To all religious people....

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Null ARC Avis
Please visit these websites. Not only are they mildly humerous, but they may help you. Then, discuss! http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ http://www.godisimaginary.com/ Although this may sound like trolling, these are GREAT sites! I was laughing out loud and being schocked by the inginuity of the author at the same time. I REALLY recommend these sites.

Grand-Moff-Gav
How droll, videos from these sites (one in the same i believe) have been posted here often, however they do not radically change/add anything...

They're pretty lite really.

Null ARC Avis
i like them. If i were religious, they would make me think, which is the first step to finding truth. So i would say that they do work, although they are droll, but people, on the subject of religion, i find, respond better to droll and logical, than passionate and logical, becasue they feel that they have to answer your passion with their own passion, and therefore lose all reason whatsoever. So yeah, i find them effective.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Hmmm,

you will find they don't really say much as you think they do.

How about you quote a particular argument you find interesting?

DigiMark007
It's better to work these into your own discussions points, and post individual arguments and videos instead of entire sites. Creating threads for such purposes come across as heavy-handed, and just trying to get others to view things that you find important.

Grand-Moff-Gav
According to the Bible Jesus did heal that guy who had his ear cut off by St. Peter... therefore there is a precedent for the healing of amputees.

Symmetric Chaos
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ : he hates them

http://www.godisimaginary.com/ : the title of this site requires a logical fallacy so I don't think I'll listen to them

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
i like them. If i were religious, they would make me think, which is the first step to finding truth. So i would say that they do work, although they are droll, but people, on the subject of religion, i find, respond better to droll and logical, than passionate and logical, becasue they feel that they have to answer your passion with their own passion, and therefore lose all reason whatsoever. So yeah, i find them effective.

But you're not religious so you really don't know how you'd react to them. Personally I've never understood the idea of appealing to faith via logic. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Null ARC Avis
lol, therein lies the problem. Logic is the only thing that can defeat blind, stupid faith, but people have to be open to logic. And for the bible thing, the bible is highly inaccurate and there is no reason to believe Jesus healed anyone. in fact, it is possible to make a decent, logical argument that Jesus never existed in the first place, like some books do (damn, i forgot the name, but you get the point). Watch some of the videos, like why religion is repulsive. they are pretty interesting.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lol, therein lies the problem. Logic is the only thing that can defeat blind, stupid faith, but people have to be open to logic. And for the bible thing, the bible is highly inaccurate and there is no reason to believe Jesus healed anyone. in fact, it is possible to make a decent, logical argument that Jesus never existed in the first place, like some books do (damn, i forgot the name, but you get the point). Watch some of the videos, like why religion is repulsive. they are pretty interesting.

You place a lot of faith in the belief that Human Logic can reckon with an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient being...

Null ARC Avis
Think about omnipotent and omniscient for a second. The ability to effect everything, and to see the future perfectly. Well, if you can see the future, if it is set in stone, then you CANT EFFECT IT!!!! it is a complete logical paradox! So no, you cant be omnipotent and omnisient at the same time. pick one and STICK WITH IT! lol

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Think about omnipotent and omniscient for a second. The ability to effect everything, and to see the future perfectly. Well, if you can see the future, if it is set in stone, then you CANT EFFECT IT!!!! it is a complete logical paradox! So no, you cant be omnipotent and omnisient at the same time. pick one and STICK WITH IT! lol

Actually you can be. After all, who says the future is set in stone? Also, God is outwith time.

Null ARC Avis
Omnipotent: having very great or unlimited authority or power.
Omniscient:having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
Now, if you have UNLIMITED knowledge, you know the future, as God does. How can you change the future if you know it? Think about that for a moment. to know the future, it has to be written out like a story with one path. but the only way to be omnipotent is to break that future, or change it. But then you aren't omniscient because you change the future that you know! What i am say is GOD CANT CHANGE HIS MIND! That means he ISN'T omnipotent!

Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, I don't think what your saying is very logically coherent.

Who says the future is set in stone?

It is far more likely that he knows every possibility of every action and every eventuality...he can then change them about as he pleases which in turn gives up more possible eventualities...and he knows all of them. smile

Also, your entire argument hinges on your own perception of time...

I think God will outlast you and your warped logical though...

(As an imperfect non-omnipotent, non-omniscient being how can you possibly comprehend an omnipotent omniscient being who creates binds and controls everything?)

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lol, therein lies the problem. Logic is the only thing that can defeat blind, stupid faith, but people have to be open to logic. And for the bible thing, the bible is highly inaccurate and there is no reason to believe Jesus healed anyone. in fact, it is possible to make a decent, logical argument that Jesus never existed in the first place, like some books do (damn, i forgot the name, but you get the point). Watch some of the videos, like why religion is repulsive. they are pretty interesting.

Actually I've seen several of them. They're revolting insults to the viewers intelligence and the strides humanity has made towards being accepting of differences. Ever heard of the Pendulum Effect?

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I've seen several of them. They're revolting insults to the viewers intelligence and the strides humanity has made towards being accepting of differences. Ever heard of the Pendulum Effect?

I'm so glad that we're at a point on this board where we can share our views without calling other users stupid and arrogantly assume the unassailable strength of our positions while admonishing others for having such faith...aren't you?

Null ARC Avis
lol you are kidding, right? i have a hard time with Internet satire, sorry!
about the onmipotence thing, i mean.
And for the other thing, religion is a joke. If i believed in the literal truth of Star Wars, you would call me an idiot. but i'm not WRONG, am i? you cant PROVE that i'm wrong! sometimes with religion, you just gotta play a little harder, pull a few less punches, to make people open their eyes. you dont have to be a dick, just be honest.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lol you are kidding, right? i have a hard time with Internet satire, sorry!

I am sarcastically taking the piss out of how arrogant you are in the belief that you are irrefutably correct.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lol you are kidding, right? i have a hard time with Internet satire, sorry!

Not really. Have you seen the one on Jesus? It's idiotic, doesn't possess a shred a rational logic and is terribly condescending in spite of all it's massive failings. Those people are dogmatic and easily as dangerous as any Bible thumping nutcase out there.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lol you are kidding, right? i have a hard time with Internet satire, sorry!
about the onmipotence thing, i mean.
And for the other thing, religion is a joke. If i believed in the literal truth of Star Wars, you would call me an idiot. but i'm not WRONG, am i? you cant PROVE that i'm wrong! sometimes with religion, you just gotta play a little harder, pull a few less punches, to make people open their eyes. you dont have to be a dick, just be honest.

lol

No I wasn't kidding, thats the response you have given because you don't know what to say...

Null ARC Avis
I saw the one one jesus. I found it funny. why doesn't it possess logic? I found a good amount of logic in it. And he isn't trying to fly planes into skyscrapers or stop on of the greatest medical discoveries (stem cell research) of all time. That is dangerous. What he is doing is LOGICAL.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
And for the other thing, religion is a joke. If i believed in the literal truth of Star Wars, you would call me an idiot. but i'm not WRONG, am i? you cant PROVE that i'm wrong! sometimes with religion, you just gotta play a little harder, pull a few less punches, to make people open their eyes. you dont have to be a dick, just be honest.

Lulz, so when do you pull out the thumb-screws and iron-maiden to convince the believers?

If you wish to believe in Star Wars as literal truth I have no problem with that (and I would find it slightly more amusing than people who take Christianity literally) unless it leads to you hurting someone. I might take the time to mention the flaws in your reasoning during polite conversation but I'm not going to seek people out and try to change their minds just because I think that I'm right and they're wrong. It doesn't work and ends up becoming divisive and forcing both side to rely on drivel and asinine rhetoric.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
I saw the one one jesus. I found it funny. why doesn't it possess logic?

Their argument is: Jesus doesn't appear when called thus Jesus does not exist.

Let's modify that. You do not appear when called thus you do not exist.

It's a ridiculous insult to any thinking person.

DigiMark007
Lol. This kid's a riot. And also facepalm-inducing more often than not, despite the ironic fact that I'm essentially in agreement with his conclusions (just not the thinking leading up to them). But I get the feeling he's young. It's good to have it out with people to determine one's own beliefs, and to be able to defend them and such.

So I rescind my earlier post. This thread is worthwhile.

thumb up

Devil King
Go and see Religioulous while you're at it.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Devil King
Go and see Religioulous while you're at it.

I plan on it. I doubt Maher expects it to be seen as actual religious discussion. But I'm sure it'll be funny as hell.

Dr. Leg Kick
Null-

Gonna get straight to the point cuz i'm about to knock out.

