To all religious people....

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Like what, sports teams? Sure, you can make facism or patriotism as an excuse to attack someone, but remove religion, and suddenly, it is harder to pick a group to attack. If there wasn't any religion, would Hitler have done what he did? Maybe, but probably not. There wouldn't be any Isreali-Palestinian conflict, and no fighting between Muslims and Hindus in Pakistan and India. As Richard Dawkins put it, there would still be conflicts if there wasn't any religion, but there would be fewer conflicts because there wouldn't be something that seperates "us" from "them" if there was no religion.

Yes he would as he wasn't attacking people of Jewish faith but of Jewish Race.

You could be an atheist, catholic or hindu and Hitler would still kill you if you have Jewish Blood in you...

(Yes, Jews are a race and a religion, yes they can be separate.)

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Like what, sports teams? Sure, you can make facism or patriotism as an excuse to attack someone, but remove religion, and suddenly, it is harder to pick a group to attack. If there wasn't any religion, would Hitler have done what he did? Maybe, but probably not. There wouldn't be any Isreali-Palestinian conflict, and no fighting between Muslims and Hindus in Pakistan and India. As Richard Dawkins put it, there would still be conflicts if there wasn't any religion, but there would be fewer conflicts because there wouldn't be something that seperates "us" from "them" if there was no religion.

You cannot get ride of religion. People will simple invent new ones. Evil is a path that people follow. Religions are reflections of the people, not the other way around.

If you got rid of all the people, then you would have no religions.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Yes he would as he wasn't attacking people of Jewish faith but of Jewish Race.

You could be an atheist, catholic or hindu and Hitler would still kill you if you have Jewish Blood in you...

(Yes, Jews are a race and a religion, yes they can be separate.)

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Yes, but if Jews weren't a religion, then they wouldn't be a race, at least not one worth killing.

Oh dear...they very much would.

However, there is merit in the claim but not for the reasons you stated.

It was Jewish Orthodoxy which kept the Jewish people from integrating with other members of the world. (They were secluded in their own little ghettos keeping themselves to themselves) this led to suspicion about what they were up too which inspired writers such as Chamberlain to accuse their secrecy of misdeeds- as people often do with Opus Dei or the Freemasons in modern times.)

Then again, you could say that if not for the Jews Hitler would have targeted other races to a larger extent. As he did with the Slavs, the Gypsies and so on (Trade Unionists, Communists etc also got it in the neck.)

So really, religion was not a decisive factor in Hitler's target of the Jews...though it was useful propaganda he used against them. He also used it against Christians too. (They being "descendent" of Jewish peoples.)

no i mean if the Jews were NEVER a religion, they never would have been a race. But then history would have been VERY different, but still. Maybe Hitler would have targeted others, but you cant make someone hate a communist as much as you can make them hate a christ killer (no offence to Jews, my parents are jewish, just what they were called.)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
“Our faith is not born from a myth or an idea, but from an encounter with the Risen One, in the life of the Church.” -Benedict XVI

Right. It's entirely subjective and intuitive, not empirical and verifiable. Blind faith.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Stalin. Hitler. It's easy as long as you have someone charismatic and a little bit crazy or a little bit evil. The vacuum that would be left by removing religion would fill up with something at least as bad.

Anecdotes. And, I might add, ones that had little to do with anything religious, but everything to do with social and economic conditions at the time, mixed with a couple of truly evil leaders who would've committed such acts regardless of what religion they adhered to.

I could list 2 religious atrocities, and I wouldn't be any more right. And the idea is that a vacuum would NOT be created by religion's absence, because the good that people do isn't religious good but human good. So we'd have all the good remaining, some of the evil (like the two you mentioned above), but a lot of the faith-inspired evil would go away, because you wouldn't have a force like faith that can push people past boundaries they wouldn't normally cross in order to receive supposed eternal rewards. Politics doesn't promise eternal life. It can push people to irrational acts, but not as easily as religion.

....

Besides, I loathe use of the Holocaust by either side. Theists use it as ammo against atheism, despite not truly knowing what his beliefs were. Atheists point to Hitler's use of Biblical text to justify his actions and mobilize those beneath them. Both are looking in the wrong place, and making silly arguments. Hitler was a nasty little man that no sane person of ANY creed or faith would endorse. The Holocaust has much to say to us about avoiding mistakes. But few, if any of those lessons, have anything to do with religion, and twisting them into such argument is self-serving.

...not saying that that's what you're doing. It was more of a general rant.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
no i mean if the Jews were NEVER a religion, they never would have been a race. But then history would have been VERY different, but still. Maybe Hitler would have targeted others, but you cant make someone hate a communist as much as you can make them hate a christ killer (no offence to Jews, my parents are jewish, just what they were called.)

Hitler would have, the Jewish race would probably still have existed. He hated Communists as much as he hated Jews and Slavs and Homosexuals etc.

