Why it is wrong to NOT attack religion

[eggrole1]

We do not allow discrimination here based on race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, age, economic status, or if you do or do not eat okra. It should go without saying that making fun of other religions is not allowed.

That is from the respect part two thread, and I would like to point out some flaws in it. I will try to be as respectful as I can though.

The list of discriminatory topics has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I can't choose to be born a certain race, sex, etc. I can only control my economic status or nationality to a certain degree. If you are born into poverty, there is very little one can do to escape it, even in America.

Now comes religion. You have every chance to CHOOSE religion or not choose it. Just b/c it is so indoctrinated these days does not mean it comes without choice.

My argument starts here, attacking the choices someone has made in life, based on the data available, is FAIR GAME. I will never attack someone's ethnicity, race, age, etc b/c they have had no choice in the matter. On the other hand when someone willfully gives up control of themselves for a higher power the gloves come off.

I have made the argument before of someone believing in an absurd logic. A book, that has no roots in empirical evidence. Essentially a collection of stories on "how to live" (and not even live well if you take it literally) now governs a large percentage of the world's population.

Would anyone ever take me seriously if I wrote a book and said in it that there was an alien living on the moon that created the earth and will hold you accountable for your actions when you die, then decide weather you can live on the moon with him in peace, or if you did one little thing wrong you will suffer by living on Venus for all time? But he still loves you and all you have to do is submit to his ever whim. When I say him, I mena my bc I wrote the book, and you can never actually meet the alien, but TRUST ME, he is there, i just know it.

Yeah I am knocking on scientology a bit here, and I think it is a good idea to scrutinize it. It is a recent religion that gives proof that man can and does create religions for whatever reasons he deems fit. 2000 years from now is scientology going to be the new big world religion? Using current events in religious evolution to deduce why we have a book like the bible seems like a good way to understand our history/religion intertwine.

You can use the data available to make the most informed guess about how the world works. Science can't explain everything, but one can make a pretty solid set of rules based on observation of the known world and the mathematic we base our rules on. I am here to make the argument that using empirical evidence should stand head and shoulders above ANY non-empirical data. There were MANY historians alive at the time jesus supposedly existed and there is not one note in the history books about him. If someone was traveling around coming back from the dead and causing a ruckus, don't you think that would be worthy to note?

I don't mean to attack any specific religion with this argument, all are at fault equally. If you trace back religion you will some to find that the Egyptians pretty much 'wrote the play book'. See this page for the parallels between chrisianity and the egyptian story.

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm)

Religion had/has a purpose in the history of man. It helps explain the unexplainable and it keeps everyone pacified for the most part, until someone disagrees with it then holy cow look out. Crusades, sacrifices, burning people alive.... all bets are off when the enemy of religion is involved.

To conclude, I think it is wrong to allow someone to willfully choose a way of life that is not based in fact. Would you not try to teach someone that the world is round if they believed it was flat? I am sure no one here would respect that claim, and it is just as bold and evident-less as the existence of god or a higher power. I will not respect opinions that are not based in common logic, I will respect people's choices when they are logical or at least based on "reasonable" assumptions.

A book where I have to read between every line, that is thousands of years old, that has no empirical evidence for the bold claims it makes is FAR from a reasonable assumption to base decisions from.

Thank you for reading this far, and I hope to not have offended anyone person with my logical civilized points.

[Fencewalker]

I will respect the rules of a privately owned business, regardless of my personal feelings...So your point to me is moot. :)

[stinkyattic]

I am also a logical person and appreciate your post and your points. This is a great topic for more discussion, and could be an excellent thread.
The rule as it is stated is simply a request to treat people with respect. If you'd like to argue specific components of a belief system; GREAT! Organized religion as a whole is full of strange contradictions and deserves questioning. As long as they can stay debates rather than nasty arguments, no prob. That's the point of the rule (just needed to make that clear ;) ).
Okay... now that THAT'S out of the way!

