Thread: Natural Disasters (ie. Chile) =/= Religion

"Tell us how you really feel".

I think your outrage is fueled by your absolutist attitude. You fail to see that individuals do these things and instead blame all religion (not even just the religions held by the people doing it!) Anger and frustration come quickly in such a black and white world view. Your view is so one sided that you've been able to convince yourself that all religions condone rape and murder. Can you really not see how ridiculous that statement is? Why is it that you are allowed to be an individual who believes and acts for yourself but all people who follow religion are necessarily acting in concert and therefore must all believe and act the same? How is your belief different from the belief that all atheists promote genocide because Stalin or Mao did?

Religion has done none of the things you named. People may have done those things. You should take it up with those people.

What makes me want to smack people is when a child is found alive under rubble after a week and they declare it a 'miracle'.

It's the most idiotic, retarded thing I've ever heard. If I went into a large building and sealed all of the exists before shooting everybody inside save for one child who was there with his parents, I guess that would make me a benevolent miracle worker too.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think your outrage is fueled by your absolutist attitude.

You seem quick to be prejudice.

You fail to see that individuals do these things and instead blame all religion (not even just the religions held by the people doing it!) Anger and frustration come quickly in such a black and white world view. Your view is so one sided that you've been able to convince yourself that all religions condone rape and murder.

Of course I do not think that all religions condone it. Many do, arguably all. This is why I said that. Please do not exaggerate something I am not meaning to argue at all.

If you are so certain that my view is one sided; please, do tell me, what is my view? I am not so sure what it is that I am expressing here other than rude integration of ideologies when they are unnecessary.

Can you really not see how ridiculous that statement is? Why is it that you are allowed to be an individual who believes and acts for yourself but all people who follow religion are necessarily acting in concert and therefore must all believe and act the same?

Oh? Do you think it would be appropriate if I come to your funeral and preach my beliefs that are not yours?

Do you condone pontificating opposing beliefs unto others at inappropriate times? What reasonable good is there in this?

How is your belief different from the belief that all atheists promote genocide because Stalin or Mao did?

I see, so you are prejudice.

If you knew anything about me, before making such statements, you'd know that I have labelled myself an Atheist only implicitly of my appropriate label of Humanistic Existentialist.

First of all, Stalin or Mao did not do those things because they were Atheist.

Secondly, even if you somehow show that they did, I am a Humanist. There is no context that Humanism would ever promote such atrocities. I challenge you to demonstrate it.

Religion has done none of the things you named. People may have done those things. You should take it up with those people.

Those people act under a religion. Their individuality is null and void. Any individual discretions will be directed to a "more qualified" debator.

You think I have not taken it upon myself to speak with these people? Do you think I am a person that avoids debate? Truly now?

What do you think these people say when I, even politely, ask them to take their preaching elsewhere?

Please, be more insightful and less prejudice.

~

"Religion has done none of the things you named. People may have done those things. You should take it up with those people."

I'm sorry but can you explain the logic behind such a statement. I don't just blame Hitler for the treatment of minorities in Nazi Germany, I blame the Nazi ideology. Surely you do the same?

I think, that if we put our minds to it, we can use your argument for everything. War fuelled by imperialism; blame people. Yes, but also blame the system that suggests that some races are superior to others.

Originally Posted by imran_p

"Religion has done none of the things you named. People may have done those things. You should take it up with those people."

I'm sorry but can you explain the logic behind such a statement. I don't just blame Hitler for the treatment of minorities in Nazi Germany, I blame the Nazi ideology. Surely you do the same?

I think, that if we put our minds to it, we can use your argument for everything. War fuelled by imperialism; blame people. Yes, but also blame the system that suggests that some races are superior to others.

Please name the religious system that advocates;

stealing money out of charities going for those in need

denigrating research, education, and the individual rights of others

explicit murder and rape

pontificating that every mundane event, and every miraculous event, must prove God

If you ever come across such a religious system, the next step would be to realize that even this fancifully absurd religion still does not represent all of religion.

If we were to properly apply your analogy, then we should say that we shouldn't be blaming Hitler for the atrocities in Nazi Germany, we should be blaming All Government.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You seem quick to be prejudice.



Of course I do not think that all religions condone it. Many do, arguably all. This is why I said that. Please do not exaggerate something I am not meaning to argue at all.

If you are so certain that my view is one sided; please, do tell me, what is my view? I am not so sure what it is that I am expressing here other than rude integration of ideologies when they are unnecessary.