Been studying Biology for a long time, majoring in it as well. i've come to the conclusion that it's just crazy for any significant thing to occur out of randomness.

Therefore, a Higher Being IMO exists, or somehow the universe has shaped things a certain way. peace

good night, i'll post again soon.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I plan on it. I doubt Maher expects it to be seen as actual religious discussion. But I'm sure it'll be funny as hell.

It would have been nice if he didn't go on a dogmatic rant at the end...

oh and if he spoke to some serious religious scholars...say the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope...

Bicnarok

jalek moye
yea i dont know why they go out of their way to make this dumb videos anyway

inimalist
my website is better:

http://www.discovery.org/

God exists!

lord xyz
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
If i were religious, they would make me think Unfortunately, religious people never think.

Even the religious scientists don't think about things like that. I believe the reason some of them become scientists is only to make their religion more believable.

It's funny, there are so many religions, and all they do is separate people from eachother and hinder them from science and technology.

inimalist
Originally posted by lord xyz
Unfortunately, religious people never think.

Even the religious scientists don't think about things like that. I believe the reason some of them become scientists is only to make their religion more believable.

It's funny, there are so many religions, and all they do is separate people from eachother and hinder them from science and technology.

one of the most important researchers (a team leader) on the project mapping the human genome was/is a devout Catholic

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
Unfortunately, religious people never think...

Did you think about that statement?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you think about that statement?

Does he ever?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does he ever?

Hmmmm Fair enough. wink

Null ARC Avis
lolz. for the whole thumb screws thing, you cant FORCE people into accepting logic and reason, they have to do it on their own. So no thumb screws here.
Oh, and i did not see that Jesus one.
and Dr, Evolution through Darwinian natural selection is anything but random. i would think a bio major would know that. so please, why would you think it is random when all evidence goes against being it being random?

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Their argument is: Jesus doesn't appear when called thus Jesus does not exist.

Let's modify that. You do not appear when called thus you do not exist.

It's a ridiculous insult to any thinking person. http://www.godisimaginary.com/excuses.htm hopefully that one video will make more sense after you read this.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
http://www.godisimaginary.com/excuses.htm hopefully that one video will make more sense after you read this.

Jesus has appeared to me three times in the flesh throughout my lifetime.

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Jesus has appeared to me three times in the flesh throughout my lifetime. DUDE!!!! NO WAY!!! i met Zeus! He told me that he, Posiden and Jesus go bowling every Friday! But Jesus has a curfew because his dad wants him home before midnight. Zeus told me that the guys make fun of Jesus for still living with his dad, but Jesus trys to explain to them how he lives with himself, but its all too complicated. Zeus was chill.

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by inimalist
one of the most important researchers (a team leader) on the project mapping the human genome was/is a devout Catholic


The Language of God by Francis S. Collins FTW!

Its actually a good read, but CS Lewis makes a more universal argument for God. A lot of his (Collins's) time is spent tearing down Young Earth Creationism, so I like it as a source against Fundies. He is by far the most rational proponent for ID (he calls it BioLogos, which has some significant differences with ID) that I have found so far. I don't agree with all of his points, (or his premise) but he certainly argues them well.


Is that who you were talking about?

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
DUDE!!!! NO WAY!!! i met Zeus! He told me that he, Posiden and Jesus go bowling every Friday! But Jesus has a curfew because his dad wants him home before midnight. Zeus told me that the guys make fun of Jesus for still living with his dad, but Jesus trys to explain to them how he lives with himself, but its all too complicated. Zeus was chill.

Cool...

Jesus never mentioned them to me...

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Cool...

Jesus never mentioned them to me... did you ever ask?

inimalist
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
DUDE!!!! NO WAY!!! i met Zeus! He told me that he, Posiden and Jesus go bowling every Friday! But Jesus has a curfew because his dad wants him home before midnight. Zeus told me that the guys make fun of Jesus for still living with his dad, but Jesus trys to explain to them how he lives with himself, but its all too complicated. Zeus was chill.

lol

You can't prove Jesus didn't appear to him in the flesh. You might think there are better explanations for that, but you can't say it didn't happen.

Mocking important subjective experiences that people have isn't really productive either...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins FTW!

Its actually a good read, but CS Lewis makes a more universal argument for God. A lot of his (Collins's) time is spent tearing down Young Earth Creationism, so I like it as a source against Fundies. He is by far the most rational proponent for ID (he calls it BioLogos, which has some significant differences with ID) that I have found so far. I don't agree with all of his points, (or his premise) but he certainly argues them well.


Is that who you were talking about?

absolutely. Actually, he had a really good point from a talk he gave, I'm paraphrasing of course (I wasn't there either, for what thats worth): Evolutionary science needs to steal back the word "design". Its a major linguistic tool for the ID crowd, simply because it rhetorically insinuates that evolution is the cobblestone random chance theory the ID proponents paint it as. He said that evolutionary design is a type of design, by the environment, and is not random at all.

I like him, though I have never read anything of his erm

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
http://www.godisimaginary.com/excuses.htm hopefully that one video will make more sense after you read this.

They give that summary. Think about it a bit and you'll realize the massive gaping holes in their logic. It may prove that Jesus lied, that he isn't omnipotent or that he lacks the singular power to appear spontaneously when called. The claim that him not doing so disproves his existence is asinine and insane to anyone with even a passing familiarity with formal logic.

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They give that summary. Think about it a bit and you'll realize the massive gaping holes in their logic. It may prove that Jesus lied, that he isn't omnipotent or that he lacks the singular power to appear spontaneously when called. The claim that him not doing so disproves his existence is asinine and insane to anyone with even a passing familiarity with formal logic. Ahh, but Jesus is God and God is omnipotent and perfect. So that God can, or should be able to, do it. Maybe there is a God. But the god we are talking about, Yahweh, is imaginary because he cant do it.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Ahh, but Jesus is God and God is omnipotent and perfect. So that God can, or should be able to, do it. Maybe there is a God. But the god we are talking about, Yahweh, is imaginary because he cant do it.

Just because he doesn't do it. Doesn't mean he can't.

inimalist
Null: Do you believe the bible can be interpreted as metaphor?

Null ARC Avis
Sure, but Dert: 13:1 says Take everything I say as fact, add nothing to it, and take nothing away. So, it really CANT be interpreted as a metaphor.... although SOME parts can, things that come up repeatedly and in detail should be taken as biblical fact.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by inimalist
Admiral Akbar: Do you believe the bible can be interpreted as metaphor?

As a metaphor for what exactly?

Null ARC Avis
No, he was talking to me, and i think he meant parts of the bible.

inimalist
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Sure, but Dert: 13:1 says Take everything I say as fact, add nothing to it, and take nothing away. So, it really CANT be interpreted as a metaphor.... although SOME parts can, things that come up repeatedly and in detail should be taken as biblical fact.

so no then, you don't think it can be...

unfortunately, I feel you have fallen into the same mindset that you oppose. You have a very strict idea of what it means for someone to believe in a religion and what that entails, much like fundamentalists of every religion do.

While you see the need for things in the bible to be absolute, there are many people (the majority) who don't see this need. There are no strict interpretations.

As someone who doesn't believe in God or the books thereof, I don't personally feel that I have the authority to interpret any biblical passages, so I can't talk about Dert, that passage or what ever else might qualify as Biblical fact... Why do you feel there is no other way to read that passage? Do you know the context?

inimalist
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
As a metaphor for what exactly?

as someone who doesn't believe in the bible, I don't feel I have the personal qualifications to interpret meaning from it

EDIT: less cynically, I guess I meant to say "as literal described, word for word, fact", metaphor probably doesn't work grammatically. Does make it sound all sweet and pretty though wink

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by inimalist
as someone who doesn't believe in the bible, I don't feel I have the personal qualifications to interpret meaning from it

EDIT: less cynically, I guess I meant to say "as literal described, word for word, fact", metaphor probably doesn't work grammatically. Does make it sound all sweet and pretty though wink

Then maybe someone who does read and study scripture can answer it. Anyone out there, shed some light on this question.

EDIT- smile

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by inimalist
so no then, you don't think it can be...

unfortunately, I feel you have fallen into the same mindset that you oppose. You have a very strict idea of what it means for someone to believe in a religion and what that entails, much like fundamentalists of every religion do.

While you see the need for things in the bible to be absolute, there are many people (the majority) who don't see this need. There are no strict interpretations.

