's evident that they (religions) MUST have large measures of truth. And if e.g. longevity doesn't guarantee being most correct and true, what use is longevity as a guide?

Longevity does count for something. While it lasts, it is called "truth".


Truth must be defined otherwise.

B-o-r-i-n-g...what is your definition of "truth"?

Summary: Nothing means anything, there is no meaning in anything...have I got it right?

Would be nice to define your words. Otherwise, your houses are all built on a foundation of sand.

Communication is difficult when words are not defined, and understanding, impossible.

rusmeister
18-09-2015, 09:26
I honestly don't think that. I think that you're simply running into an availability heuristic, in that most people in Russia/West are coming from a Christian _background_ and hence talk about Christianity and the Church(es) in society.
I understand the concept of "availability heuristics; simpler people would say that "that's what you had where you grew up". Well, let's see, I am speaking about...members of expat.ru, who are overwhelmingly from that heuristic. So it looks like I've got my comment appropriately addressed.


I do happen to believe the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy has specific issues but I don't fully associate that with Orthodoxy as a matter of belief.

Thank goodness for that. The Faith is older than any hierarch.


Since that's clearly directed at me: well, you want people to engage with your arguments and beliefs on your own terms. Which, as I've said, consists of texts so long as to obfuscate meaning. We can agree to disagree on that.

True only if they engage on your terms and wade through your texts. Which, note, I've not referred to with an adjective this time, no matter how well they might apply.

The only way you can effectively "defeat" an opponent; convince him or if not him, then listeners on the sidelines of your rightness, is to engage on his terms, meaning take his ideas as he presents them and consider their logic and soundness, or lack thereof, and if you wish to convince, then acknowledge what he is right about as well as criticize what he is wrong about. If I wish to effectively knock materialism, I have to assume that the best arguments of materialism are TRUE, and go from there: "If that is true, then x and y follow...", etc.
So yes, on his terms.


You refer to the teachings/beliefs of any definite organisation. But the history of Christianity and the, to guess, thousands of variants thereon indicates it's not absurd. "Christians" (writ large and broadly) do disagree with these things, both within organisations, and without. (Leaving aside the "none true Scots" type arguments that says those others aren't _really_ Christians). And also please note my qualifiers about what those teachings mean and how they should apply in different societies.

This would mean that Christian faith can be anything and everything it ever was in history. That means that any attempt at criticism must fail, because somebody somewhere believed something different.
It makes the term pretty meaningless. It can only mean something consistent and coherent if it means definite things agreed on by the vast majority throughout history. So a person who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ is not, in fact, in agreement with that huge historical consensus and therefore can be legitimately denied the title of "Christian". So yes, there is such a thing as "true Scotsman" in this case. Unless there is reasonably faithful adherence to paradosis, unless a Christian of the 21st or 14th or 6th centuries believe more or less the same things, there is nothing meaningful in the term. The Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 formulated what the vast majority had accepted, and has been something that all Christians have looked to and is a practical means of determining a "minimum benchline standard".


Christianity has constantly modified and adopted aspects of especially the rituals to 'conform' to local societies (and win converts). We can say that the 'core teachings' haven't been modified but that's also debatable.
Being on the outside, I don't think you can fairly or reasonably assess whether any adaptations of ritual express any change of belief; I can say that legitimate ones do not, and illegitimate ones arise out of illegitimate beliefs, aka "heresies" (and an acceptance of, say, Newtonian physics that chose only to exclude the law of gravity would be an example of a heresy in physics). Now I note that you say "they did x to achieve y". And yet, you don't consider the nature of x, of what rituals were adapted nor for what reasons. Christian faith affirms the goodness of God's Creation. The pagans had a lot of things right; they weren't wrong on everything. And so a Christian Church established locally would "go local", translate Liturgy into a local language, allow local expression of devotion consistent with Christian teaching (it's fun to hear the drums and see the dancing at an African Paschal Liturgy, though we in the West don't do anything like that, for example).



I agree this is fully debatable. As to what causes might be 'divined', I think it's potentially false to search for one single explanation, as there may well be multiple explanations in each case.

I agree. Though a particular cause might have considerably more impact on the matter than others. I'd say, for instance, that the Roman policy of conscripting non-Roman legions into the army had a major impact on, and hastened the fall of Rome. It's kind of obvious when you have a practical tradition of victorious generals becoming emperors, that sooner or later the immigrants are going to want a piece of the action, too.


Personally I think it's also likely that all civilizations fall - eventually. Some dramatically, some less so. I think that 'dramatic' part matters, because some fall/decline or are eclipsed by others that absorb parts of the previous civilizations. My point being, I'm not sure that it is necessarily a bad thing - or alternatively may be seen as a terminology question. Is the current USA a different civilization than the UK, or are either distinct from European civilization? Can we really say that e.g. the dark/middle ages were/are the same civilization as we have now? I don't think those points or distinctions are trivial. (And it can easily turn into a definitional issue - e.g. our 'civilization' defined as one that is Christian and comprises some set/subset of Christian practices that have remained relatively constant...such as marriage, even though I think there is a lot of false history about marriage in the context of the Christian tradition and specific churches.)

Well, I think I should say that my own view on marriage and the family can be expressed in quite secular terms. In my view (which, obviously, I think right, or it would not be my view) civilization cannot stand without the family, a stable and self-perpetuating unit on which everything else, from the village on up, is based. Easy divorce, social tolerance of sexual behavior (from pornography to adultery, fornication, and so on) that threatens that is a threat to civilization, even if in the name of freedom. Unless the family is held as a generally sacred and inviolable thing, no civilization will last long, and ours is in rapid decline. So no, there's nothing good in this one, and any absorption will by done by the cultures that have the good sense to preserve the family where we are failing to do so.


Anyway, I don't think it's evident that they MUST have large measures of truth. And if e.g. longevity doesn't guarantee being most correct and true, what use is longevity as a guide? Truth must be defined otherwise.

It will not be evident until you can see that it is indeed evidence. Longevity is a reliable guide, not in absolute terms, but certainly in relative terms.
Common sense cannot be proven, but it can be demonstrated, and those who can't see it lack the faculty. This particular point is expressed in a quote famously attributed to Lincoln:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
The world view thus maintained therefore must have a good deal of truth, or so many people, over space and time, would not be so convinced as to hand it down to their children. An academic without children might not grasp this but it is so. The alternative, a refusal to admit this basically says that "people were idiots, blind, gullible and bigoted fools throughout history, until I was born". In short, a kind of megalomania that sees oneself at odds with common human tradition. Nietzsche was one such. But I digress.
That these traditions came to common ideas, such as that we are not our own gods, and that one might expect punishment of some sort for a life wickedly lived, and teachings even an unbeliever might acknowledge the wisdom of, such as that murder and theft are wicked, and that kindness and good deeds are to be encouraged, and that selflessness is generally better than selfishness, are things you probably wouldn't argue with. And so these traditions saw actual truths worth seeing, human failings and offered responses, and so it is unreasonable to suggest that such things were not taught or that they are unimportant to human life.
We apply the same test to literature: we call books that pass the test of time "classics". Longevity really DOES mean something. It means that generations of people agreed over time, and the silly books of popular fashions and bad literature got dropped from the curriculum, leaving things that people agreed were worthwhile. That, at any rate, is the rule, whatever exception you might find. That doesn't mean that the classics are perfect or ideal, but it does mean that a significant number of generations found value in them and decided they were worth passing on. So it is with the major world religions.