Thread: Religion As A Whole

Originally Posted by Hominus

Lets go ahead and compare the pros and cons of religion (not just christianity).

Pros: art, some forms of science, humanitarian projects funded by churches, a reason to be moral (questionable), good messages (the bible and koran), and "good for the human psyche"

Cons: (this includes people that died IN THE NAME OF RELIGION)
The christian persecution by rome, the holocaust and rise of the nazis, the crusades (MILLIONS of christians and muslims died in the several wars), the Irish potato famine (perpetuated by the english as an attempt to "exterminate" irish catholics), catholic torturing and murder in the basement of churches by protestants in england, and finally, jihad. There are also HUNDREDS of smaller instances where just a few thousand died, which really arent worth mentioning.

So, i leave it to you. Has religion ended more lives than it has saved?

It sure looks that way to me.
[/b]

Keep in mind that in most cases, so called religious doctrine is nothing but a interpretation of wisdom, that lacks wisdom. The feeble and narrow cannot fathom the wise...

uh........what?

I get what you mean but it doesnt pertain to the subject at hand.

RELIGION IS DANGEROUS AND IT MUST BE ENDED

Hominus, you will enjoy Sam Harris. He has written an amazing book called "The End of Faith". He is coming out with a new book called "Letter to a Christian Nation" on September 19 I believe.

Watch this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...arris&hl=en

Shortened version (more entertaining):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM

Also check out Richard Dawkins documentaries on youtube called "Root of All Evil". They should be labeled so watch them in order.

thanks manifold. I watched the whole thing and all i have to say is DAMN!!!!
i could not have explained it better myself.

i could not have explained it better myself.[/b]

...and the sky is blue.



i used to always think it was about equal the pros and cons of religion looking at historical impact. but the more I learn the worse the invention of religion seems to be...of course im only looking at organized religion and everyone knows all institutions become corrupt. If religions just had some leaders we could get(trick) ppl to get behind extremely ground breaking things to help poverty aids etc...imagine the Vatican Company selling all their art, land etc...and donating the billions of dollars to something? Or propogating jesus' socialist messages of helping the poor...religious people may one day actualy be worth something and not the absolutely useless "vertical-christians" most are now and instead learn "horizontal-christianity".

It's hard to say as for the whole world. But I would eat broken glass for ten years to turn the Middle East atheist. Can you imagine how much better off the world would be if everybody in the Middle East suddenly came to the conclusion that there is no God? Is there a way to do that, even in theory?

Well, this is a huge question. It definitely seems that you are taking a glass is half empty approach to it. Being a pessimist myself, I can relate to what you are saying. However, Religion has done great things for a great many people. Simply by providing comfort to it's followers that everything is allright. Giving people something to turn to when they have lost everything. Giving people a sense of purpose. Those are not measurable, but those are huge for people.

There have also been many atrocities committed in the name of religion. It is an institution and is just as succeptable to corruption as any other institution. The problem is that the stakes are much higher. The limits can be pushed further when eternity is on the line.

Which religion is the right one? Everyone can't be right and in my mind, that is the biggest problem. How can you tell who is right and who is wrong? If we knew the right one, perhaps those atrocities would be justified? The sad thing is that we may never know who is right and who is wrong. And in this day and age, it is increasingly difficult to just take things on a matter of faith.

Originally Posted by Hominus

Lets go ahead and compare the pros and cons of religion (not just christianity).

Pros: art, some forms of science, humanitarian projects funded by churches, a reason to be moral (questionable), good messages (the bible and koran), and "good for the human psyche"

[/b]

You are forgetting that Religion is not just the tinsel and adornments of Civilization but the very moral principles that make Civilization possible.

Without Religion, we can only have barbarism.

Just look at the Crime Syndicates coming out of Godless Eastern Europe and the Old Soviet Union. Educated in Materialism from the crib, these people are without Religion, and also without Morals. Having destroyed their own Civilization, now they emigrate to the West to do their best at destroying another.