As someone who doesn't believe in God or the books thereof, I don't personally feel that I have the authority to interpret any biblical passages, so I can't talk about Dert, that passage or what ever else might qualify as Biblical fact... Why do you feel there is no other way to read that passage? Do you know the context? That is all very true. But think of it this way. The bible is a story right? Do you need a degree to interpret stories? Do you have to go to college to learn the meaning of Star Wars? No. As Thomas Jefferson said "Theology is not taught in the institution." That passage means you cannot interpret the bible metaphorically. Sure, it may be wrong, but then the whole bible is out of wack. Maybe there is no God, and he is just a pantheistic metaphor. But people believe he exists, that he grants miracles, and the like. They interpret that literally, or at least a HUGE amount of americans do (Gallup poll shows that 60% of americans believe the bible is the literal word of God). So what is the criterion of real and metaphor? It cant be that whatever we agree with is real, and the rest is metaphor.

inimalist
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
That is all very true.

awwww, thank you smile

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
But think of it this way.

oh, so it isn't true sad

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
The bible is a story right?

as someone who doesn't believe in the bible I don't feel knowledgeable enough about it to make such a statement

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Do you need a degree to interpret stories? Do you have to go to college to learn the meaning of Star Wars? No.

yes, absolutly

There are entire departments dedicated to the interpretation of hidden meanings and morals within stories.

I don't think you thought that one through

lest you feel as credible a source on Hemingway as someone with a degree in American literature.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
As Thomas Jefferson said "Theology is not taught in the institution."

He didn't say that, and the only quote I could find similar to that was: "a professorship of theology should have no
place in our institution", refering to the University of Virginia and his radical idea, for the day, that religion and education should be seperate.

He was not saying you don't need to know something to have an informed opinion about it.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
That passage means you cannot interpret the bible metaphorically.

in your opinion

could you clarify the theological grounds you are using to make that assertion?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Sure, it may be wrong, but then the whole bible is out of wack.

or it, and the bible, could mean something completely different from your interpretation of it, unless you think you know the absolute biblical truth?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Maybe there is no God, and he is just a pantheistic metaphor. But people believe he exists, that he grants miracles, and the like. They interpret that literally, or at least a HUGE amount of americans do (Gallup poll shows that 60% of americans believe the bible is the literal word of God).

lol, it isn't a popularity contest. I'm saying there are many people around the world who have no problem believing in the bible and not needing it to be word for word truth.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
So what is the criterion of real and metaphor? It cant be that whatever we agree with is real, and the rest is metaphor.

as someone who doesn't believe in the bible I don't feel knowledgeable enough about it to make such a judgment

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Then maybe someone who does read and study scripture can answer it. Anyone out there, shed some light on this question.

EDIT- smile But do you really need to read a story and every word of that story to unuderstand it? Theology isn't a science. For example, i know star wars, back and forth. Every book on star wars, i have read. Does that make me more qualified than someone who has only seen the movies to tell you the MEANING of star wars? i can tell you the FACTS better, but not the MEANING. and if the bible is up for interpretation, than FACTS are just about irrelevent because you can INTERPRET them however you want. do you see what i mean?

that goes for the above post as well, and yes, that is the Jefferson thought i had in mind, and i completely agree with him.

Admiral Akbar
Do you have to believe the in the bible to answer those questions? You need only read it and understand it.

inimalist
I've also never read it

I'm obviously saying that for the rhetorical effect, re: I don't think a bunch of atheists really have the right to make judgment of what qualifies as biblical interpretation. That we think it is ridiculous goes without saying, but to start making claims about meanings... Sure, it can mean something to you.

Null ARC Avis
but who has the RIGHT to make claims on it then? What is the CRITERION for saying what is and isn't literal truth? Only God can decide what is right and wrong, we HUMANS can only interpret it. and i believe that GOD intended to right it as a literal book, not up for interpretation. And by God, i mean ignorant Bronze age men.

inimalist
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
but who has the RIGHT to make claims on it then? What is the CRITERION for saying what is and isn't literal truth? Only God can decide what is right and wrong, we HUMANS can only interpret it. and i believe that GOD intended to right it as a literal book, not up for interpretation. And by God, i mean ignorant Bronze age men.

lol

ok, cool, so you believe, as every fundamentalist nutjob does, that the only interpretation of a religion that can possibly be true is the one that follows the most literal interpretation of the sacred texts

like, ****, it goes without saying that I personally agree with you about how much meaning there is in the bible and of what useful household purpose it could be put to. What I am saying is that, just as the fundamentalist has no absolute knowledge of what the bible says, neither do you.

Of course I think each person should be able to garner their own truth from it and they will be equally wrong. The propoganda you posted in this thread, and your view on the necessity of a literal interpretation of the bible, however, are counterproductive to any position you could possibly be pushing for.

Rather than engaging rational and tolerant religion, you justify and give credit to backward and dated interpretations of religion.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Sacred Texts are usually vastly more complex than any other form of literature. I find it very unlikely that anyone here has studied the Bible enough to give a credible and insightful interpretation of the text- all they can do is rely on other peoples interpretations.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
but who has the RIGHT to make claims on it then? What is the CRITERION for saying what is and isn't literal truth? Only God can decide what is right and wrong, we HUMANS can only interpret it. and i believe that GOD intended to right it as a literal book, not up for interpretation. And by God, i mean ignorant Bronze age men.

Catholics have a ready CRITERION as you put it...also the Bible was not written in the bronze age by nutty men. If its all fake then you have to confess it is an excellent job done by very intelligent people. The teachings of Christ themselves are very complex and open to debate as to his meanings.

Also, Jesus said the law (scripture) was not written in stone but was alive, thus it needs to be reviewed over and over.

Also, do you know what a Rabbi is?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Ahh, but Jesus is God and God is omnipotent and perfect. So that God can, or should be able to, do it. Maybe there is a God. But the god we are talking about, Yahweh, is imaginary because he cant do it.

I assume you've never beaten a man to death with his own femur even though you would be able to if you were real. Should I assume you don't exist?

Null ARC Avis
Moff, i am talking about the old testemant, that was written by nutty bronge age men. Jesus may have been real, probably was. and he was just a wise man is he was real. Thats all.
And inimalist, i personally believe that the old testement was SUPPOSED to be taken literally. Of course i dont want it to be. Of course you can take things metaphorically, but what do you take metaphorically and what do you take literally? That is my question. The punishment for breaking any of the ten commandments, including working on the sabbath and using gods name in vain, is punishable by death. Is that literal, or metaphoric. According to everything god says in the bible, and his actions in the bible, it should be taken literally. And who says the moderate religion is correct? Maybe the outdated one is right, and humans have corrupted religion. Or maybe not. WHO KNOWS? Can a priest, or the Pope, or a rabbi, give you a reason why something is literal and something is metaphoric? Maybe they are wrong, maybe not. Religion cannot be proven, or disproven, so therefore no body is an "expert" in it. Thats all i am saying. We can be equally wrong.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Of course i dont want it to be. Of course you can take things metaphorically, but what do you take metaphorically and what do you take literally? That is my question. The punishment for breaking any of the ten commandments, including working on the sabbath and using gods name in vain, is punishable by death. Is that literal, or metaphoric.

It used to be literal, though I'm sure that in this day in age people would pronounce it as a metaphor. What's most important I think is, why the change from literal to metaphorical(assuming people take it as a metaphor)? I would reckon that people's moral values and ethics have changed throughout the centuries to accommodate for this change.

Dr. Leg Kick
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lolz. for the whole thumb screws thing, you cant FORCE people into accepting logic and reason, they have to do it on their own. So no thumb screws here.
Oh, and i did not see that Jesus one.
and Dr, Evolution through Darwinian natural selection is anything but random. i would think a bio major would know that. so please, why would you think it is random when all evidence goes against being it being random? did i say evolution was random? thanks for stating something i never said. my statement for 'randomness' was not parallel to evolution, but other significant factors, such as bacterial reproduction through conjugation etc..

again, i make quick posts here and there, don't have time like i use to to post on KMC.

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
did i say evolution was random? thanks for stating something i never said. my statement for 'randomness' was not parallel to evolution, but other significant factors, such as bacterial reproduction through conjugation etc..

again, i make quick posts here and there, don't have time like i use to to post on KMC. sorry then. Bio isn't my strong suit so i couldn't tell. IDK, there is no reason to assume a divine being did any of those things, because there is no proof for the aformentioned divine being. Plus, what created that divine being? No, that is the God of the Gaps theory, and it is nonesense. I trust that science will soon, within a centuary, maybe two if we (humanity) live that long, will fill in all of those gaps.