However, as Digi says "reducto ad Hitlerum" is never good..

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Anecdotes. And, I might add, ones that had little to do with anything religious, but everything to do with social and economic conditions at the time, mixed with a couple of truly evil leaders who would've committed such acts regardless of what religion they adhered to.

Exactly.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I could list 2 religious atrocities, and I wouldn't be any more right. And the idea is that a vacuum would NOT be created by religion's absence, because the good that people do isn't religious good but human good.

I agree. But you're clinging to the idea that nothing would replace all the faith enabled evil which is silly and contradicts the idea that good and evil come from people.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Besides, I loathe use of the Holocaust by either side. Theists use it as ammo against atheism, despite not truly knowing what his beliefs were. Atheists point to Hitler's use of Biblical text to justify his actions and mobilize those beneath them. Both are looking in the wrong place, and making silly arguments. Hitler was a nasty little man that no sane person of ANY creed or faith would endorse. The Holocaust has much to say to us about avoiding mistakes. But few, if any of those lessons, have anything to do with religion, and twisting them into such argument is self-serving.

...not saying that that's what you're doing. It was more of a general rant.

I wasn't using the Holocaust (and I realize you know that), my point was that a person is capable of creating a cult following without the aid of religion. Many Russian soldiers from WWII admit that during the war they weren't fighting for their homes they were fighting because they were willing to die for Stalin. Hitler managed to do the same thing. Whether the motivations of either man (or those like them) was religious isn't my point, it's that the facilitation of evil is possible to the same magnitude as faith and I think it's naive to believe there aren't plenty of people capable of making new cults. Without religion they'll just need to be more creative, fear and hatred seem like good starting points.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
no i mean if the Jews were NEVER a religion, they never would have been a race. But then history would have been VERY different, but still. Maybe Hitler would have targeted others, but you cant make someone hate a communist as much as you can make them hate a christ killer (no offence to Jews, my parents are jewish, just what they were called.)

Hitler targeted the Jews because they were bankers and he had become convinced that they stabbed Germany in the back during WWI. Killing Jesus is far more relevant to later white supremacists than it ever was to Hitler or the Nazis.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Faith. And it's unmatched ability to push people past limits of morality that they otherwise wouldn't, by encouraging belief without evidence and rewarding irrational acts because it displays servitude. Other forces occasionally resemble the affect faith has on people, but no single force (political, ideological, philosophical, etc.) affects the billions that faith does in such a profound way.

Take it away and yeah, I think the world would be a better place. The good would stay. Some of the evil would too. But the nigh-cliche quote rings somewhat true: only religion has the ability do make good people to bad things. Others things might be able to do the same, but not to the same extent.

That could be true but not neccesarily. Obvously this opinion comes from what you have seen from followers of Abrahamic religons. The reason why certain religons are the way they are is because they have been manipulated for political purposes and has been used to opress people so its no suprise that people nowhere days may get brainwashed and commit atrocities. If for example Buddhism became a major religon above Christanity and Gnostic Christanity was allowed to florish we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. So no we would not neccesarily be better off without religon, people just need to change how they view religon.

Also if you want to make the argument that religon can make things worse due to the nature of faith you should also argue that we would be worse off as well.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Of course, proof in a literal sense would require testing, which we can't do because it would require massive social change. But it's my opinion, and I feel it's backed by fairly solid logic.

It makes sense but it just seems like theory even Pittman is saying that he doesn't see how religous people are more happier than him because of their religon. It just seems to me that some people are different. I think belief is like sexuality either you're religous or you're not. Some people need faith to make them do things but an athiest can do all the things that a religous person could do but have different reasons for doing it.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
That could be true but not neccesarily. Obvously this opinion comes from what you have seen from followers of Abrahamic religons. The reason why certain religons are the way they are is because they have been manipulated for political purposes and has been used to opress people so its no suprise that people nowhere days may get brainwashed and commit atrocities. If for example Buddhism became a major religon above Christanity and Gnostic Christanity was allowed to florish we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. So no we would not neccesarily be better off without religon, people just need to change how they view religon.

Also if you want to make the argument that religon can make things worse due to the nature of faith you should also argue that we would be worse off as well.

But we wouldn't be worse off. We'd be better off because the good that religion does exists within people, and wouldn't go away.

And no, we wouldn't be having this convo if Buddhism was the dominant religion. Buddhism values critical thinking, reason, and not believing something if it doesn't make sense to you. Blind faith isn't a part of its doctrine, which is the central point.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
It makes sense but it just seems like theory even Pittman is saying that he doesn't see how religous people are more happier than him because of their religon. It just seems to me that some people are different. I think belief is like sexuality either you're religous or you're not. Some people need faith to make them do things but an athiest can do all the things that a religous person could do but have different reasons for doing it.