Also, one needs to evaluate some of the cruelties that have been attributed to Religion for civil utilities they may have performed. For instance, did not the Crusades throw out a buffer between Europe and the invading Mongols and Turks? Certainly. Every other Civilization, including the Muslim Caliphate, was swept under by the Mongols and again by the Turks. Why else would the Muslims today be so backward, when in the 11th Century they had been so much ahead, but that the Barbarians from the East deposed Civilization and asserted Barbarism. Well, Europe, with a Religion that was able to summon a greater Unity was able to defend itself. The same case can be made for Spain. If Spain had had a strong Islamic and Jewish nest of subversives ready to give up the City Gates and open the roads to the Turkish Sultan, well, all of Europe might have been lost to those same people that swept aside Civilization all over the rest of the World, and Europe today would be one huge Afghanistan of warring tribes. We must keep in mind how ruthless Barbarism is, and what an incentive these ruthless predators have -- stealing one of Civilizations Golden Candlesticks would certainly make them rich, and among those with no morals, the blood of strangers is beneath consideration.


What nearly every atheist points out is that they are moral, and so they infer that Morality is a quality of Atheism. Really. Even such a trenchant Atheist as Bertrand Russell recognized that Morality has no separate existence from Religion, though it may linger in a Societies Traditions and Customs, as a kind of moral inertia. People, after they have disgarded Religion, are Moral, for a while, out of habit. But every Generation loses a little more. Every Generation can see the losses.

Now, yes, some Religions are better than others. Why? Well, we must consider how far removed any modern Religion is from the Model Religion that founded that first generation of Civilizations -- the Religion that invented Morality and Social Unity. These were Goddess Religions.

Now, if the Bird Flu would only strike down all the Catholic Popes, Cardinals and Bishops -- All the Disciples of Paul, and leave only the Religious Orders loyal to the Goddess Mary the Blessed Virgin, then perhaps we would see an entire rejuvenation of both Religion and Civilization.

Originally Posted by Leo

You are forgetting that Religion is not just the tinsel and adornments of Civilization but the very moral principles that make Civilization possible.

Without Religion, we can only have barbarism.[/b]

You know, I could respond in turn and rant about all of the good things that atheism has done and all the bad things religion has - but it would be completely missing the point.

Througouty the history of civilisation some religious people have been moral - so have some atheists. And both have certainly had their share of immorality.

Throughout history and accross every different culture and belief system we have people acting moral, while in the exact same time/place people with the same beliefs act immoral.

What should these things tell you? Religion is not the determining factor of morality. Morality does make civlilisation possible. But it can exist seperate from religion.

Leo, you made a comment that morals are getting worse over the years.
What you have to realize is that "morals" are subjective

40 years ago it was considered "immoral" to sit next to a female or hold her hand. The had "love seats" to get rid of this problem.

At one point just having sexual thoughts was considered a sin and immoral.

Our views change on certain issues and it sticks with humanity. Children, especially teenagers, do "immoral" things to rebel against their parents. But when the kid grows up, the desensitized attitudes stay with him. Then the immoral things loose their meaning.

Does that mean that certain things that are considered OK arent immoral. No. But that doesnt mean that certain things that were considered immoral in the first place arent necessarily a bad thing.

As for barbarism. You are probably right. What keeps us from being moral when there isnt an invisible supreme being that can send us to hell for eternity? You are moral out of FEAR, not love.

But people die all the time from violence that stems from non-religious concepts and desires.

Religion sometimes serves as justification for violence, but violence is never, IMO, actually the direct result of religion.

It usually works somewhat like this:
1. Group A has some resource that Group B wants or that threatens Group B in some way.
2. Group B dehumanizes Group A through religion, moral standards, living styles, etc.
3. Group B attacks Group A because they are all barbarians, incapable of developing a good society that will uphold true morals, the right religion, and correct lifestyles.
4. You end up with a "holy war" or other persecutions where the people on both sides are convinced, at least on the surface, that they're attacking and being attacked purely for religious/moral reasons, when in reality, the religious/moral reasons are simply a justification for doing something else.

Persecutions happen when a person or group of people refuse to go along with the ruling class's verdicts, rules, laws, morals, etc. If you have a new king who says all of his subjects must pay taxes to him, go to his new church and give them money, as well as be off the streets by midnight, a person who disobeys any of the decrees will get in trouble... not for religious reasons, but because they're disobeying the law.

My point is that most times that religious persecutions occur, they're not simply based upon religious differences. They very often, if not always, can be traced to some other reason like jealousy, fear, control, uniformity, revenge, etc.