Dr. Leg Kick
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
sorry then. Bio isn't my strong suit so i couldn't tell. IDK, there is no reason to assume a divine being did any of those things, because there is no proof for the aformentioned divine being. Plus, what created that divine being? No, that is the God of the Gaps theory, and it is nonesense. I trust that science will soon, within a centuary, maybe two if we (humanity) live that long, will fill in all of those gaps. Can't disagree with that. No empirical evidence that a higher being does exist.

as for me, yes i do believe in a higher being (im Armenian Apostolic Christian), and that is what has constructed my identity. i'm not a religious person, cuz going to church doesn't mean everyone in the structure is a good moral christian. in fact, most douchebags that i know that go to church every sunday, are the biggest pieces of shit on the planet.

anyway, good people don't need to be religious in any shape or form.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Can't disagree with that. No empirical evidence that a higher being does exist.

as for me, yes i do believe in a higher being (im Armenian Apostolic Christian), and that is what has constructed my identity. i'm not a religious person, cuz going to church doesn't mean everyone in the structure is a good moral christian. in fact, most douchebags that i know that go to church every sunday, are the biggest pieces of shit on the planet.

anyway, good people don't need to be religious in any shape or form.

Exactly true because our morals aren't derived from religion, or religious text.

Good people are in abundance, as are bad people. Religious affiliation tends not to be a factor 'most of the time'. Sometimes I'm suprised how nice people are when I say that I'm an atheist. They try to engage in a conversation about it, rather than sitting there with their mouth wide open gasping as if I commited some atrocious crime.

Devil King
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The teachings of Christ themselves are very complex and open to debate as to his meanings.

Are you serious?

Then why subscribe to a religion that speaks so absolutely in regards to their particular interpretation?

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Devil King
Are you serious?

Then why subscribe to a religion that speaks so absolutely in regards to their particular interpretation?

Because our interpretation is the right one- in my belief.

Bicnarok

Admiral Akbar
And a person of a different belief would make the same claim about their interpretation. So who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be true.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
And a person of a different belief would make the same claim about their interpretation. So who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be true.

Do I need to tell you a story about an elephant?

inimalist
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
And inimalist, i personally believe that the old testement was SUPPOSED to be taken literally. Of course i dont want it to be. Of course you can take things metaphorically, but what do you take metaphorically and what do you take literally? That is my question. The punishment for breaking any of the ten commandments, including working on the sabbath and using gods name in vain, is punishable by death. Is that literal, or metaphoric. According to everything god says in the bible, and his actions in the bible, it should be taken literally. And who says the moderate religion is correct? Maybe the outdated one is right, and humans have corrupted religion. Or maybe not. WHO KNOWS? Can a priest, or the Pope, or a rabbi, give you a reason why something is literal and something is metaphoric? Maybe they are wrong, maybe not. Religion cannot be proven, or disproven, so therefore no body is an "expert" in it. Thats all i am saying. We can be equally wrong.

you say a lot of stuff in there, most I covered in my previous posts, especially the longer one on the previous page. I still don't see why you are asking me those questions, as I don't even care what religious people use as their standard...

Here is what I think: You read Dawkins and Harris, now you are all terrified about big ol bad religion. You are trying to prostalatize your own point, much like a fundamentalist, that religion has one definition, like a fundamentalist, and that definition is either true or false, like a fundamentalist.

Reza Aslan, Islamic scholar, recently did a book called "How to Win a Cosmic war", where he talks about how it is impossible to beat Jihadi Islam through the hetoric of "us" and "them" etc. And in fact, by justifying those divisions, America makes Al Qaeda stronger

pt 1/6: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0nwfw5pZc8

the other parts are linked in the related videos

imho, you are doing the exact same thing. By claiming only the fundamentalist view of religion is correct, you empower the fringe wings of a religion and polorize even the most moderates against you, much like how Bush has empowered the Muslim extremeists with his "with us or against us" mentality.

Any possible positive outcome you might be trying to gain by telling people their personal beliefs are "illogical" and making fun of them will be counter productive to the end you wish. Do you want to live in a theocracy? keep telling people the only valid interpretation of a religious text is literal

inimalist

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
And a person of a different belief would make the same claim about their interpretation. So who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be true.

Yes, they have a different belief.

I concede the point that I may be wrong, but I still believe what I do. That's the difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate.

Believing that abortion is wrong, doesn't make you a fundamentalist.
Believing that evolution is wrong, doesn't make you a fundamentalist.

You become a fundamentalist when you refuse to accept that your beliefs may not be correct.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by inimalist
you say a lot of stuff in there, most I covered in my previous posts, especially the longer one on the previous page. I still don't see why you are asking me those questions, as I don't even care what religious people use as their standard...

Here is what I think: You read Dawkins and Harris, now you are all terrified about big ol bad religion. You are trying to prostalatize your own point, much like a fundamentalist, that religion has one definition, like a fundamentalist, and that definition is either true or false, like a fundamentalist.

Reza Aslan, Islamic scholar, recently did a book called "How to Win a Cosmic war", where he talks about how it is impossible to beat Jihadi Islam through the hetoric of "us" and "them" etc. And in fact, by justifying those divisions, America makes Al Qaeda stronger

pt 1/6: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0nwfw5pZc8

the other parts are linked in the related videos

imho, you are doing the exact same thing. By claiming only the fundamentalist view of religion is correct, you empower the fringe wings of a religion and polorize even the most moderates against you, much like how Bush has empowered the Muslim extremeists with his "with us or against us" mentality.

Any possible positive outcome you might be trying to gain by telling people their personal beliefs are "illogical" and making fun of them will be counter productive to the end you wish. Do you want to live in a theocracy? keep telling people the only valid interpretation of a religious text is literal

Isn't religion either true or false? I mean the core of the religion itself. Not bits and pieces of it because you could always find some minor truths/important life lessons in religion.

inimalist
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Isn't religion either true or false? I mean the core of the religion itself. Not bits and pieces of it because you could always find some minor truths/important life lessons in religion.

in my opinion?

sure, but I don't believe in God, so the truth of religion, to me, is going to be a pretty easy question.

I think a religious person gets to define the parts of the religion that they think is true.

Like Jews for Jesus, or Christians who believe Jesus might not have existed but represents a moral life (I had a prof who identified both as a nihilist and Christian).

Sure, there is an objective truth about reality, but you have no more access to that (as in, your view of the world is just as subjective) than a Christian.

like, lol, if you want me to say reasons why I think religions are wrong, look at the civil rights movement in America. in the 50s, religion supports racism, afterwards, religions reformed themselves, and racism was wrong. Obviously God didn't change his mind. To me, there is really nothing more obviating of the human construction of religion than its willingness to change its beliefs in the face of social pressures.

Look, like, why does it matter to you if someone has beliefs that you don't? I'm sure you believe things that I could make insulting videos about. The real problem with religion is where it begins to impact members of a society who do not want it to. This is largely due to actions of fundamentalists, who like the thread starter, insist on a single definition of their religion.

Yes, you and I can think a plurality of religious ideas is more emblematic of religion as a fantasy, but christ, pick your battles. A christian libertarian is way better than an athiest fascist.

Null ARC Avis
lol i am not a facist. and when i talk to religious people, i am completley polite. dont worry. I dont support fundamentalism, and i think it is very wrong. I do change my views, so no, please dont compare me to fundamentalists who wont accept facts and will never change their opinion. But then what do you suppose we do about religion? Let it keep growing unopposed until the world IS a theocracy?

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lol i am not a facist. and when i talk to religious people, i am completley polite. dont worry. I dont support fundamentalism, and i think it is very wrong. I do change my views, so no, please dont compare me to fundamentalists who wont accept facts and will never change their opinion. But then what do you suppose we do about religion? Let it keep growing unopposed until the world IS a theocracy?

What in history gives you any basis for that claim?

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What in history gives you any basis for that claim? My claim that religion is slowly taking over the world again? Look around you. 60% of americans believe that the bible is the literal word of god, as do many islamofacists who are quickly taking over europe. Look at france, or germany. Withing 15 years, the majority of those countries will be muslim. These are dangerous times. i do not want to live in a world dominated by religion, thank you very much.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
My claim that religion is slowly taking over the world again? Look around you. 60% of americans believe that the bible is the literal word of god, as do many islamofacists who are slowly taking over europe. Look at france, or germany. Withing 15 years, the majority of those countries will be muslim. These are dangerous times.

lol

maybe we should have another crusade?