I think that while each of us is free to choose our belief system, we are still products of our upbringings, and that includes how much we are even told about the content of other religions while we are young. I always say that one does not truly become an adult until one has risen above the way he or she was raised, and lives a life making decisions based on what is the right thing to do in this situation AS I SEE IT, not 'is this what Mom would have done?' Sure, we often end up making the same decisions as our parents, including picking a religion, but there's a difference between doing in because 'that's the way I was taught' and doing it because it's right, and it just so happens that your parents would have agreed with you. Get my drift? So if you were raised Catholic, and still consider yourself one today, is it sort of by default, or is it because seeing the other options, you made an adult decision to continue on?
My couple cents on the matter anyway.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Why attack something you don't believe in?

If you don't wish to subscribe to any particular religion, that's fine. Only judgmental religious fundamentalists will attack you for it. Other, cool-tempered, religious people won't attack you, but rather they'll simply disagree with you, and leave it at that. No need for "the gloves to come off," when a simple disagreement will do.

And what about people who adopted their religion based on their own volition... perhaps even into their 20s, or later? Those who WEREN'T indoctrinated into it by zealous parents, or active participation in religious institutions? Those people DO exist, you know? So, because they've decided to believe in something greater than themselves, they're worthy of ridicule... spiteful accusations... personal "attacks" on their beliefs? How are they harming any of you by believing in a God, or Gods, or nature, etc.?

I know of very few deists who shun discourse, but I know of many who despise personal attacks made by those citing "logical" assumptions/suppositions that disagree with theological thought. I respect your choice to believe or disbelieve to your heart's content, and I would never attack you because of your beliefs/disbeliefs. All I ask in return is that the same courtesy be extended to me, otherwise we'll have a pissing contest/battle of wits on our hands that will never end.

It all boils down to one word: RESPECT. Either you have it, or you don't. And I've come to find that people from both sides of the isle commonly don't.

[psychocat]

I was born (C of E) Church of England and protestant.
I went to Sunday school which was held in the local church.
I attended classes in religious education.

I don't believe in good or evil as the temptation of SATAN or the redemption of CHRIST but as choices we make , the consequences of which we can or cannot accept.
The good choices being seen as the result of good guidance from "God" and the bad choices being the result of evil in the form of temptation or greed. Many humans prefer not to have to take responsibility for thier own choices and actions.
How attractive must it be to have a get out clause (religion) to push the responsibility onto ?
I see humans as much more animalistic and believe that each of us is capable of deciding how we can justify what others may see as being "bad"
The degree of self interest and the lengths that some will go to in order to benefit themselves is measured against popular moral norms.
If anothers actions exceed what the majority percieve to be the morals of society then they are labled evil .

Just an atheists and common or garden sociopaths view of things. :D

[Coelho]

My argument starts here, attacking the choices someone has made in life, based on the data available, is FAIR GAME.

Well... in this case your reasoning also allows criticise peoples sexual orientation. Everybody is born male or female. Yet, during their lives, they can choose to be anything between this two opposites.

BTW I dont agree with any kind of criticising, whatever it may be. I only know how is to be me, i dont know how is to be anyone else. So i cant make choices for anyone else, and i cant claim that the choices i did myself with regard to my own life are the best ones for anybody else with their own life.

[mackey33]

This may be slightly off topic but it seems fitting...

My girlfriend and I are about the same age and we moved to this tiny little town in Oregon. Getting a family doctor was almost impossible. She got in on the first try; I didn't. The only difference on our "application" (yeah, you have to apply) was our religion. She played the game and said she was a Christian (she isn't, she's atheist) and got in right away. I said I was not religious and didn't get in at all. The questions were like - Are you religious? Are you active in your religion? Do you feel faith plays a part in your health and wellbeing? I said I was not religious and active to be sarcastic. Small town = Small minds I guess...

Christianity is a god damn cult in this town. If you put a Jesus-Fish on your business in the yellow pages, you get all the business you can manage! What a shame.

[mackey33]

I don't believe in good or evil as the temptation of SATAN...

I watched this video about Satan today - good stuff:
Part 1: YouTube - Dancing with the Devil - Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0CHLtpILzQ)
Part 2: YouTube - Dancing with the Devil - Part 2 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgbCAmSszoE)


From the video:
Please understand that I do not worship any deity. I believe in a historical (physical) Lucifer just as much as I believe in a historical Jesus; which is to say, I don't believe in a historical Lucifer at all. However, if a "Lord of Darkness" does exist, the most deceitful act he ever carried out was to convince humankind that he is the heavenly-enthroned, almighty God.