I think the problem with discussing or making conclusions on religion "as a whole" is that religion varies dramatically in the crazy things it does. You can't just go out and say ha ha, religion is stupid!, because while, say, some Muslims (although this should be obvious to anyone who isn't looking for a cheap fight, I'm not picking on Muslims in particular) might go out and try to kill people or do radically different things from other Muslims.

Some religious people just believe in something that, I'm sorry if this comes as a shock, but you're going to have a hard time proving to be either true or false (has anyone tried observing God with any success recently?) and don't care if you also believe. Some people will go and try to actively convert you. Some religions make a point of trying to convert others, but you could argue that point was instated by not so much the word of God as it was a slightly corrupt Church or something like that. Either way, in most cases, I expect God would forgive you.

For every guy that wants to kill you there's another hundred believers who just get on with their beliefs and cause no trouble to you as a person at all. So apart from making judgements on religion 'as a whole' (and falling into the trap of pointing at the most vocal factions for your judgement, even if they're the minority) being a pretty hard thing to do, I would say that people who do make those judgements are probably only a shade better than those radical believers.

You are forgetting that Religion is not just the tinsel and adornments of Civilization but the very moral principles that make Civilization possible.

Without Religion, we can only have barbarism.[/b]

I think Volont is probably right here. Spon's got a point too, though - as we progress, religion's primary point (the scaffolding for our, once upon a time, very rough morals) is beginning to look a bit flaky. We can make judgements about moral issues without having to turn to the Bible anymore. I like to think that religion was an absolutely huge player in the first foundations of morals, though. Back in old times, the idea of burning in Hell if you killed somebody might have felt a lot more real. And situations were a lot more desperate. I think it was an efficent way to keep everyone in some order (or an efficent tool of opression, if you're feeling more radical-crazy today).

But it is all TIED to religion. Extremists are acting on THEIR religious beliefs, so they are all connected. Their motives are still religious

But it is all TIED to religion. Extremists are acting on THEIR religious beliefs, so they are all connected. Their motives are still religious[/b]

Peckers up, Philosphy students, I'm about to use my pathetic excuse for a "1. A, 2. B, 3. Conclusion" sort of structure. Anyway, the connection, boiled down to its base, is:

1. One guy, A, wants to kill you.
2. Another guy, B, does not want to kill you.
3. A and B both share something in common that is not related to killing people - believing in God, being scientists, going to chess club etc.
4. Therefore A = B? Therefore what A and B share must be bad?

What? I'm not following.

3. A and B both share something in common that is not related to killing people - believing in God, being scientists, going to chess club etc.[/b]

What about the sub-factor of whether A is a homocidal nutcase(1), or has a justified reason to kill you(2).

If (A=1)
. then (is A forgiven?)
else if (A=2)
. then (is killing ok?)
loop while (Under God's law = man shall not kill man)
If (A1 or A2 belief in God = Null)
. then (religion = pointless)
. You = in danger

i say we tell relgion to shut it's hole or else well kick it in the NUTZ!!!!!!!!!

Well I don't know if we should go that far. I mean, the word religion istelf appears to be a bit more complex than we think.

Look, I think everyone has their own "faith", even not beleiving in anything is a faith, as in: faith in believing there is no other force out there but the will of ourselves.

There wouldn't be a problem with any religion if only people would just be proud of their own beliefs and not fell the need or obligation to "convert" others. That's when the shit starts. Everytime I drive down my street and see them freakin Jehova witnesses I just get irritated. Dudes, sit in your own little church and pray all you want - just leave me the fuck alone. If I feel the need to be "saved", I'll stop by and hang out a while.

If (A=1)
. then (is A forgiven?)
else if (A=2)
. then (is killing ok?)
loop while (Under God's law = man shall not kill man)
If (A1 or A2 belief in God = Null)
. then (religion = pointless)
. You = in danger
[/b]

I like that, good explination lol

What about the sub-factor of whether A is a homocidal nutcase(1), or has a justified reason to kill you(2).[/b]

Damn. I didn't think of that.