Oh? Do you think it would be appropriate if I come to your funeral and preach my beliefs that are not yours?

Do you condone pontificating opposing beliefs unto others at inappropriate times? What reasonable good is there in this?



I see, so you are prejudice.

If you knew anything about me, before making such statements, you'd know that I have labelled myself an Atheist only implicitly of my appropriate label of Humanistic Existentialist.

First of all, Stalin or Mao did not do those things because they were Atheist.

Secondly, even if you somehow show that they did, I am a Humanist. There is no context that Humanism would ever promote such atrocities. I challenge you to demonstrate it.



Those people act under a religion. Their individuality is null and void. Any individual discretions will be directed to a "more qualified" debator.

You think I have not taken it upon myself to speak with these people? Do you think I am a person that avoids debate? Truly now?

What do you think these people say when I, even politely, ask them to take their preaching elsewhere?

Please, be more insightful and less prejudice.

~

O'nus, I'm not going to break down your post. I know where that leads. I do not hold a prejudiced opinion of you. I hold an opinion that has taken years to develop. Whats more, you made it perfectly clear what type of person you are by stating that it is arguable that All Religions condone Rape and Murder. Perhaps some do, but to say that it is arguable that all do... all I can say is, try. Try to argue that point and we shall see if it is arguable.

I made the reference to Stalin and Mao to show how ridiculous you are being, not to compare you personally to people who have committed genocide.

I think it is incredibly rude for someone to try to force their beliefs onto someone else. I think it is heartless and selfish to try to turn tragedy to one's own ends. I think it is irresponsible and lazy to leave the events around oneself up to god; to say "this good happened because of god" or "this bad happened because of god". I believe a lot of the same things you do.

I just don't try to lump roughly 80% of the population of the entire Earth into one category and then come up with a list of shit that they are all supposedly doing. I recognize that there are different religions with different beliefs, different adherents, different interpretations, different ideologies, and many many many different people who each act differently when representing their own particular religion.

I have to say that I am nothing more than disappointed that you would choose to believe that all of religion does these things that you don't like and then have the audacity to call me prejudiced. For you to essentially call me a rapist and a murderer, or at least arguably someone who condones those things because I am religious and then ask me to be more insightful and less prejudiced. I believe that is when you crossed the line between someone I have respectfully disagreed with for several years now and someone I no longer have any time for.

Think I'll go find one of those videos and remind everyone that this is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As a Christian, I don't see God in natural disasters on Earth. I see him when he comforts the families and accepts their beloved into Heaven. You know what I mean?

O'nus I respect your views and frustration on religion but I don't think religion is actually the source of the problem you describe. It is really that subtle naivete that inherently encompasses all humanity: the human condition. We can attribute these attitudes and reasonings with tendencies of human consciousness rather than simply blaming it on "religion."

In agreement with Xaqaria, not all followers of any one religion act, think or even necessarily believe in the "same religion" as each other, however what you're describing I believe comes from a general human circumstance that just happens to be riddled with gross distortions. It is not really religion's fault for manipulative religious attitudes, zealotry or theatrics, and what I think is needed is merely forgiveness for the people who employ them.

I think the argument is that religion undoubtedly has the ability to inspire all of these things and has proven that time and time again. No-one is claiming that individual religious people are guilty of all these actions, but it is fairly obvious that religions as systems have the ability to inspire a great deal of evil; and more often than not, they do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

O'nus, I'm not going to break down your post. I know where that leads. I do not hold a prejudiced opinion of you. I hold an opinion that has taken years to develop. Whats more, you made it perfectly clear what type of person you are by stating that it is arguable that All Religions condone Rape and Murder. Perhaps some do, but to say that it is arguable that all do... all I can say is, try. Try to argue that point and we shall see if it is arguable.

I made the reference to Stalin and Mao to show how ridiculous you are being, not to compare you personally to people who have committed genocide.

Now I am not going to say that I cleverly left bait to prove another point, but I am going to say this; I am willing to admit I said something wrong.

I do not think that all religions condone rape and murder. I was wrong in saying that.

I could try to argue that the bible does condone it in some instances, in some contexts, and even that sexism is prevalent in many scriptures. But that is not necessary, is it?

Also, I am able to admit my wrong statement and still maintain my argument.

If you knew me, I would think you would know that I am one to apologize when appropriate. Also, you ought to know that I would not deliberately say something like that without purpose.

How many times have you heard a religion admit being wrong? Just curious.