[Breukelen advocaat]

This may be slightly off topic but it seems fitting...

My girlfriend and I are about the same age and we moved to this tiny little town in Oregon. Getting a family doctor was almost impossible. She got in on the first try; I didn't. The only difference on our "application" (yeah, you have to apply) was our religion. She played the game and said she was a Christian (she isn't, she's atheist) and got in right away. I said I was not religious and didn't get in at all. The questions were like - Are you religious? Are you active in your religion? Do you feel faith plays a part in your health and wellbeing? I said I was not religious and active to be sarcastic. Small town = Small minds I guess...
Christianity is a god damn cult in this town. If you put a Jesus-Fish on your business in the yellow pages, you get all the business you can manage! What a shame.
At the time of Christ, when most everybody believed in a god, and there was very primitive medical care, the average life expectancy was about 21 years. By the year 1900, it doubled to 42 years. In just 100 years, when almost everybody is at the very least skeptical, and science has triumphed over superstition, life expectancy is at present over 65 years and expected to reach 85 in another fifty years. The less religious belief there is to interfere with science and knowledge, the healthier people have become on average.

I would not go to a facility or doctor that approached medicine with a philosophy or belief system similar to the one that is described in the above post. It's worse than peddling snake oil - it is outright insanity.

[mackey33]

At the time of Christ, when most everybody believed in a god, and there was very primitive medical care, the average life expectancy was about 21 years. By the year 1900, it doubled to 42 years. In just 100 years, when almost everybody is at the very least skeptical, and science has triumphed over superstition, life expectancy is at present over 65 years and expected to reach 85 in another fifty years. The less religious belief there is to interfere with science and knowledge, the healthier people have become on average.

I would not go to a facility or doctor that approached medicine with a philosophy or belief system similar to the one that is described in the above post. It's worse than peddling snake oil - it is outright insanity.

ha-ha that's great...I don't believe in a "christ" but you are dead on accurate - BTW, i have a dentist appointment tomorrow, pray for me!

:thumbsup:

[Breukelen advocaat]

ha-ha that's great...I don't believe in a "christ" but you are dead on accurate - BTW, i have a dentist appointment tomorrow, pray for me!

:thumbsup:
To the Flying Spagetti Monster I will pray. :thumbsup:

[eggrole1]

Why attack something you don't believe in?

And what about people who adopted their religion based on their own volition... perhaps even into their 20s, or later? Those who WEREN'T indoctrinated into it by zealous parents, or active participation in religious institutions? Those people DO exist, you know? So, because they've decided to believe in something greater than themselves, they're worthy of ridicule... spiteful accusations... personal "attacks" on their beliefs? How are they harming any of you by believing in a God, or Gods, or nature, etc.?

I know of very few deists who shun discourse, but I know of many who despise personal attacks made by those citing "logical" assumptions/suppositions that disagree with theological thought. I respect your choice to believe or disbelieve to your heart's content, and I would never attack you because of your beliefs/disbeliefs. All I ask in return is that the same courtesy be extended to me, otherwise we'll have a pissing contest/battle of wits on our hands that will never end.

It all boils down to one word: RESPECT. Either you have it, or you don't. And I've come to find that people from both sides of the isle commonly don't.

I would attack something I don't believe in if I see it hindering mankind. I am never making personal attacks, but if someone claims a belief that (even generally) leads to violence I will voice my mind. It is not hidden knowledge that a huge portion of the conflict in today's world is inter-religious. If the only/main reason for poeple fighting is in the name of a diety, how can any logical person deem that religion a good thing? And don't think I am pointing out the actions of the few and labeling the whole. It takes more than a minority to suppress tibet, or ethnically cleans africa. Somehow america, which is politically driven by judeo-christian thought tries to play cop and leads to more violence.

I am ok with diests, but still if you are happy with everything the way it is why do you need the diety at that point? The thing is, even starting with the best intentions, it is so easy to twist belief into a reason to persecute someone else.