I want to get back to Leo's point that religion is the only reason morals exist. I have countered that point many times, and he runs for the hills every time I counter it or any of his other points. So I will just talk about him in third person so everybody can see what he just did. He admitted that if it were not for his religion, he would not be moral. He would have no reason not to rape women and shoot people for money if he did not have a belief about an invisible hero in the sky. That is what kind of person Leo is. I am an atheist, and I have reasons to be moral. I have a conscience, which is a biological function just like hunger, thirst, and sex drive. Pain over causing pain for the innocent is deeply rooted and not a mere fear of getting in trouble. Conscience is the basis of sincere morals. Religion is the basis of obeying rules you think are being enforced by something not perceived. Anybody who says that religion is the only basis of morals is clearly, and indirectly admittedly, a sociopath who happens to believe in God. And for those of you who don't know already, Leo once started a thread in defense of pedophilia, saying that it is a good thing because it allows children to "get theirs early". That is one religion's version of morals. I think conscience is much more effective and far less dangerous.

Here is an interesting read from someone who depends completely on religion for "morals"...

Originally Posted by Leo

But Sex is either beautiful or its not. Wonderful or its not. But that is not what we hear. Especially regarding Pedophilia. When have we ever heard that we should be counseling the victims that sex is beautiful and that they should be proud and happy that they are getting theirs early. We are so worried that the victims of pedophilia will be forever damaged with guilt and shame. Well, that hadn’t been a problem for them before they were caught and exposed, was it? What guilt? What shame? Were they not as carefree as little monkeys? Indeed, the little tikes were quite okay with it before they were given the mixed message that sex is beautiful everywhere else except when it is done with them, when it all at once becomes a criminal perversion. We tell them as we put their sex partner in prison, that it is nothing for they themselves to be ashamed of. We send them to Psychiatrists so they won’t be damaged for like and be forever ashamed of what they obviously were not ashamed of before Society caught them at it. Huh? It’s the mixed messages that screw them up.
The same argument applies to all criminalized sex. If it is so wonderful and beautiful then why is it so severely criminalized in some instances.

[/b]

I invite you to look at the initial post in the "Sex is dirty" thread and see for yourself that he really did write that.

rape is criminalized sex. Is leo saying thats ok?

I for one think that leo is a pedophile.

Originally Posted by Hominus

rape is criminalized sex. Is leo saying thats ok?

I for one think that leo is a pedophile.
[/b]

Religion has not helped his views on the dichotomy between rape and consentual sex...

Originally Posted by Hominus

Sex is Dirty
Should we not try for some consistency in our thoughts. But we rarely see any consistency when we speak of sex. From the same people we must hear half the time that sex is wonderful, beautiful, and oh so fulfilling… that is them considering their own sexual experiences. But then, the other half of the time, we have to hear about sex as a criminal perversion – that is the sex acts of homosexuals, pedophiles, rapers, etc.
But Sex is either beautiful or its not. Wonderful or its not. But that is not what we hear. [/b]

Originally Posted by Hominus

rape is criminalized sex. Is leo saying thats ok?

I for one think that leo is a pedophile.
[/b]

I am saying that all sex is equal.

A Spiritualist would say that all sex is bad.

You perverts SHOULD say that all sex is good, but you resort to the illogical inconsistency which says that the sex you have is GOOD, and the sex that other people have is BAD.

You people let your dicks do your thinking for you.

Originally Posted by Hominus

Througouty the history of civilisation some religious people have been moral - so have some atheists.

[/b]

Actually such a proposition cannot survive as a generality. If one actually studies History, then one is horrified at the usual behavior of Atheists.

Stupid thoughtless people are complete idiots for somehow equating the moral behavior and social inhabitions of Religious People with the unrestrained selfishness of a profound Atheist.

I wish people would just do a little bit of reading, or get out just for a little bit into the real world, and they would stop making such ridiculous an entirely unreal statements.

Originally Posted by Hominus

What you have to realize is that "morals" are subjective


[/b]

You need to be raped up the ass ... right after somebody steals your car.

Then you can see how subjective that feels.

Originally Posted by Hominus

I think Volont is probably right here. Spon's got a point too, though - as we progress, religion's primary point (the scaffolding for our, once upon a time, very rough morals) is beginning to look a bit flaky. We can make judgements about moral issues without having to turn to the Bible anymore. I like to think that religion was an absolutely huge player in the first foundations of morals, though. Back in old times, the idea of burning in Hell if you killed somebody might have felt a lot more real. And situations were a lot more desperate. I think it was an efficent way to keep everyone in some order (or an efficent tool of opression, if you're feeling more radical-crazy today).