I think it is incredibly rude for someone to try to force their beliefs onto someone else. I think it is heartless and selfish to try to turn tragedy to one's own ends. I think it is irresponsible and lazy to leave the events around oneself up to god; to say "this good happened because of god" or "this bad happened because of god". I believe a lot of the same things you do.

I just don't try to lump roughly 80% of the population of the entire Earth into one category and then come up with a list of shit that they are all supposedly doing. I recognize that there are different religions with different beliefs, different adherents, different interpretations, different ideologies, and many many many different people who each act differently when representing their own particular religion.

Every ideology, no matter what, is somewhat humanistic. Why not remove the dogmatic attachments and stay with humanism? Why are we quarreling over things we do not know of? Why are they invading all contexts? Why is it so invasive to politics, economy, and education?

Do you truly think that religion is not present in politics, economy, and education?

I have to say that I am nothing more than disappointed that you would choose to believe that all of religion does these things that you don't like and then have the audacity to call me prejudiced. For you to essentially call me a rapist and a murderer, or at least arguably someone who condones those things because I am religious and then ask me to be more insightful and less prejudiced. I believe that is when you crossed the line between someone I have respectfully disagreed with for several years now and someone I no longer have any time for.

I noticed that you are still taking it out of context anyway.

What of the others things I have said?

I am just curious how it would be bad to pontificate my belief system onto others?

Of course, if I say it that way, I must be wrong, right? I must be an absolutist?

Tell me how it is wrong to be an absolute humanist in respect to human interaction.

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

As a Christian, I don't see God in natural disasters on Earth. I see him when he comforts the families and accepts their beloved into Heaven. You know what I mean?

That's reasonable. I have no complaints about that. Thank you for your respectful comment. (Seriously)

Originally Posted by really

O'nus I respect your views and frustration on religion but I don't think religion is actually the source of the problem you describe. It is really that subtle naivete that inherently encompasses all humanity: the human condition. We can attribute these attitudes and reasonings with tendencies of human consciousness rather than simply blaming it on "religion."

You are right. I do think religion exploits and manipulates human characteristics. Any good that is within religion can easily exist without it. I openly challenge a good to be named that cannot be done without religion.

In agreement with Xaqaria, not all followers of any one religion act, think or even necessarily believe in the "same religion" as each other, however what you're describing I believe comes from a general human circumstance that just happens to be riddled with gross distortions. It is not really religion's fault for manipulative religious attitudes, zealotry or theatrics, and what I think is needed is merely forgiveness for the people who employ them.

I think you are right. I am happy to see your comments here.

Humans are necessarily selfish beings and, in any context, their ideologies will become integrated. Often, of course, for selfish purposes.

Am I mistaken in thinking that humans have the capability to supersede these susceptible characteristics and interact more humane?

Originally Posted by imran_p

I think the argument is that religion undoubtedly has the ability to inspire all of these things and has proven that time and time again. No-one is claiming that individual religious people are guilty of all these actions, but it is fairly obvious that religions as systems have the ability to inspire a great deal of evil; and more often than not, they do.

Exactly.

~

You cannot maintain your argument, O'nus. It is based entirely on false premises. Presenting Christian Scripture that condones rape would not be necessary because it would not prove anything. Not only is The Christian Religion not synonymous with Christian Scripture, it is also not synonymous with Religion.

A religion cannot "admit being wrong", it can only change its position through the actions of key religious figures. The pope has changed the Catholic Church's position on a countless number of topics. The Dalai Lama has implemented the inclusion of scientific disciplines in Buddhist teaching. New Religions have formed based on modern ideas and old religions have died when they have become obsolete. These are the ways that "religion admits being wrong".

You keep saying things like "Religion exploits and manipulates human characteristics". Religion doesn't do anything. It is not a willful entity. DuB made a post in another thread that refutes this better than I can so,

Originally Posted by imran_p

You don't agree that some world views, ideologies, take advantage of people with weak minds and almost bend them to their will?

Originally Posted by DuB

Of course I don't agree. Just listen to the language you're using: ideologies "take advantage" of people and "bend them to their will"? They are something that people "succumb to"? You'd think we were talking about a modern Machiavelli rather than something which has no objective existence. These are passive ideas with no possible causal powers; there is literally nothing to succumb to! The concept of Nazism did not reach down from the metaphysical ether and cause the Holocaust. The Holocaust was carried out by both of two kinds of people: sick individuals who chose to embrace a fittingly sick ideology, and people who were pressured, coerced, and forced by said sick individuals--not by the abstract set of ideas which is "Nazism."