Null ARC Avis
against religion, or between religions? If it is against religion, it has to be a crusade of the mind. athiests have to be more active, we cant "believe in belief" because that is very dangerous. That only allows, and encourages, religion to grow. But no violence. I am strongly oppossed to violence in the name of religion.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
against religion, or between religions? If it is against religion, it has to be a crusade of the mind. athiests have to be more active, we cant "believe in belief" because that is very dangerous. That only allows, and encourages, religion to grow. But no violence. I am strongly oppossed to violence in the name of religion.

So...what about violence by say...Communists or Fascists or so on....are political ideologies also a danger?

Null ARC Avis
If they force people to believe something ridiculous based on no evidence, than yes, it is dangerous. my parents grew up in Soviet Russia. They will be the first to tell you that the communist party was the closest thing to God that you could get in Russia.
So, to clarify, my problem isn't specifically with religion (btw, christian libertarians are okay. i have no real problems with them, but i dont see why a sensible person would believe in God. or maybe they interpret just about the whole bible metaphorically. idk, it would be interesting to talk to one through), it is with any system that makes people believe in nonsense without providing any substantial evidence to support the belief. Religion is just the biggest, most dangerous piece of nonsense, so that is why i am so against it.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
If they force people to believe something ridiculous based on no evidence, than yes, it is dangerous. my parents grew up in Soviet Russia. They will be the first to tell you that the communist party was the closest thing to God that you could get in Russia.
So, to clarify, my problem isn't specifically with religion (btw, christian libertarians are okay. i have no real problems with them, but i dont see why a sensible person would believe in God. or maybe they interpret just about the whole bible metaphorically. idk, it would be interesting to talk to one through), it is with any system that makes people believe in nonsense without providing any substantial evidence to support the belief. Religion is just the biggest, most dangerous piece of nonsense, so that is why i am so against it.

So do you think say...the Pope isn't a sensible person?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
These are dangerous times. i do not want to live in a world dominated by religion, thank you very much.

A 9mm bullet is only about 15 cents.

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So do you think say...the Pope isn't a sensible person? thats a good question. i dont know much about the pope, but i am no fan of the roman catholic church, and he is the head of it.... idk, thats hard to say. He is certiantly a good, generous person, but to believe so strongly in unprovable dogma....

and what does a 9mm have to do with this? it costs at least 300 for the pistol.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
thats a good question. i dont know much about the pope, but i am no fan of the roman catholic church, and he is the head of it.... idk, thats hard to say. He is certiantly a good, generous person, but to believe so strongly in unprovable dogma....

and what does a 9mm have to do with this? it costs at least 300 for the pistol.

Ooh, whats your problems with the RCC?

I think he meant that you can either shoot the muslims or shoot yourself...

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis

and what does a 9mm have to do with this? it costs at least 300 for the pistol.

Suicide (I thought that was obvious, you know, your comment about not wanting to live in a religious world).

And you're in Jersey, you can find a heater for much cheaper than that.

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ooh, whats your problems with the RCC?

I think he meant that you can either shoot the muslims or shoot yourself... Niether. Teach the muslims while wearing a bulletproof super kevlar vest, sure.
and do you not have problems with the RCC? Look at their history. look at what they are doing in Africa (the "no condom" genocide), look at the child abuse, both physically and emotional via instilling the deep and terrible fear of hell into children, etc. but they are not the only church i dont like.

Null ARC Avis
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Suicide (I thought that was obvious, you know, your comment about not wanting to live in a religious world).

And you're in Jersey, you can find a heater for much cheaper than that. sorry if i dont go shopping around for guns.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Niether. Teach the muslims while wearing a bulletproof super kevlar vest, sure.
and do you not have problems with the RCC? Look at their history. look at what they are doing in Africa (the "no condom" genocide), look at the child abuse, both physically and emotional via instilling the deep and terrible fear of hell into children, etc. but they are not the only church i dont like.

Do you really think people who don't listen to the Church teaching on "don't have sex outside of marriage" will listen to the Church teaching on condoms? Honestly? Do you actually believe that?

Look at their history? Yeah and ignore the good stuff?

Null ARC Avis
in Africa? The only knowledge that they have of condoms in some places is that they are bad, which was taught by the church, so they dont use condoms. And they get AIDS. and they die. Dont ignore the good stuff, but dont ignore the bad stuff either. and there is A LOT of that.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
in Africa? The only knowledge that they have of condoms in some places is that they are bad, which was taught by the church, so they dont use condoms. And they get AIDS. and they die. Dont ignore the good stuff, but dont ignore the bad stuff either. and there is A LOT of that.

Look,

Answer the question, do you honestly believe that people who ignore Church teachings on sex outside marriage will obey Church teaching on condoms?

You don't know anything about Church history do you?

(Uh oh...hes gonna go on the Crusades/Inquisition rant)

Null ARC Avis
you obviously know that rant, so i'll skip it. As for the thing on Africa, they think "sex is fun" and "condoms are bad" and "Sex without condoms is super fun". you figure it out. people ignore some church teachings and listen to others. everyone does that. And please, enlighten me on the great church history. Becasue honestly, i dont know what it could have possibly done to out weigh the horrors it has and is commiting.

inimalist
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lol i am not a facist.

I never implied that you were

the reference to an atheist fascist was to show that religion is not the actual problem. People of any nature who want to impose their will on others are. They should be opposed, and the best way to oppose the religious nuts is by supporting moderate religion.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
and when i talk to religious people, i am completley polite.

oh, like this?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lol, therein lies the problem. Logic is the only thing that can defeat blind, stupid faith, but people have to be open to logic.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Watch some of the videos, like why religion is repulsive

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
And for the other thing, religion is a joke. If i believed in the literal truth of Star Wars, you would call me an idiot. but i'm not WRONG, am i? you cant PROVE that i'm wrong! sometimes with religion, you just gotta play a little harder, pull a few less punches, to make people open their eyes. you dont have to be a dick, just be honest.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
DUDE!!!! NO WAY!!! i met Zeus! He told me that he, Posiden and Jesus go bowling every Friday! But Jesus has a curfew because his dad wants him home before midnight. Zeus told me that the guys make fun of Jesus for still living with his dad, but Jesus trys to explain to them how he lives with himself, but its all too complicated. Zeus was chill.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
dont worry. I dont support fundamentalism,

it appears you support the way they interpret the bible:

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Dert: 13:1 says Take everything I say as fact, add nothing to it, and take nothing away.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
That passage means you cannot interpret the bible metaphorically.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
i personally believe that the old testement was SUPPOSED to be taken literally.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
and i think it is very wrong. I do change my views, so no, please dont compare me to fundamentalists who wont accept facts and will never change their opinion.

I'm not comparing you to the fundamentalist in that way, I am saying you support the same biblical interpretations that they do.

You claim that you know the one and only way that biblical passages can be known.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
But then what do you suppose we do about religion?

religion as a whole, little to nothing.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Let it keep growing unopposed until the world IS a theocracy?

you are conflating religion with people who use religion to force their will on others.

we can argue nit picky stuff, but on the whole, religion is pretty benign. It is people who do bad things.

Null ARC Avis
As someone smart once said (as you may have noticed, exact quotes are not my strong point) "It takes religion to make good people to bad things," I whole heatedly support that statement.
Now, i never said that the bible has to be interpreted literally. Some things are literal, some metaphorical. But, what can we say is metaphorical? Is stoning people to death for breaking the Sabbath metaphorical? Sounds pretty literal to me. of course i dont agree with that punishment, but i believe that that statement was intended to be interpreted literally. Do you disagree? And dont see "i will leave it to the experts." what is YOUR opinion on that statement?
As for supporting religion as a whole, Sam Harris puts it A LOT better than i ever can, and you should read The End Of Faith if you havent already, but moderate religion is the environment that allows extremism and fundamentalism to thrive. It indirectly causes all the problems that we are experiencing with extremism. Is it directly harmful? Mostly not. Is it indirectly harmful? yes. yes it is.

DigiMark007
I somewhat endorse Null's last post. But it won't get through to those of faith.

First and foremost, stonings and violent punishments of that sort are easily dismissed as historical segments of the Bible, or Jesus usurping the Old Testament's laws with new ones. None but fundamentalists hold to such laws anymore, so citing them has little averse affect on Christians. But that doesn't get to the heart of it. The fundamental disagreement is in the perceived source of the good and evil that religion does.

To a believer, the good is an extension of the religious beliefs themselves, and of God, while the evil is humanity's perversion of those ideals. To a non-believer, the good that religion does is entirely man-made. So in my opinion, for example, if you took away religion, you'd still have all the good religion does (and it does a lot in some places), because it is people that are responsible for it. People would simply find different outlets for it other than a religious community.