I would argue that those choosing religion later in life are just as much a product of indoctrination as a kid brought up by his parents religiously. There was a quote I read about how Bush Sr made a claim that atheists were not americans b/c "we are a nation under god". To have the most powerful man in the world (at the time) say something like that should bring shivers to anyone not of his religious beliefs.

Next thing you know america will be in iran "preaching democracy" in the name of god. With leaders, media, and ultimately a vast majority of the public behind these kinds of thoughts it isn't far fetched.

I don't see how respect has any place in this debate. I will always respect a person as a person, but why do I have to respect religion more than I have to respect your choice of favorite hockey team?


Well... in this case your reasoning also allows criticise peoples sexual orientation. Everybody is born male or female. Yet, during their lives, they can choose to be anything between this two opposites.

BTW I dont agree with any kind of criticising, whatever it may be. I only know how is to be me, i dont know how is to be anyone else. So i cant make choices for anyone else, and i cant claim that the choices i did myself with regard to my own life are the best ones for anybody else with their own life.

I am 100% ok criticizing those that "choose" (and I hate to use that word here) b/c the fact of the matter is, if everyone decided to be gay, humanity would eventually die out. But when you look at the facts, the human race isn't on a path for extinction for lack of breeding. As long as those that are gay aren't negativly impacting society I have no problem whatsoever with them. On the contrary I have had gay friends all of my life. Now, if the species was dieing out and someone refused to breed, I would haev a problem with them.

Now how can I say you are doing society harm when choosing religion. At the most basic point, time. A gay person doesn't spend thier time any differently than a straight person for all intents and purposes. Religious people and non-religious DO spend their time differently. For ever hour you are praying, or in church, etc is an hour where you could have up and just done something tangible.

Many diests have essentially solved this by just believing enough to say they are religious (far easier a thing to do than debate it) but could be called atheists for all intents and purposes other than the fitting in part in society. If you spend your time doing anything b/c you like it that again I am fine with. But when was the last time a world war broke out over an argument between a group that thought crossword puzzles were the "true game" and all those checkers fans should burn in hell?

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

all i have to say is if someone is going to use their religion to say i am evil,they are wrong and deserve to be attacked equally to their accusations.


if you say your bible says im going to hell, i say nature says you are an idiot.

[40oz]

Now how can I say you are doing society harm when choosing religion. At the most basic point, time. A gay person doesn't spend thier time any differently than a straight person for all intents and purposes. Religious people and non-religious DO spend their time differently. For ever hour you are praying, or in church, etc is an hour where you could have up and just done something tangible.



I don't understand, what is so bad about spending time praying or meditating? At the very least you wouldn't be consuming many resources while sitting in solitude with your thoughts so wheres the harm in that?

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think criticizing and essentially preaching to religious types is the right way of going about this. Most religious people are not violent. If you honestly think religion is the main thing fueling wars and violence around the world, you are a little naive. God doesn't pay for AK-47's.

[Mr. Clandestine]

If the only/main reason for poeple fighting is in the name of a diety, how can any logical person deem that religion a good thing?

How can any observant person deem that all acts of war are perpetuated solely by followers of religion? If a few fundamentalist politicians commit an atrocity, and supposedly do so "in the name of religion", why am I grouped in along with them? How many people have I killed in the name of religion? Or the majority of other believers, for that matter? How many atheists do you suppose are fighting and killing as we speak... or have done so in wars since past? Is there even a consensus for that sort of thing? Or do they not matter, since they are only following orders from a supposed religious zealot? Are their actions forgivable under these circumstances? Religion isn't the problem here... extremists are. Why not fight them, as opposed to entire religions who are not inherently violent?


There was a quote I read about how Bush Sr made a claim that atheists were not americans b/c "we are a nation under god". To have the most powerful man in the world (at the time) say something like that should bring shivers to anyone not of his religious beliefs.