I'd like to bring us closer to topic and point out that this is as true for religion as it is for any ideology.

Although I don't necessarily agree that religions have "no possible causal powers", they definitely do not manipulate or exploit. They are manipulated and exploited beyond question, but in themselves they are passive tools to be used by individual and social entities; and there is no such over arching structure as "Religion" that behaves in any sort of concerted way.

Your entire argument (and this could be said about many of your arguments pertaining to "religion") is a product of your inability to see the trees through the forest. As I said to Imran, your position is no different than one that would reject all government in order to do away with Nazism.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are right. I do think religion exploits and manipulates human characteristics. Any good that is within religion can easily exist without it. I openly challenge a good to be named that cannot be done without religion.

Where am I right? I said nothing of this. You obviously just don't see the advantage of religion, which is personal. Some people find it useful, while others don't. It's that simple. That doesn't ask that you blame religion and oversimplify that it is bad and doesn't need to exist.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think you are right. I am happy to see your comments here.

Humans are necessarily selfish beings and, in any context, their ideologies will become integrated. Often, of course, for selfish purposes.

Am I mistaken in thinking that humans have the capability to supersede these susceptible characteristics and interact more humane?

You're mistaken if you think humans cannot interact more humane even with religion, and I doubt that is an unbiased view.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You cannot maintain your argument, O'nus. It is based entirely on false premises. Presenting Christian Scripture that condones rape would not be necessary because it would not prove anything. Not only is The Christian Religion not synonymous with Christian Scripture, it is also not synonymous with Religion.

You're making too much effort to exaggerate something that I am not arguing at all and admitted it would be wrong. Let us stop this digression. I am not saying that religions condone rape and murder.

A religion cannot "admit being wrong", it can only change its position through the actions of key religious figures. The pope has changed the Catholic Church's position on a countless number of topics. The Dalai Lama has implemented the inclusion of scientific disciplines in Buddhist teaching. New Religions have formed based on modern ideas and old religions have died when they have become obsolete. These are the ways that "religion admits being wrong".

I think you missed my point. You accuse me of being closed minded and projecting prejudice and your reply to me with this..? Do you not see what the point is that I was trying to convey?

No ideology ought to be pontificated in such rude contexts; none. That is my argument.

What exactly is it you think that I believe and argue for?

You keep saying things like "Religion exploits and manipulates human characteristics". Religion doesn't do anything. It is not a willful entity. DuB made a post in another thread that refutes this better than I can so,

I will deal with DuB's post then.

Originally Posted by DuB

Of course I don't agree. Just listen to the language you're using: ideologies "take advantage" of people and "bend them to their will"? They are something that people "succumb to"? You'd think we were talking about a modern Machiavelli rather than something which has no objective existence. These are passive ideas with no possible causal powers; there is literally nothing to succumb to! The concept of Nazism did not reach down from the metaphysical ether and cause the Holocaust. The Holocaust was carried out by both of two kinds of people: sick individuals who chose to embrace a fittingly sick ideology, and people who were pressured, coerced, and forced by said sick individuals--not by the abstract set of ideas which is "Nazism."

I treat religious ideals and beliefs just as human characteristics. Religion is a symbolic characteristic of a persons lack of faculties to reason, logic, or general humane interaction.

My challenge still remains of what good cannot be done without religion? There is no need for religion and it's exploitive nature is abundant.

I am not going to exaggerate certain religions and compare them to Nazism. I think they are all bad.

Religion is a virus.

I tolerate it in other people the same way I tolerate prejudice, racism, rudeness, annoyance, etc.

Although I don't necessarily agree that religions have "no possible causal powers", they definitely do not manipulate or exploit. They are manipulated and exploited beyond question, but in themselves they are passive tools to be used by individual and social entities; and there is no such over arching structure as "Religion" that behaves in any sort of concerted way.

I really find it condescending that you guys are using this argument.

Do you really think that I think religion is a conceptual being that floats around and dictates to people what to do?

You know what, sure, let's play it like that just so you can see how ridiculous this rebuttal is;

I think religion is a floating body of essence that flies around in the air and whispers into peoples ears and tells them what to do. The religious body then laughs in the corner at how it manipulates people and plots to kill.

Yeah, that is exactly what I think.

Your entire argument (and this could be said about many of your arguments pertaining to "religion") is a product of your inability to see the trees through the forest. As I said to Imran, your position is no different than one that would reject all government in order to do away with Nazism.