[/b]

thank you for your limited endorcment.

However, without Religion, people have no DUTY to Morality. Morality becomes a matter of convenience.

People are able to discern what is Right and what is Wrong, but without Religious Duty, people are as likely to do what is Wrong, if they suppose they might not be caught, if they think they can go undetected.

For example -- Cheating. Most Students NOW will cheat on a test if they are convinced that they will not be caught. The Military Schools that used to pride themselves on Honor Codes have had to give up on such idealist notions -- without monitoring, they all cheat like hell. They did a study with Marines. Left alone without a Monitor ALL Tests come back with IDENTICAL answers -- all the same right and all the same wrong. EVERYBODY had cheated.

Now these people KNOW right from wrong. But without being convinced of Religious Duty -- they simply don't care... not enough to suffer the least bit of inconvenience.

Originally Posted by Leo

Hominous:rape is criminalized sex. Is leo saying thats ok?

Leo:I am saying that all sex is equal.

A Spiritualist would say that all sex is bad.

You perverts SHOULD say that all sex is good, but you resort to the illogical inconsistency which says that the sex you have is GOOD, and the sex that other people have is BAD.[/b]

What you fail to realise that the the circumstances of the sexual act are the moral actions, not the act itself. The act of having sex is amoral. The act of having sex with a consenting adult is good. The act of having sex with someone unconsenting, or a minor, is bad. There's no illogical inconsistency here, there's just a lack of understanding on your part due to your catholic need to label sex as a moral act.

spoon:Througout the history of civilisation some religious people have been moral - so have some atheists.

leo:Actually such a proposition cannot survive as a generality. If one actually studies History, then one is horrified at the usual behavior of Atheists.

Stupid thoughtless people are complete idiots for somehow equating the moral behavior and social inhabitions of Religious People with the unrestrained selfishness of a profound Atheist.

I wish people would just do a little bit of reading, or get out just for a little bit into the real world, and they would stop making such ridiculous an entirely unreal statements.[/b]

The "usual behaviour of atheists", what a joke. There is no usual behaviour of atheists, just as there is no usual behaviour of religious people. Atheists aren't even featured for most of history, how the fuck can you extrapolate a "usual behaviour" from the little time it has not been persecuted? Before you jump in with examples of communism or whatever, at least try to identify variables having more impact on their behaviour than atheism (for example communism).

The "usual behaviour of atheists" does not exist, the same as there is no usual behaviour of religious people. Sure I could point out that atrocities committed in the name of religion over the last 3 millennia - just the same as you could point out the atrocities done by atheists, what... 90 years? But it would completely be missing my point that - sure, atheists have done bad things - so have religious people; religious people have done good things - so have atheists; religion is not necessary for morality.

Do you know what is necessary for morality? Humanity. Which leads into your next misunderstanding:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("leo")</div>

However, without Religion, people have no DUTY to Morality. Morality becomes a matter of convenience. [/b]

Funnily enough morality has never been a matter of convenience, except in the tedious "moral rules" of religion (see leviticus for countless examples). But that is beside the point - morality is a matter of survival (whether you are religious or atheist). Morality is, and has always been, a product of biological and social evolution that allows large groups of people to work together in close proximity. When we discovered, as a race, that you could store food instead of just catching/growing what you needed each day - it became necessary for societies to live in close proximity and share good and services. Societies that did this better survived, and morality allowed societies to get better and better at living together.

One thing that I know I&#39;ve mentioned a few times before, but I guess you&#39;ve ignored - all societies have morality. All of these moral societies do not share a religion (or even a similar religion). Now, lets assume for the sake of argument that you&#39;re right and religion is needed for morality. All of these socieities&#39; morals are based off of their respective religions. Since you don&#39;t (and can&#39;t) accept all of those religions - then you must concede that there are some societies following rules based on a religion which is false. If a society can be moral with a false religion, then religion is not needed to be moral. Which proves the assumption false. Another one of those &#39;Reductio ad absurdums&#39; you don&#39;t seem to hold in high regard.

Morality is seperate to religion.