Whereas the bad that religion is responsible for is largely due to the nature of faith. Faith is blind by its very definition, and encourages belief without evidence, or even in the face of evidence. It is self-fulfilling in that sense. And the deeper the faith, the better. Which is where fundamentalism comes in. So yes, an endorsement of faith by the rational majority does encourage fundamentalism to a large extent in the minority that it exists in (or majority in some parts of the world), because the advocation of faith in and of itself, in any form or degree, breeds such outcomes.

So when someone says "religion does more evil than good" it must be prefaced with this sort of explanation. Because on the surface, that statement is false. Religion is a strong force for good in the world. But if you remove it, the large portion of the good would remain, because it is human-driven, while it would eliminate the beliefs and practices that lead to the negative aspects of religion. It may be trite to say something like "there are no atheist suicide bombers, nor will there ever be," but it is a crude way of showing a valid point.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I somewhat endorse Null's last post. But it won't get through to those of faith.

First and foremost, stonings and violent punishments of that sort are easily dismissed as historical segments of the Bible, or Jesus usurping the Old Testament's laws with new ones. None but fundamentalists hold to such laws anymore, so citing them has little averse affect on Christians. But that doesn't get to the heart of it. The fundamental disagreement is in the perceived source of the good and evil that religion does.

To a believer, the good is an extension of the religious beliefs themselves, and of God, while the evil is humanity's perversion of those ideals. To a non-believer, the good that religion does is entirely man-made. So in my opinion, for example, if you took away religion, you'd still have all the good religion does (and it does a lot in some places), because it is people that are responsible for it. People would simply find different outlets for it other than a religious community.

Whereas the bad that religion is responsible for is largely due to the nature of faith. Faith is blind by its very definition, and encourages belief without evidence, or even in the face of evidence. It is self-fulfilling in that sense. And the deeper the faith, the better. Which is where fundamentalism comes in. So yes, an endorsement of faith by the rational majority does encourage fundamentalism to a large extent in the minority that it exists in (or majority in some parts of the world), because the advocation of faith in and of itself, in any form or degree, breeds such outcomes.

So when someone says "religion does more evil than good" it must be prefaced with this sort of explanation. Because on the surface, that statement is false. Religion is a strong force for good in the world. But if you remove it, the large portion of the good would remain, because it is human-driven, while it would eliminate the beliefs and practices that lead to the negative aspects of religion. It may be trite to say something like "there are no atheist suicide bombers, nor will there ever be," but it is a crude way of showing a valid point.

I agree with every sentence you posted.

inimalist
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
As someone smart once said (as you may have noticed, exact quotes are not my strong point) "It takes religion to make good people to bad things," I whole heatedly support that statement.

and you can think of no other reasons why people might do bad things?

nothing else could motivate a person who was good to do something wrong?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Now, i never said that the bible has to be interpreted literally. Some things are literal, some metaphorical. But, what can we say is metaphorical? Is stoning people to death for breaking the Sabbath metaphorical? Sounds pretty literal to me. of course i dont agree with that punishment, but i believe that that statement was intended to be interpreted literally. Do you disagree?

outside of America, people aren't as crazy about the Bible. Most people I've met can concede that the Bible was written by men, and many parts contain things that reflect the worldview they wanted to maintain.

obviously your next gotcha question is how do we know what, which i don't really care to answer, since it is totally irrelevant to me. Long story short, people don't have to believe every word in the bible is literally true to be a christian.

By making this argument you are engaging and justifying the specific wing of the religion you are most afraid of, empowering them and alienating moderates who want the same secular freedoms as you.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
And dont see "i will leave it to the experts."

then you totally missed my point when I said that. My opinion is that, as an atheist, I have no opinion on scriptures, aside from my belief that if they do contain truth, it is almost assuredly coincidence.

I would also ask again if you could put that into context, maybe give me the entire passage, interpret it for me in a specific theological tradition.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
what is YOUR opinion on that statement?

I don't think stoning people is a good idea...

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
As for supporting religion as a whole, Sam Harris puts it A LOT better than i ever can, and you should read The End Of Faith if you havent already, but moderate religion is the environment that allows extremism and fundamentalism to thrive. It indirectly causes all the problems that we are experiencing with extremism. Is it directly harmful? Mostly not. Is it indirectly harmful? yes. yes it is.

Its rather obnoxious to ask me to argue with a book...

needless to say I disagree with the premise. feel free to expand

Phantom Zone
Uhhhh I don't know about this "there will never be any athiest siucide bombers" thing. Im sure athiesm can be used to justify evil as well as religon can. People say athiests don't believe in anything and we have had this discussion before but im pretty sure bad athiests could use a non-belief in divine judgement as a justification for being evil.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
you obviously know that rant, so i'll skip it. As for the thing on Africa, they think "sex is fun" and "condoms are bad" and "Sex without condoms is super fun". you figure it out. people ignore some church teachings and listen to others. everyone does that. And please, enlighten me on the great church history. Becasue honestly, i dont know what it could have possibly done to out weigh the horrors it has and is commiting.

Hospitals, Charities, Social Groups, the Crusades (I personally think that the Western World is better than a Muslim one which is what we would have had without the Crusades), the role of the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe following the Soviet Occupation- it is held by many countries in very high esteem because it is seen to have protected national identity that Communism tried to strip away. Just look at how popular John Paul II is in Poland and Latvia and so on.

In the 1300's the Pope tried his best to defend the small and weaker Scotland against English occupation.

The Paul III banned slavery back before the Protestant Reformation, though this was someone amended by one of his successors who turned a blind eye to slavery...It was protestant Britain that really got the whole thing going though...

Individual Catholics have also had a great deal of influence over time and often, its been good.

I am not saying the Church doesn't have faults, but look at in context. It is not the only institution which has carried out horrific things but its the only one you seem to enjoy attacking. When we talk about America, do you bring up the slave trade/Hiroshima/racism every time its mentioned? If discussing Germany do you say, yeah Beethoven was a great musician and I applaud their attempts to foster world peace...but Hitler did kill 6 million plus... When you talk about Microsoft do you say "I like windows, but if we look at Bill Gates record for business competition, staff treatment and so on..."

No you don't do you?

(I'm not saying that because other people have done bad stuff the Church is less to blame for what its done- lets just remember it isn't the only one though.)

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Uhhhh I don't know about this "there will never be any athiest siucide bombers" thing. Im sure athiesm can be used to justify evil as well as religon can. People say athiests don't believe in anything and we have had this discussion before but im pretty sure bad athiests could use a non-belief in divine judgement as a justification for being evil.

Indeed, let us remember- Kamikaze Pilots...(though some will say that the Imperial Cult and Patriotism is a religion...)

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I somewhat endorse Null's last post. But it won't get through to those of faith.

First and foremost, stonings and violent punishments of that sort are easily dismissed as historical segments of the Bible, or Jesus usurping the Old Testament's laws with new ones. None but fundamentalists hold to such laws anymore, so citing them has little averse affect on Christians. But that doesn't get to the heart of it. The fundamental disagreement is in the perceived source of the good and evil that religion does.

To a believer, the good is an extension of the religious beliefs themselves, and of God, while the evil is humanity's perversion of those ideals. To a non-believer, the good that religion does is entirely man-made. So in my opinion, for example, if you took away religion, you'd still have all the good religion does (and it does a lot in some places), because it is people that are responsible for it. People would simply find different outlets for it other than a religious community.

Whereas the bad that religion is responsible for is largely due to the nature of faith. Faith is blind by its very definition, and encourages belief without evidence, or even in the face of evidence. It is self-fulfilling in that sense. And the deeper the faith, the better. Which is where fundamentalism comes in. So yes, an endorsement of faith by the rational majority does encourage fundamentalism to a large extent in the minority that it exists in (or majority in some parts of the world), because the advocation of faith in and of itself, in any form or degree, breeds such outcomes.

So when someone says "religion does more evil than good" it must be prefaced with this sort of explanation. Because on the surface, that statement is false. Religion is a strong force for good in the world. But if you remove it, the large portion of the good would remain, because it is human-driven, while it would eliminate the beliefs and practices that lead to the negative aspects of religion. It may be trite to say something like "there are no atheist suicide bombers, nor will there ever be," but it is a crude way of showing a valid point.

I'm with you on most of the basic points there. But I'd like to point out that people will find new outlets for evil just as easily as they find new outlets for good. Secondly there have been horrific acts of secular terrorism: Timothy McVeigh certainly didn't rationalize his attack with religious rhetoric and at Columbine it's believed that the two atheist shooters specifically targeted some Christian students.