Again, you are being way too quick to be prejudice and not insightful. You're resting far too much on accusing me of generalizing and not seeing what my point is. Instead of actually sticking to the topic at hand, you have now personally attacked my own ideologies.

Is it not agreeable that people ought not to pontificate any beliefs onto others at the inappropriate times like funerals, tragedies, and ilk?

My next question would simply be, who does this most often?

Are you just going to personally attack me again, or pay attention?

Originally Posted by really

Where am I right? I said nothing of this. You obviously just don't see the advantage of religion, which is personal. Some people find it useful, while others don't. It's that simple. That doesn't ask that you blame religion and oversimplify that it is bad and doesn't need to exist.

Name one single good thing that cannot be done without religion.

You're right, I don't see the advantage of religion because there is none.

If you show me one, then maybe I will see things differently.

Also, please no begging the question (ie. "It is a good thing to baptize a person so they experience God.")

You're mistaken if you think humans cannot interact more humane even with religion, and I doubt that is an unbiased view.

Unbiased? Of course I am bias, we all are.

I will make it certainly clear for you right here;

I hate religion.

I think religion is a virus.

I think religion is the worst invention of mankind.

Do you need me to admit anything else? These are my thoughts. I have absolute respect for most people. This is why I am outraged that Xaqaria accuses me of generalizing.

My mother in law is a Christian - we get along just fine. I do not patronize her and we can casually have civil debates. This is the case with many other friends of mine too.

We easily tell each other, "Yes, I disagree. I hate Atheism." or "I hate religion".

But this does not mean we cannot get along.

Also, my boss is an Orthodox Christian. We debate every time we work.

The point is, you can have civil debate, and even express distaste for ideologies, while still maintaining a relationship with that person.

Go ahead, tell me I am generalizing again.

~

I'd say we're done here, O'nus. You haven't refuted any of my points, you've accused me of calling you prejudiced which I never did (you continue to call me that, though) and also just generally attacking you personally which I also haven't done. This is usually a sign that you have your back against a wall. You say I've missed the point and then fail to actually try to explain yourself further, instead opting to just ask me to explain your point, which I will not do.

I have not, as you say, attacked your ideologies or called you prejudiced. All I've done is pointed out the fact that your argument hinges on all religions being the same, and they are not. You say this is not your argument and yet continue to say things like,

I hate religion.

I think religion is a virus.

I think religion is the worst invention of mankind.

I will put this as plainly as I know how; Religion is not an ideology, it is a category of different ideologies. If you believe that all religions are the same ideology, then you are narrow minded and incapable of actually understanding what it is people other than yourself believe. Notice I didn't actually call you narrow minded, I merely pointed out that if you cannot see that different religions are in fact different ideologies then you must be narrow minded. You may be quite capable of getting along with religious people, but you will never be able to actually understand who they are and where they are coming from. I would say it is arguable that you are incapable of ever becoming close to a religious person, because as you say, you are only able to tolerate their "lack of faculties to reason, logic, or general humane interaction."

I hope someday that you realize that Christianity =/= Religion. So far, you've failed to prove that you are capable of making the distinction. Every point you've tried to make that specifically addresses the beliefs of religious people has been directed at Christianity, not religion.

So O'nus, are you paying attention? To what other people are saying I mean, not just to your own opinion.

I was drawn back in at what appeared to be an apology, but I realize now was merely you back tracking from what was clearly a perfect example of how ridiculous your position is that you were completely incapable of defending. I won't make the same mistake again.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd say we're done here, O'nus. You haven't refuted any of my points, you've accused me of calling you prejudiced which I never did (you continue to call me that, though) and also just generally attacking you personally which I also haven't done. This is usually a sign that you have your back against a wall. You say I've missed the point and then fail to actually try to explain yourself further, instead opting to just ask me to explain your point, which I will not do.

I don't know why you are so adamant on ending the discussion; I do like debating with you. I just wish you weren't so prompt to run away and "be rid with it".

I see I ought not to be hostile in my debating with you, as it seems to drive you away instead of keep you interested. I will keep it this way, if you'd like. I'd rather discuss than be hated. I will reply to you first and them clarify my main point.

I have not, as you say, attacked your ideologies or called you prejudiced. All I've done is pointed out the fact that your argument hinges on all religions being the same, and they are not. You say this is not your argument and yet continue to say things like,

You kept making assertions about my own self instead of what my point was. This is why I felt personally attacked; you didn't comment on my main point/complaint.

I was not necessarily making an argument, more or less a complaint. That complaint being that, when something shitty happens in the world, I'd like it if religious people kept their mouths shut during that time. Or, at least if they would hold it till after mourning or events. I feel like some people look for any given opportunity to just shove their beliefs down others throats.