Yet you honestly believe that everyone of the same religion supports his assertion concerning the definition of a "real American"? Is it not possible that Bush Sr. was the one twisting the ideals of his religion and sense of patriotism, as opposed to the collective religion itself doing the twisting? Or because he is/was a high-ranking public official, are you claiming that his actions and words speak for everyone who shares his religious ideology? If you think that's the case, then does Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, the Columbine bozos, etc., speak as a collective whole for all the atheists of the world? I would never make this claim, but apparently some would liken me to zealots like George Bush, Bush Jr., and the sort just because we believe in the same deity.

You stated earlier that attacking someones choices that they've made in life is "fair game." How can you "respect a person as a person" if you feel it's fair game to attack the choices they make in life? That's not respect in any sense of the word.

[L Rag]

Everybody's making comments about how it's all relative to how someone's been raised and their experiences and not to judge someone till you've been in their shoes, which is true... The objective evidence is the same for everybody, and people make different conclusions from exactly the same evidence. So getting real offensive can be stupid.. but he does have a point in saying that everyone has the right to criticize other people's practises. If we can't criticize anybody's beliefs, how can we judge anything? We could only say that it's different, even if it's crazy like the Holocaust or something. So you gotta be able to criticize.

[L Rag]

Yet you honestly believe that everyone of the same religion supports his assertion concerning the definition of a "real American"? Is it not possible that Bush Sr. was the one twisting the ideals of his religion and sense of patriotism, as opposed to the collective religion itself doing the twisting? Or because he is/was a high-ranking public official, are you claiming that his actions and words speak for everyone who shares his religious ideology? If you think that's the case, then does Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, the Columbine bozos, etc., speak as a collective whole for all the atheists of the world? I would never make this claim, but apparently some would liken me to zealots like George Bush, Bush Jr., and the sort just because we believe in the same deity.
You've got a point, but doesn't that raise warning bells? What you just mentioned, leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Bush... Had a huge amount of power. Hitler changed the whole general moral framework in Germany. A leader that knows about conformity could do alot... change the beliefs of millions..

[stinkyattic]

all i have to say is if someone is going to use their religion to say i am evil,they are wrong and deserve to be attacked equally to their accusations.

if you say your bible says im going to hell, i say nature says you are an idiot.I like this simple way of putting it!

Also... Mackey, have fun at the dentist and may the FSM touch you with his Noodly Appendage. (Read up on Pastafarianism... it IS possible to poke fun at organized religion and not be nasty about it!)

[zeitgeist]

People attack religion and act like its the problem of the world. Well sorry to break it to you but its not. Go deep down to the history of every war and you will see that none of them were started for religion but for land, money etc. If there was even no such thing as religion all these wars would still be going on. Religion is something just to coat it to get more support.

And attacking someone elses beliefs is not the way to go. That is basically personally attacking someone and saying they are flat out wrong. You dont know %100 either so you just may be proving your own ignorance. I am all for an intelligent conversation to talk about your points but attacking is wrong and creates problems.

[stinkyattic]

Exactly! Wars start with greed, even though governments say they are for other reasons. The Crusades weren't even purely about saving heathen souls... they were about control of important trade routes; it was just easier to shove the idea down the throats of the peasants that they were being conscripted for a holy war, not for a trade war of which they, as lowly serfs, would never see the spoils.

[eggrole1]

People attack religion and act like its the problem of the world. Well sorry to break it to you but its not. Go deep down to the history of every war and you will see that none of them were started for religion but for land, money etc. If there was even no such thing as religion all these wars would still be going on. Religion is something just to coat it to get more support.

intelligent conversation to talk about your points but attacking is wrong and creates problems.

Religion is the enabler in these conflicts. I realize that land is far more important than religion, but as I think someone stated, it is religion that is the gloss that sells war to the masses. Without a diety to commit wars in the name of, people might think twice before fighting, and the people in power don't want that.

the second point is semantics. i use the term attack as a broad stroke painting everything from outright statements to "you are wrong" to persuasive debates. Same end, different means.


If a few fundamentalist politicians commit an atrocity, and supposedly do so "in the name of religion", why am I grouped in along with them? How many people have I killed in the name of religion? Or the majority of other believers, for that matter? How many atheists do you suppose are fighting and killing as we speak... or have done so in wars since past? Religion isn't the problem here... extremists are. Why not fight them, as opposed to entire religions who are not inherently violent?