You're either religious or you're not?! I was devoutly religious and now I'm devoutly unreligious. Does that make me bi?

And I'm not talking about happiness. People can be happy or unhappy in any walk of life. I'm talking about the suffering caused in the world, its causes and affects, and how it would be lessened (not eradicated, but lessened) with the abolishment of blind faith. Eternal life will always make people do more crazy things than political ideologies, in greater numbers and in greater degree. More willing to kill, to die, to condemn others for lifestyle choices, etc. etc. because their faith is absolute and comes from an infallible source. Politics isn't infallible. Social trends aren't infallible. Neither promises eternal life with God. Atrocities will still occur, but LESS will. You've still done nothing to make me reconsider my logic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I agree. But you're clinging to the idea that nothing would replace all the faith enabled evil which is silly and contradicts the idea that good and evil come from people.

Various things would replace it, certainly. But they wouldn't be as profound a force, for the reasons mentioned above. Non-religious forces don't hold the promises that religion does, and therefore won't be clung to as deeply. Exceptions will occur, of course, but they will be exceptions, not norms.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Various things would replace it, certainly. But they wouldn't be as profound a force, for the reasons mentioned above. Non-religious forces don't hold the promises that religion does, and therefore won't be clung to as deeply. Exceptions will occur, of course, but they will be exceptions, not norms.

In your world, what would exist to replace the unique positive things that religion can inspire? And I don't agree that notably fewer atrocities would occur, they'd just be rationalized by something else.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In your world, what would exist to replace the unique positive things that religion can inspire? And I don't agree that notably fewer atrocities would occur, they'd just be rationalized by something else.

Then there would be the same amount, in your opinion. So even if my hypothesis is wrong, it wouldn't swing the other way. And I'll stand by my assertion that it would lessen suffering in the world, though I'm also humble enough to realize both of those are merely opinions, and unverifiable.

As for what would replace religion as a positive thing, the idea behind a non-religious worldview is that the inspiration religion provides isn't the Holy Spirit, or God, Jesus, faith, etc. etc. It's people themselves and their ability to accomplish great acts of good. The goodness people have inside of them isn't because of religion, they just use religion as an outlet for the good already inside. As such, nothing would need to replace it.

That was the original fundamental difference I talked about in regards to theistic/atheist worldviews. Theists largely see the good in the world as being impossible without the grace of their deity. Atheists see it as human-made. As such, a theist won't agree that taking away religion would be just as good, because they see "goodness" and "religion" as inseparable. They don't think it would exist, or not as greatly, if their deity wasn't there to inspire it. But if you don't believe in that God in the first place, everything they see as divinely-inspired we see as human-inspired.

So there would be no need to replace it. The religion is simply an outlet for good, not the origin of the good. Other outlets would be found, and already are for non-religious people.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Then there would be the same amount, in your opinion. So even if my hypothesis is wrong, it wouldn't swing the other way. And I'll stand by my assertion that it would lessen suffering in the world, though I'm also humble enough to realize both of those are merely opinions, and unverifiable.

As for what would replace religion as a positive thing, the idea behind a non-religious worldview is that the inspiration religion provides isn't the Holy Spirit, or God, Jesus, faith, etc. etc. It's people themselves and their ability to accomplish great acts of good. The goodness people have inside of them isn't because of religion, they just use religion as an outlet for the good already inside. As such, nothing would need to replace it.

That was the original fundamental difference I talked about in regards to theistic/atheist worldviews. Theists largely see the good in the world as being impossible without the grace of their deity. Atheists see it as human-made. As such, a theist won't agree that taking away religion would be just as good, because they see "goodness" and "religion" as inseparable. They don't think it would exist, or not as greatly, if their deity wasn't there to inspire it. But if you don't believe in that God in the first place, everything they see as divinely-inspired we see as human-inspired.

So there would be no need to replace it. The religion is simply an outlet for good, not the origin of the good. Other outlets would be found, and already are for non-religious people.

I didn't use the word good, I said positive. Some of the greatest works of art in human history have been inspired by religious faith. Science has a few nice things but nothing particularly comparable. Not to mention that God not existing has nothing to do with what religion inspires.

well good must be considered a positive though 🙄

Positive is a general term. Good implies a moral judgment. Nice try.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Positive is a general term. Good implies a moral judgment. Nice try.

So, when I eat something that taste good, I'm making a moral judgment? 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, when I eat something that taste good, I'm making a moral judgment? 😂

Good is an adjective which can be used to denote something which is the opposite of Evil.

It can always be used to mean something is not bad or above average.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/for+good

Just look at how its treated on the Wikipedia article for a better view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good

Nice try 😉

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In your world, what would exist to replace the unique positive things that religion can inspire? And I don't agree that notably fewer atrocities would occur, they'd just be rationalized by something else.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What are the [b]unique, positive things Religion can inspire, in your opinion? [/B]

Faith in God?