My personal beliefs are Humanistic. I do not think it is denigrating to say that it ought not to be in every context. That may sound absolutist but every religion and ideology has a Humanistic quality. I simply segregate it and live by that itself. Is that unreasonable?

I will put this as plainly as I know how; Religion is not an ideology, it is a category of different ideologies. If you believe that all religions are the same ideology, then you are narrow minded and incapable of actually understanding what it is people other than yourself believe. Notice I didn't actually call you narrow minded, I merely pointed out that if you cannot see that different religions are in fact different ideologies then you must be narrow minded. You may be quite capable of getting along with religious people, but you will never be able to actually understand who they are and where they are coming from. I would say it is arguable that you are incapable of ever becoming close to a religious person, because as you say, you are only able to tolerate their "lack of faculties to reason, logic, or general humane interaction."

I see what you are saying. If I am wrong, please correct me. You are concerned that my views restrict my ability to truly perceive and emphasize with others of religious beliefs or of differing ideologies than my own?

I live by a Humanistic ideology. I find that all beliefs, ideologies, and religions have a humanistic trait. I wish that this humanistic trait would simply exist on its own without religious associations. There's no good that cannot be done without religion and that appears to through humanistic means.

Do you agree? You may think that I am "just not understanding" the religious people, but you are not really tackling my direct point more or less seeming to make excuses to not discuss anymore.

I hope someday that you realize that Christianity =/= Religion. So far, you've failed to prove that you are capable of making the distinction. Every point you've tried to make that specifically addresses the beliefs of religious people has been directed at Christianity, not religion.

My complaint is to anyone who pontificates religious beliefs in any inappropriate context. It just so happens that Christians are the most prevalent along with Muslims.

Perhaps to better demonstrate this irritation I'd better relay to someone that even you could relate to; dooms-day sayers. Say, people who say that 2012 is the end of the world and there's no discussing with them. You cannot reason with them and they will not have discussion. Everything they hear will just be twisted in their fantasy of apocalypse.

Now that's fine to have a hobby and fascination with stories. But what now if the person who thinks that your cousins death as a result of an earthquake is a sign of 2012 and I ought to donate money to him? What then?

I hope that asserts my main complaint.

When I said I hate religion, I was really just trying to get it in the clear how I feel about religion. I really feel it's irrelevant to note my personal feelings about religion in the context of this thread.

So O'nus, are you paying attention? To what other people are saying I mean, not just to your own opinion.

I hope that I am satisfying you.

I was drawn back in at what appeared to be an apology, but I realize now was merely you back tracking from what was clearly a perfect example of how ridiculous your position is that you were completely incapable of defending. I won't make the same mistake again.

I am not so sure what position it is you think I am trying to defend.

I don't like people taking advantage of traumatic events to pontificate beliefs.

That is all I was saying.

Is that reasonable?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Name one single good thing that cannot be done without religion.

You're right, I don't see the advantage of religion because there is none.

Wow you also have the habit of changing peoples words. Before you repeatedly say "you're right", actually read what I said: "You obviously just don't see the advantage of religion, which is personal. Some people find it useful, while others don't. It's that simple." You're making it out like this is the same way for everybody, which is probably one of the reasons why you're getting criticism of an absolutist attitude.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Name one single good thing that cannot be done without religion.

[...]

If you show me one, then maybe I will see things differently.

I may be able to name a "good thing" religion can do for you if you ask me how you want religion to help you. What a good thing religion can do can mean anything from person to person.

I.e - A unique advantage of religion is obviously religious practice. Oh, but you may say that's bad? According to you; again, it's personal. Furthermore if that doesn't help perhaps you should realize the importance and/or difference(s) of each religion. There are many good things about religion, whether or not you'd agree, and many would not exist without it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Unbiased? Of course I am bias, we all are.

I will make it certainly clear for you right here;

I hate religion.

I think religion is a virus.

I think religion is the worst invention of mankind.

Do you need me to admit anything else? These are my thoughts. I have absolute respect for most people. This is why I am outraged that Xaqaria accuses me of generalizing.

What are you surprised or outraged about? The three things you just listed are bold generalizations about religion.

I don't think you realize what you're saying. It's no wonder Xaqaria has lost patience with you; you have profound negative prejudgments and then ask for a way out. At least be more specific and wise with your position, and of course less biased.