Yet you honestly believe that everyone of the same religion supports his assertion concerning the definition of a "real American"? Is it not possible that Bush Sr. was the one twisting the ideals of his religion and sense of patriotism, as opposed to the collective religion itself doing the twisting? Or because he is/was a high-ranking public official, are you claiming that his actions and words speak for everyone who shares his religious ideology? If you think that's the case, then does Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, the Columbine bozos, etc., speak as a collective whole for all the atheists of the world? I would never make this claim, but apparently some would liken me to zealots like George Bush, Bush Jr., and the sort just because we believe in the same deity.

You stated earlier that attacking someones choices that they've made in life is "fair game." How can you "respect a person as a person" if you feel it's fair game to attack the choices they make in life? That's not respect in any sense of the word.

fundamentalists in power do not speak for you I am sure, but they use religious leverage to get into office and then as the excuse to do terrible things. The fact that you never killed 'in the name of' your religion does little to ease my mind in the long term. The fact of the matter is if one day you woke up and looked for a reason to kill someone, god let's you off the hook in many cases and even condones it for your 'enemies'. If I looked for a reason to kill someone, outside of a fight or flight situation I hope I could not find one.

the point i am making again is the religion is the enabler. wars would probably still happen, but with either less frequency or for what they are, greed/money/power driven. If countries and groups had to stand up to the consequences and not say "it is ok, it was in the name of god" they might think twice before fighting.

Real fast also.. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin Russian Orthodix, Manson used drugs and references to himself being a god to convince the others to do what they did, and I have no knowledge of the Columbine's beliefs. Even if your argument holds true that the religious leaders do not speak for the masses, you can see that in 4 "events" you posed, 3 of them had religious backing, and the 4th an unknown to me, but I will assume they were atheist until otherwise found.

[eggrole1]

Exactly! Wars start with greed, even though governments say they are for other reasons. The Crusades weren't even purely about saving heathen souls... they were about control of important trade routes; it was just easier to shove the idea down the throats of the peasants that they were being conscripted for a holy war, not for a trade war of which they, as lowly serfs, would never see the spoils.

The Crusades were not at all about saving heathen souls. That is sort of the point I am getting at. All these bad things done in the name of religion might not have happened if people knew the real reasons behind them. When one can teach someone a belief system, directly or indirectly one can create a "get out of jail free" thought in just about anyone as long as one can sell them on a higher power. Placing blame to the scapegoated religion for heinous crimes against the world.

[stinkyattic]

The Crusades were not at all about saving heathen souls. ... All these bad things done in the name of religion might not have happened if people knew the real reasons behind them..That's pretty much exactly what I said in my post...

[Coelho]

The Crusades were not at all about saving heathen souls. That is sort of the point I am getting at. All these bad things done in the name of religion might not have happened if people knew the real reasons behind them.

I dont think so... if there were not religion, and everybody were atheist, cynical, rational or whatever, it would be OK to say "lets take our land and gold back", cause there would not be need to justify this acts with some religious talk.
Without religion, which says that its wrong to kill, to steal, and to be greedy, people would be more willing to do such things, in name of the honour, or the power, or the wealth, or whatever, instead of in name of religion. The reasons would be different, but the results would be the same.
The problem is not the religion itself, but the irreligious leaders that use religion to fulfill their evil goals. Only a nasty rational cynical atheist would think about using peoples beliefs to helping its own purposes. Anybody with a bit of religiousness would not think about doing such things.
So, the biggest problem of the religion is the irreligious ones.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Real fast also.. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin Russian Orthodix, Manson used drugs and references to himself being a god to convince the others to do what they did, and I have no knowledge of the Columbine's beliefs. Even if your argument holds true that the religious leaders do not speak for the masses, you can see that in 4 "events" you posed, 3 of them had religious backing, and the 4th an unknown to me, but I will assume they were atheist until otherwise found.