Da Pittman
No one religion or group holds any moral superiority over another be it the belief in a god or not. Each group has done some horrible things in the past and will do so in the future. This may be a double standard but I would hold an Atheist more accountable for his actions then a person of faith. While a person of religion is still responsible for their own actions they must abide by the tenets of their faith as well, Atheist do not have that and it would fall to them with their own personal choice and judgment.

I also see this double standard when someone of faith commits an act of violence based off of their doctrine, many people would say that they are confused about the teachings were if an Atheist does something they say that they are just crazy.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm with you on most of the basic points there. But I'd like to point out that people will find new outlets for evil just as easily as they find new outlets for good. Secondly there have been horrific acts of secular terrorism: Timothy McVeigh certainly didn't rationalize his attack with religious rhetoric and at Columbine it's believed that the two atheist shooters specifically targeted some Christian students.

How many acts of secular terrorism have there been?
Also, is it quoted anywhere that they targeted those students?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Da Pittman
No one religion or group holds any moral superiority over another be it the belief in a god or not. Each group has done some horrible things in the past and will do so in the future. This may be a double standard but I would hold an Atheist more accountable for his actions then a person of faith. While a person of religion is still responsible for their own actions they must abide by the tenets of their faith as well, Atheist do not have that and it would fall to them with their own personal choice and judgment.

I also see this double standard when someone of faith commits an act of violence based off of their doctrine, many people would say that they are confused about the teachings were if an Atheist does something they say that they are just crazy.

It's always personal choice and judgement. I don't see why someone should get a moral pass, so to speak, for performing evil acts on behalf of a religious tenet.

The latter part is true, however. Saying they aren't following the true teachings is silly, because no one knows what the true interpretations are (if any exist, that is).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm with you on most of the basic points there. But I'd like to point out that people will find new outlets for evil just as easily as they find new outlets for good. Secondly there have been horrific acts of secular terrorism: Timothy McVeigh certainly didn't rationalize his attack with religious rhetoric and at Columbine it's believed that the two atheist shooters specifically targeted some Christian students.

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say religion is the sole source of evil. But given the nature of faith, and how it leads to fundamentalism and blind acts, I feel somewhat justified in holding the opinion that there would be less evil in the world if religion were gone from it, but it obviously wouldn't eradicate all evil.

Just as obviously, this is hypothetical. Religion isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Uhhhh I don't know about this "there will never be any athiest siucide bombers" thing. Im sure athiesm can be used to justify evil as well as religon can. People say athiests don't believe in anything and we have had this discussion before but im pretty sure bad athiests could use a non-belief in divine judgement as a justification for being evil.

Which is why I hesitated to use the phrase. Taken alone, it is a crude analogy. Taken in context with my point, it makes some sense.

Most morality is socially and culturally conditioned, and would exist irrelevant of religion. Religion plays a factor in peoples' morality, certainly. But when people ask an atheist the question "where do you get your morals from?" the answer is "the same place as you." Culturally accepted norms for proper practice. Religion causes slight deviations from this, but rarely major ones.

So yeah, anyone can find justification for evil. But take faith out of the equation, which actually promotes irrational belief without evidence, and can and does lead to irrational action as a consequence, and you'll find it far harder to justify acts of atrocity.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
How many acts of secular terrorism have there been?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Attacks by the IRA and INLA
The Columbine Massacre
The bombing of the Federal Building
Operation Satanic by the French
Unabomber
GRAPO is secular
The Shining Path is a known terrorist organization

There are plenty more. I'd like you to answer for all of them and defend why atheism should be allowed to exist in light of them.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Also, is it quoted anywhere that they targeted those students?

In various places, usually ones with agendas. We do know that the kids were not motivated by religion and thus murdered people as proud atheist or agnostics.



I'm with Digi on holding athiests and theists to different standards when it comes to doing terrible things. Arguing that "my faith says so" is not a valid way of explaining criminal actions. No one should get a let off just because motivations were religious, it's still a choice.

Da Pittman

Bardock42
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war. Though I appreciate your point that there's little difference.
The IRA and INLA were religious, or closely inspired by Religion.
Columbine Massacre was not an act of terrorism...quasi-terrorism at best.
Operation Satanique was not an act of terrorism


I don't really disagree with you, just find your choice of examples dishonest.


Oh, and the difference is, that even those you correctly identified never did it in the name of atheism. Did not state atheism as cause, and were often of mixed belief system. They were secular, but not necessary atheistic. And again... never "atheism told me to kill many people", but "Marx told me to kill many people, though I am ultimately undecided on whether there is a God or not and lean towards not, my atheism is NOT, I repeat NOT, the reason for my terroristic acts".

You do see the difference, right?

DigiMark007
Sym's line of thinking is a bit dangerous. If I understand the gist correctly, he's saying that any evil act that has been committed that isn't in the name of a religion is because of a person's atheism or agnosticism. Which is false. Most acts of good or evil have nothing to do with religion, but with the person themselves.

So framing such crimes as "atheist" crimes is only true if it was atheism that directly motivated the act, which is generally either completely false or we can't determine whether or not it was. If a person does something good, it's not because the're, say, a Christian but because they're good. Same with evil acts. Certainly religion does occasionally play a direct role in good/bad acts (like the fundamentalism mentioned earlier) but often it has nothing to do with it.

Besides, even such atrocities amount to anecdotes. Shall I list good things atheists have done, then say that all atheists are that way? Or all the evil religion has caused, and pretend that it's all that way? Neither would be true. Thus, neither is listing secular atrocities and attributing them directly to atheism.

{edit} bardock beat me to it. Similar point.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by DigiMark007

But take faith out of the equation, which actually promotes irrational belief without evidence, and can and does lead to irrational action as a consequence, and you'll find it far harder to justify acts of atrocity.

Nah because people will just believe in political or scientific principles irrationally. It wouldn't be harder.


Originally posted by Da Pittman

The difference as I see it is that Atheism doesn’t teach one thing over an other, it doesn’t have a set of rules or values that are set other than your own personal morals. To be a good person of faith you must believe and follow the views and morals set forth by the doctrine, while some do not follow everything that their religion says some would say that you are not following the religion. I have issues when people say they are of a particular faith and do not believe everything and follow it; I see them as “posers” and just like to be called whatever to fall into a group.

Not beliving in God can cause you to have certain beliefs so you can argue that beliefs do stem from athiesm.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Nah because people will just believe in political or scientific principles irrationally.

Which wouldn't lead to the same evil, because political ideologies and scientific principles aren't dealing with eternal life, eternal damnation for not adhering, supposedly infallible doctrines, teachings, and edicts, and blind adherence to things without evidence.

I conceded that people can justify evil in a variety of ways. But you're acting like the delirious faith that religion inspires could be matched by other avenues of life. The nature of religion's subject material, and its subsequent affect on people, ensures that you're wrong.

Symmetric Chaos

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm reversing the argument that because there are a few nutcases in every group one has an argument against the group. Atheism does not save anyone from terrorism because atheists can be and have been terrorists. This is the problem I have with people who say Catholicism is evil because of the Crusades or Inquisition. Hell I was once accused of believing in the doctrine of Total Depravity and various crimes committed by Calvinists simply because I mentioned being brought up in the reform Presbyterian tradition (a reformed reformed reform Calvinist tradition from 400 years after the Calvinists). My point is that you cannot use the actions of individuals as a reason for religion being a bad thing until you answer for equivalent crimes perpetrated by your own side.

Obviously I don't think atheism makes people evil. I just don't think that religion makes people evil either and the double standard I see applied to horrible things done on each side disturbs me. I agree that Religion doesn't make people evil.

I think that Religion gives a valid social justification to evil people though...so far even as to rever them.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm reversing the argument that because there are a few nutcases in every group one has an argument against the group. Atheism does not save anyone from terrorism because atheists can be and have been terrorists. This is the problem I have with people who say Catholicism is evil because of the Crusades or Inquisition. Hell I was once accused of believing in the doctrine of Total Depravity and various crimes committed by Calvinists simply because I mentioned being brought up in the reform Presbyterian tradition (a reformed reformed reform Calvinist tradition from 400 years after the Calvinists). My point is that you cannot use the actions of individuals as a reason for religion being a bad thing until you answer for equivalent crimes perpetrated by your own side.

Obviously I don't think atheism makes people evil. I just don't think that religion makes people evil either and the double standard I see applied to horrible things done on each side disturbs me.