Of course I don't agree. Just listen to the language you're using: ideologies "take advantage" of people and "bend them to their will"? They are something that people "succumb to"? You'd think we were talking about a modern Machiavelli rather than something which has no objective existence. These are passive ideas with no possible causal powers; there is literally nothing to succumb to! The concept of Nazism did not reach down from the metaphysical ether and cause the Holocaust. The Holocaust was carried out by both of two kinds of people: sick individuals who chose to embrace a fittingly sick ideology, and people who were pressured, coerced, and forced by said sick individuals--not by the abstract set of ideas which is "Nazism."

I'd like to bring us closer to topic and point out that this is as true for religion as it is for any ideology.



Okay maybe I used the wrong words, the ideologies don't bend people to their will, since as your rightly pointed out they have no objective existence.
However, I find it hard to believe that you can avoid the fact some ideologies are inherently dangerous and have a huge potential to cause strife, murder, abuse, and war. It is no coincidence that in all of 2500 years Buddhism has rarely if ever, caused violence and war; whereas all three major Abrahamic religions have caused an abundance of both.

http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

http://goonybrd.tripod.com/islam/

These sources might not be amazing, but the point is these religious texts, which demand absolute obedience from the adherents and fill them with an unshakeable belief that if they do what they believe their religion wants them to they will be rewarded with eternal life, are also filled with hate, vengeance, tales of revenge and genocide. I find it hard for anybody to argue that these religions are not inherently dangerous. We might not be at a odds though; it seems your arguing that the ideology isn't to blame, the people who propagate its message are. Yes that's obvious, but it doesn't change the fact that some ideologies are inherently dangerous and the world would be a much better place without them. You disagree?

I think I know what you mean, O'nus, I too have come to dislike religion. And while I don't dislike each and every religion specifically, I mean I don't even know every religion, if given a chance to rid this world of religion all together, I would gladly take it. Because I, as you, believe that every good thing religion can provide, can be provided without religion.

A Chrisitan using a natural disaster to promote god is as bad as an atheist comming to a Christian funeral to argue that someone's loved ones aren't going to heaven because no such thing exist. It's just that of those two, I have only ever heard of one of them actually happening.

Originally Posted by really

Wow you also have the habit of changing peoples words. Before you repeatedly say "you're right", actually read what I said: "You obviously just don't see the advantage of religion, which is personal. Some people find it useful, while others don't. It's that simple." You're making it out like this is the same way for everybody, which is probably one of the reasons why you're getting criticism of an absolutist attitude.

You said "You don't see the advantage of religion", and O'nus replied "you are right, I don't". How is this twisting of words? Then he proceeded to say "I believe the reason I don't see the advantage of religion because there is no such advantage", which is a reply to your post and not twisting of words.

Also, when you say the advantage of religion is "personal", you're really not saying anything. You're saying in which category the advantage is, not what it is.

Originally Posted by really

I may be able to name a "good thing" religion can do for you if you ask me how you want religion to help you. What a good thing religion can do can mean anything from person to person.

I believe O'nus wants an example of what good religion could provide for anyone, that could not also exist without religion. I don't think he is looking for something to better his life personally.

Originally Posted by really

I.e - A unique advantage of religion is obviously religious practice.

In what way is this an advantage? The advantage is not obvious to me, so you will have to explain it.

Originally Posted by really

Wow you also have the habit of changing peoples words. Before you repeatedly say "you're right", actually read what I said: "You obviously just don't see the advantage of religion, which is personal. Some people find it useful, while others don't. It's that simple." You're making it out like this is the same way for everybody, which is probably one of the reasons why you're getting criticism of an absolutist attitude.

What do you mean I am changing your words? Not only am I admitting to what you are accusing me of, but I am facilitating it.

You told me I don't see the advantage of religion; I agree! I don't! Tell me what it is.

You argue that it is a subjective thing, but you ignore the objective advantages of ideologies. Can you state any objectively good thing that cannot be done without religion?

I will also admit being an absolute humanist. Every ideology, invented by humankind, is of a humanist nature. I explicate that and encourage it to exist on its own. I would argue that Humanism is the best and most compatible belief system that ought to be believe by everyone.

What more do you want me to admit? Do you think that if you accuse me to admit these things that I will be proven wrong? I feel only more right!

I may be able to name a "good thing" religion can do for you if you ask me how you want religion to help you. What a good thing religion can do can mean anything from person to person.

Exactly, name one good thing, anything, that anyone could perceive as good, that cannot be done without religion.