Hitler was NOT a Roman Catholic. He was baptized in a Catholic church at a very young age, and apparently was never excommunicated, but he was not a follower of Christianity. I'll freely admit that he was one of the zealots that you speak of, using supposed religion to justify horrible actions, but in terms of core beliefs, mainline Nazis were a mix of Darwinist secularists, with a very small amount of Christian ideologies mixed in for good measure. Using certain religious scriptures to justify anti-religious actions doesn't make that person religious. Otherwise Richard Dawkins could be considered a secular theist, which wouldn't make a whole lot of sense! Joseph Stalin was a self-proclaimed atheist, another supporter of Darwinism, and was extremely harsh on Russian churches at the time due to his lack of faith in any religion. Stalin didn't believe in a God, and made many public statements stating so. The Soviet dictator said on one occasion, "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense." There are many, many more of Stalin's statements that mirror this one.

As for me becoming a murderer because my God supposedly allows me to "kill my enemies", that's off-base, too. A certain set of commandments that I hold dear explicitly prohibit murder, amongst other things. If I wanted to reinterpret scriptures to suit homicidal tendencies, I could. But then again, anyone can twist words around to justify horrible actions against another. They certainly don't have to be religious works, it's just that sadly, on several occasions, they have been.

The only point I'm trying to make, and have been trying to make, is that humans have a propensity to become violent. Religious humans, or otherwise. I could point out many Shintoists and Buddhists who lived during Feudal periods in Japan and all throughout Asia who murdered countless serfs in pious fits of rage and dominance, but I wouldn't point the finger at Shinto or Buddhism for the heinous acts of a fanatical few. Rather, I'd point the finger at the fanatical few themselves. But, that's just me. I don't see the need to blame their religious beliefs for the fact that they themselves were maniacal and homicidal lunatics. They're to blame, not their implied religious beliefs.

Psychotic people enable themselves... they're not enabled by religion. If they do try to justify their actions using religion, then in most instances, they're taking their religious doctrines out of context... well, most of them. Some religions do appear to be inherently evil, and state such evil tendencies in their holiest of doctrines. In my opinion, of course. But I can only name one religion that justifies violence through "holy scripture", and to try and keep things civil, I'll decline to mention the religion by name.

[mackey33]

Hitler was NOT a Roman Catholic.

I'd like to evoke Godwin's law here...just for shits and grins.

[Born To Stone]

I used to dislike religion a lot because a lot of faith is put into something that is unproven. Plus we were made to sing Christian songs at school when I was a kid, the words of which I did not agree with (we changed them anyway lol :D). However, unless religion is being pushed on someone else or used to persecute I don't really have a problem with it.

It's all very nice saying it isn't proven but no one has ever disproven it either so they are just as right as anyone else until we know otherwise.

Also, most religions do teach very good ethics and often have a great deal of philosophy behind them, also a lot of art and culture has been derived from religion.

BTW I'm not religious at all, I'd call myself agnostic if anything...

[Mr. Clandestine]

I'd like to evoke Godwin's law here...just for shits and grins.

This isn't a debate...

As it stands, you took what I said out of context... effectively rendering anything you have to say about it baseless and without merit. I also used more than Hitler to make my point, which if you were actually reading, you'd have seen wasn't intended to be an analogy in the first place. But rather, a correlation to what the OP claimed about religion starting wars.

Go shit and grin over that. :thumbsup:

[swice1]

The sooner we keep telling everyone that religion is wrong and brainwash the better. What is so wrong about telling the truth? Our world would have less of these pointless wars and all live as one. For you Christians, how many animals do you think are religious? Humans are just another part of the worlds evolutionary creatures. Wake up.

[eggrole1]

Hitler was NOT a Roman Catholic.

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.


I also don't really understand this people are inherently bad stuff either. Christianity seems to love to say we are all bad until we accept god. What reasoning is there to assume man is inherently evil? I mean every person I know who is religious or not have the same feelings on not killing someone. I mean, are you just not killing people b/c the bible says so? If the bible were just erased from history, you'd be killing people because there was nothing that said you shouldn't?

I am not saying without religion it would be all champagne in the world. Not for a second do I think wars wouldn't still break out over things like land and resources. I would rather have wars over land than wars over religion any day. As I said before it then sort of holds the leaders behind the war personally responsible. Think about it like this. Over 100 years you could have 5 wars over land, or 2 over land and 4 over religion.