But that was never our point. Though, granted, it may be the point of others.

For example:

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Besides, even such atrocities amount to anecdotes. Shall I list good things atheists have done, then say that all atheists are that way? Or all the evil religion has caused, and pretend that it's all that way? Neither would be true. Thus, neither is listing secular atrocities and attributing them directly to atheism.

No one's pointing to a few incidents and generalizing about all religion. At least not that I've seen in this thread.

Most good/evil are because the person is good or evil, not because of the religion. Religion is used as a tool to focus those attributes. But the original, and I think current, point is that religion causes more bad than good because of faith's ability to push people irrationally past a point that they would otherwise go. No other human endeavor does that with such regularity. And because the good is human-made and would exist in another form outside of religion.

Evil isn't an attribute of a religion, or of non-religion. It's a human attribute. It will always be around, as will "good." As such, religion is a great force for BOTH good and evil, because the people involved with it are both things. But it inspires evil that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that Religion doesn't make people even.

I think that Religion gives a valid social justification to evil people though...so far even as to rever them.

Indeed, Stalin managed the same thing though (but to be fair he had to outlaw religion first). It's reasonable to say that religion has and does facilitate evil people, but I don't see why we should think that those people would somehow be thwarted by lack of religious institutions.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Indeed, Stalin managed the same thing though (but to be fair he had to outlaw religion first). It's reasonable to say that religion has and does facilitate evil people, but I don't see why we should think that those people would somehow be thwarted by lack of religious institutions.

Again, I believe they wouldn't have the same magnitude. They'd focus their evil on kicking a dog once in a while, instead of killing 50 people and getting their dick sucked as heroes.

And, I don't think banning is the right thing to do, but using the influence of the Religion to you know...tell people not to be wankers...like for examplen the catholic church nowadays tries, and slightly fails, to do.

inimalist
terrorism was essentially invented by Russian and Spanish anarchists, who were largely not religious

The Haymarket incident in Chicago could probably stand as "a single instance of secular terrorism"

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Which wouldn't lead to the same evil, because political ideologies and scientific principles aren't dealing with eternal life, eternal damnation for not adhering, supposedly infallible doctrines, teachings, and edicts, and blind adherence to things without evidence.

I conceded that people can justify evil in a variety of ways. But you're acting like the delirious faith that religion inspires could be matched by other avenues of life. The nature of religion's subject material, and its subsequent affect on people, ensures that you're wrong.

I really don't know about that. Nazi sympathisers are just as irrational as religous fundamentalists. In fact it can be argued that they are more irrational and more dangerous. You also assuming that everyone who uses religon as a justification for evil actually believes in at all.

Da Pittman
Anyone that denies my right to rule the world is evil and must be destroyed evil face stick out tongue

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I really don't know about that. Nazi sympathisers are just as irrational as religous fundamentalists. In fact it can be argued that they are more irrational and more dangerous. You also assuming that everyone who uses religon as a justification for evil actually believes in at all.

Anecdotes. I've never made the argument that evil would go away, or that there wouldn't be irrational evil, which is the only thing those points would prove wrong. There would still be evil. But there would be less, due to humanity's reluctance to give up their entire mind and body to a cause that is anything less that what religion promises (eternal rewards, communion with God, etc.). It would still happen, but on a smaller scale, since "perfect storms" of cultural poverty mixed with xenophobia like Nazi Germany will turn bad regardless of the religious circumstances surrounding it.

inimalist
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But the original, and I think current, point is that religion causes more bad than good because of faith's ability to push people irrationally past a point that they would otherwise go.

There is very strong evidence that people who are religious are happier, live longer, have stronger social networks and thus social safety nets, have more well behaved kids, etc...

EDIT: The vast majority of assault and violent crime, I'm guessing, is not religiously motivated. Clearly religion is not unique in its ability to "make people do bad things" (because we aren't responsible for our own actions)

Da Pittman
Originally posted by inimalist
There is very strong evidence that people who are religious are happier, live longer, have stronger social networks and thus social safety nets, have more well behaved kids, etc... I have never really bought into that it is religion that does that but more of a state of belonging to something other than the religion it self.

inimalist
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I have never really bought into that it is religion that does that but more of a state of belonging to something other than the religion it self.

indeed

I don't think it is supernatural at all. Yet, there are few, if any, similar secular or "atheistic" institutions that fill that same role for people.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Anecdotes. I've never made the argument that evil would go away, or that there wouldn't be irrational evil, which is the only thing those points would prove wrong. There would still be evil. But there would be less, due to humanity's reluctance to give up their entire mind and body to a cause that is anything less that what religion promises (eternal rewards, communion with God, etc.).


*sigh* I knew you would assume I don't understand your point. I didn't say that you said evil would go away and I didn't think that was your point. Theres no need to highlight less because I got that point the first time.


Originally posted by DigiMark007

It would still happen, but on a smaller scale, since "perfect storms" of cultural poverty mixed with xenophobia like Nazi Germany will turn bad regardless of the religious circumstances surrounding it.

Yes we both agree that there would still be evil. What im disagreeing on is that without religon things would be better. Stating that Nazi Germany would have happened without religon doesn't prove your point either. So what do you consider to be evidence that there would be less evil without religon?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
So what do you consider to be evidence that there would be less evil without religon?

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.

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.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by inimalist
There is very strong evidence that people who are religious are happier, live longer, have stronger social networks and thus social safety nets, have more well behaved kids, etc...

EDIT: The vast majority of assault and violent crime, I'm guessing, is not religiously motivated. Clearly religion is not unique in its ability to "make people do bad things" (because we aren't responsible for our own actions)

For the latter, no, religion isn't unique in that sense. I never claimed it was. Most good/evil is because of the person's disposition, and has nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

As for evidence that religious people are happier, etc. I'd be interested to see the studies that were done. My first reaction is that there aren't enough atheists in a given area to form an accurate control group to compare it against. Or that it might be due to the fact that they aren't as socially accepted, not because atheism is inherently less "happy." It would make sense to me that minorities of any sort would be slightly more prone to such problems than whatever is accepted as mainstream.

Null ARC Avis
I agree with Digimark007 completely.
Also, just to add a little humor to this, watch the 2 part South Park special "Go God Go". It is a funny take on the world without religion.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
I agree with Digimark007 completely.
Also, just to add a little humor to this, watch the 2 part South Park special "Go God Go". It is a funny take on the world without religion.

Is that the one where science becomes the new religion?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Is that the one where science becomes the new religion?

Which is a humorous episode, but not really feasible. Science promotes provisional truths based on repeated experimental testing. It doesn't deal in morals, absolutes, and blind faith.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Which is a humorous episode, but not really feasible. Science promotes provisional truths based on repeated experimental testing. It doesn't deal in morals, absolutes, and blind faith.

Sadly that doesn't describe people, which is the point. It doesn't matter what reasons there are or aren't for fighting, people will come up with something to blindly follow.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sadly that doesn't describe people, which is the point. It doesn't matter what reasons there are or aren't for fighting, people will come up with something to blindly follow.

Perhaps, but we're starting to go in circles now, because I'm about to make the point that faith in a God that promises eternal rewards inspires far greater blind adherence (both in number and degree) than other forces ever could, because they don't hold the same import.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Perhaps, but we're starting to go in circles now, because I'm about to make the point that faith in a God that promises eternal rewards inspires far greater blind adherence (both in number and degree) than other forces ever could, because they don't hold the same import.

My faith isn't blind...in the sense that I doubt it all the time...though I suppose it is in the sense that I have never lost faith...

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
My faith isn't blind...in the sense that I doubt it all the time...though I suppose it is in the sense that I have never lost faith...

It's blind in the sense that you don't have evidence in the form of sensory perception, empirical testing, or in some cases even logic to support most or all of what you believe. Nearly all belief in paranormal phenomenon is the same way: lacking evidence, and based on faith. Questioning one's belief doesn't mean it isn't blind.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Perhaps, but we're starting to go in circles now, because I'm about to make the point that faith in a God that promises eternal rewards inspires far greater blind adherence (both in number and degree) than other forces ever could, because they don't hold the same import.

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.

Da Pittman
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. Like Spongebob eek!

Grand-Moff-Gav

Null ARC Avis
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. 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.

Grand-Moff-Gav
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.)

Shakyamunison
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.

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

Grand-Moff-Gav
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.)

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.)

DigiMark007

Grand-Moff-Gav
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..

Symmetric Chaos
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.

Symmetric Chaos
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.

Phantom Zone
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.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>