I.e - A unique advantage of religion is obviously religious practice. Oh, but you may say that's bad? According to you; again, it's personal. Furthermore if that doesn't help perhaps you should realize the importance and/or difference(s) of each religion. There are many good things about religion, whether or not you'd agree, and many would not exist without it.

You utilize circular reasoning way too much.

Let me reply to you with the same type of reasoning;

It is only a good thing to be an Atheist if you enjoy the good feeling of making a Theist feel wrong and bad. You could enjoy that feeling only if you were Atheist.

Do you see how counter absurd that is?

What I am asking of you is to provide one good, any good, for any person, that cannot be done without religion. You still havn't done it, and no one else has.

What are you surprised or outraged about? The three things you just listed are bold generalizations about religion.

I was admitting to them!

Bold generalizations? I am asking you to prove me wrong!

I want to be proven wrong!

I think those things because there is no reason for me to think otherwise.

Yes, they are generalizations because I find them to be so generally true.

I find no good in religion. You can prove that wrong by telling me a good that cannot be done without it. I want you to!

I don't think you realize what you're saying. It's no wonder Xaqaria has lost patience with you; you have profound negative prejudgments and then ask for a way out. At least be more specific and wise with your position, and of course less biased.

Less biased? I was admitting my bias! I hate and see no good in religion.

I hate it because it makes so many serious prejudgments. All religions function on the idea of giving precedence to faith rather than reason.

I see no good in it because I see no good that cannot be done without religion.

There, I am explicitly admitting to what you are accusing me of and giving a perfectly good opportunity to be proven wrong.

What more would you ask of me? Now, can you provide answers or just keep accusing me of things?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What do you mean I am changing your words? Not only am I admitting to what you are accusing me of, but I am facilitating it.

Well good; like I said, it sounded like you're making it out that way because you find no personal advantage but while that must be the way it is for everybody. If it's not, then thanks for clarifying.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You told me I don't see the advantage of religion; I agree! I don't! Tell me what it is.

You argue that it is a subjective thing, but you ignore the objective advantages of ideologies. Can you state any objectively good thing that cannot be done without religion?



Exactly, name one good thing, anything, that anyone could perceive as good, that cannot be done without religion.

I did mention religious advantages, I said it's personal. I don't know what you're talking about when saying "objective good." There is no "objective good", with or without religion.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You utilize circular reasoning way too much.

Let me reply to you with the same type of reasoning;

It is only a good thing to be an Atheist if you enjoy the good feeling of making a Theist feel wrong and bad. You could enjoy that feeling only if you were Atheist.

Do you see how counter absurd that is?

What I am asking of you is to provide one good, any good, for any person, that cannot be done without religion. You still havn't done it, and no one else has.

Yes that is very counter absurd. I don't know what you're arguing about anymore. Are you not an atheist then?

If that's your point, then otherwise I understand but I don't think it's circular, it's just statement of somebodies opinion or preference, which is what I did.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I was admitting to them!

Bold generalizations? I am asking you to prove me wrong!

I want to be proven wrong!

I think those things because there is no reason for me to think otherwise.

Yes, they are generalizations because I find them to be so generally true.

I find no good in religion. You can prove that wrong by telling me a good that cannot be done without it. I want you to!



Less biased? I was admitting my bias! I hate and see no good in religion.

I hate it because it makes so many serious prejudgments. All religions function on the idea of giving precedence to faith rather than reason.

I see no good in it because I see no good that cannot be done without religion.

There, I am explicitly admitting to what you are accusing me of and giving a perfectly good opportunity to be proven wrong.

What more would you ask of me? Now, can you provide answers or just keep accusing me of things?

~

How can you be proven wrong? You're talking nonsense. There is no proof of objective good, at least within your argument anyway. I actually don't know what your point is anymore either; whether you're just generalizing and projecting your emotionality or actually intrigued to find something out - and if that's the case, maybe you should be realistic. Give me an example, using something else you hate so much.

Originally Posted by really

How can you be proven wrong? You're talking nonsense. There is no proof of objective good, at least within your argument anyway. I actually don't know what your point is anymore either; whether you're just generalizing and projecting your emotionality or actually intrigued to find something out - and if that's the case, maybe you should be realistic. Give me an example, using something else you hate so much.

He is asking for an example of a single thing that is good for a single person... You really can't demand any less, and still ask for something.

Originally Posted by khh

He is asking for an example of a single thing that is good for a single person... You really can't demand any less, and still ask for something.

I addressed that, I said it's personal and is not universal. O'nus isn't talking about a single person though.