I guess a good way to put it would be that I think religion does more harm than good. Another case where the cure is worse than the (perceived) disease.

[Mr. Clandestine]

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

That, in itself, shows that Hitler either did not follow, or disregarded, the words of the Bible:

"I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:1-3)

Sorry for having to bring scripture into the discussion, but it proves my point perfectly that Hitler was a far cry from doing the work of God. Unless he was stating that his carrying out persecution and murder of the Jews was fulfilling prophecy of the Creator. Which, in that case, he'd have been right. But the actual act of persecution is not the work of the Lord.


I also don't really understand this people are inherently bad stuff either. Christianity seems to love to say we are all bad until we accept god. What reasoning is there to assume man is inherently evil? I mean every person I know who is religious or not have the same feelings on not killing someone. I mean, are you just not killing people b/c the bible says so? If the bible were just erased from history, you'd be killing people because there was nothing that said you shouldn't?

I never said that people are inherently bad, I said that people have a natural inclination to become bad. It seems to be hardwired in the human psyche, where "survival of the fittest" leads us to extremes in hopes of bettering ourselves only, and through whatever means necessary. Whether they're religious people or not. Outside influences, be they perceived spiritually or the work of man, can corrupt the morals of anyone, and generally do. I'm also not basing the morals of everyone on the Commandments of the Bible. That's just what I base my morals on, but different people have different ideas of what's right and wrong. And from the time I learned right from wrong, I knew it was not right to take a human life. The Bible only reiterated this for me. So even if I did not have the Bible, I'd still know it would be wrong to kill, lie, steal, etc. You have to bear in mind, I was very agnostic for most of the years of my life. Even then, without having much knowledge of the Bible, I still acted the same as I do today and held the same morals.

I'm glad you recognize that most wars aren't in fact fought over religion, but rather fought for land-grabs and control over money/resources. The fact that some countries are perceived as religious often times has nothing to do with the reasons for going to war.

[BathingApes]

People attack religion and act like its the problem of the world. Well sorry to break it to you but its not. Go deep down to the history of every war and you will see that none of them were started for religion but for land, money etc. If there was even no such thing as religion all these wars would still be going on. Religion is something just to coat it to get more support.

And attacking someone elses beliefs is not the way to go. That is basically personally attacking someone and saying they are flat out wrong. You dont know %100 either so you just may be proving your own ignorance. I am all for an intelligent conversation to talk about your points but attacking is wrong and creates problems.

Money and greed are prime factors in wars, I'll agree with you. However, most of these wars were committed in the "name of Religion." What I mean by this is that politicians, who want to achieve a goal/gain resources, subscribe to the idea of religious defense/offense because fundamentalists are the easiest to manipulate. Granted, the rationalism of "devout" atheists is sometimes quite obtuse, but generally, they are much more cynical and questioning when it comes to Government reasonings for war. I'm not sure why this is, because in today's society, most of the far right, who are incidentally fundamentalist Christians, are pro-war and subconsciously racist. This, coming from a religion where Jesus preaches inner and outer peace, loving eachother and the discrimination of nobody, highlights just how easy it is to manipulate textual examples in the Bible to backup any subconscious prejudices one may have.

The concept of having such a large book as the "Word of God," means that if you want, you can justify murder, slavery, killing of homosexuals, and actually proclaim it as the voice of a higher deity. Now I realise that the people who do this are an extremely small minority, but it is actually quite common for other topics, such as drugs, rock music, video games etc. Extremism gets publicity, but throughout my life I have encountered people who have constantly been trying to preach the word of God, whilst ignoring what anyone else has to say because "God can't possibly be wrong." It is sad that this happens, and I know that it is a small minority of the religion, but that small minority happens to control most of Government.

Fundamentalists are the biggest danger that this planet faces. The concept of believing the Bible to be the Word of God, then ignoring all the sections where Jesus preaches peace and equaility, is extremely dangerous.

Incidentally, I think you'll find it is the religious-right who are the most against medical marijuana. Not saying they all are, but the majority are against mj recreationally as well as medically.