Quote(CNN) -- An Internet recording claiming to be from wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi condemned democracy as "the big American lie" on Sunday and said participants in Iraq's January 30 election are enemies of Islam.
The authenticity of the message could not immediately be confirmed by CNN.
"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.
"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."
The message was posted on two Islamist Web sites that have carried previous messages thought to be from al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi heads an insurgent group believed responsible for numerous car bombings and beheadings throughout Iraq.
Al-Zarqawi recently renamed his group from Unification and Jihad to al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States has placed $25 million bounties on al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden, whose recent taped messages have endorsed al-Zarqawi's acts of terrorism. (Full story)
The speaker attacked the Iraqi interim government as a tool used by the "Americans to promote this lie that is called democracy ... You have to be careful of the enemy's plots that involve applying democracy in your country and confront these plots, because they only want to do so to ... give the rejectionists the rule of Iraq. And after fighting the Baathists ... and the Sunnis, they will spread their insidious beliefs, and Baghdad and all the Sunni areas will become Shiite. Even now, the signs of infidelity and polytheism are on the rise."
The speaker said that 4 million Iranians had entered Iraq to vote in the coming elections.
"Oh, people of Iraq, where is your honor?" he asked. "Have you accepted oppression of the crusader harlots ... and the rejectionist pigs?"
"For all these issues, we declared war against, and whoever helps promote this and all those candidates, as well as the voters, are also part of this, and are considered enemies of God," the tape said.
On Friday, a video posted on an Islamist Web site showed two Iraqis apparently being beheaded on a city sidewalk. In the past, the Web site has shown video verified as having been produced by a group led by al-Zarqawi. CNN could not confirm the authenticity of the video.
In the 10-minute video, the two men tell their kidnappers that they drove truckloads of food and supplies to a U.S. base in the central Iraqi town of Ramadi
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.main/index.html
Discuss.
People like that give Islam a bad name. They hate us because of a few stupid overly injected women/men that walk around not caring about jack...we hate them because some of them decide that women should walk around & then kill the women. Sad sad
May I say that, Muslims don't suck, but Islam as a whole sucks.
Islam is not a bad religion at all. In reality it is a religion of peace, equality, and justice just like Christianity. Nowhere in the Koran does it say that men are actually superior to women or that men are allowed to treat women as they do in some Islamic countries. Nowhere does it say that killing in the name of Allah is justified, nor does it say that it is a heroes death to die for Allah. True muslims are great people, just like Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Its the people that distort the religion that have the problem.
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on January 23, 2005, 09:33 PM
May I say that, Muslims don't suck, but Islam as a whole sucks.
No. There are Christians who can be just as militant as the Isalm extremists here.
I think that Christianity is based around the idea that you have to
choose to accept God's gift through the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, I think that it is inherently wrong to force religion on someone, as those people are attempting to do.
Islam spawns the majority of the terrorists. Now that indicates to me a flaw in Islam, be it an interpretational one, or one in its beliefs. Either way, it's still a flaw.
Ohh.......true. I wonder why they haven't adapted to new world customs... (ie women aren't property)
Quote from: Hazard on January 23, 2005, 09:44 PM
Islam is not a bad religion at all. In reality it is a religion of peace, equality, and justice just like Christianity. Nowhere in the Koran does it say that men are actually superior to women or that men are allowed to treat women as they do in some Islamic countries. Nowhere does it say that killing in the name of Allah is justified, nor does it say that it is a heroes death to die for Allah. True muslims are great people, just like Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Its the people that distort the religion that have the problem.
Islam, from what I have seen, is inherently flawed and is not a religion of peace. There are quite a few problematic verses in the Koran that seem to be taken out of context time after time which the more militant groups of muslims use to justify their actions. But if it were not there to begin with they would have no ammo. These people are just the fundamentalist muslims. It is just the literal interpretation of these verses that causes all of the problems.
I disagree with you: The more liberal muslims are great people, the people who are not going to take their book verse by verse and act on it, but the people who take it literally and do act on it turn into our terrorists because of the problematic verses that exist within the Koran.
I have no doubt that if the western world were islamic, and the middle east christian, the bible would be used to justify the same kind of behaviour. I know this, because... it has! Just look at the crusades.
It's the circumstances of the countries in question, their politics and their economics that are the important factors - those are the things that create terrorists. Religion is just an excuse.
Arta, I'd agree with you, BUT:
- Islam has not had a reformation
- Despite your side's views that the US/western world is becoming more religious, it's not. The Western world is becoming more secular, while Islam is staying conservatively religious.
Islam is a younger religion by several hundred years. I think it will have a reformation one day, although, I have no basis for that presumption, really :)
I agree that the western world is becoming more secular, and I think that's great. The US does seem to be doing it rather more slowly than the rest of us, though!
Wow Arta.
We agree.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 27, 2005, 06:36 AM
I have no doubt that if the western world were islamic, and the middle east christian, the bible would be used to justify the same kind of behaviour. I know this, because... it has! Just look at the crusades.
It's the circumstances of the countries in question, their politics and their economics that are the important factors - those are the things that create terrorists. Religion is just an excuse.
Except the difference is that the crusades happened hundreds of years ago and Islamic extremists are still carrying out their "jihads" to this day.
Besides isolated incidents and the problems between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, I have a hard time finding examples that put modern Christianity anywhere near on the same level as modern Islam.
Quote from: DOOM on January 27, 2005, 01:30 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 27, 2005, 06:36 AM
I have no doubt that if the western world were islamic, and the middle east christian, the bible would be used to justify the same kind of behaviour. I know this, because... it has! Just look at the crusades.
It's the circumstances of the countries in question, their politics and their economics that are the important factors - those are the things that create terrorists. Religion is just an excuse.
Except the difference is that the crusades happened hundreds of years ago and Islamic extremists are still carrying out their "jihads" to this day.
Besides isolated incidents and the problems between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, I have a hard time finding examples that put modern Christianity anywhere near on the same level as modern Islam.
Note that as Arta pointed out Islam is a religion several hundred years younger.
Since it is younger, shouldn't it be more intouch with today's people?
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 27, 2005, 06:36 AM
I have no doubt that if the western world were islamic, and the middle east christian, the bible would be used to justify the same kind of behaviour. I know this, because... it has! Just look at the crusades.
It's the circumstances of the countries in question, their politics and their economics that are the important factors - those are the things that create terrorists. Religion is just an excuse.
The crusaids were claimed to be in response to muslim aggression. They were primarily a means of spreading anti-semitism and I would say hurt the jews a lot more then anyone else. Jews were robbed all throughout europe and in Israel. We are talking about the corrupt catholic church here, the same church that sold bones claiming that they were Jesus's. The crusaid's were in the guise of religion, but were not justified by the bible.
Christianity was not the spawner of the crusaids (you mentioned politics), but Islam does help to spawn terrorism. It provides a lot more fule because of plenty of problematic verses in the Koran that if taken literally encourage violence.
Quote from: dxoigmn on January 27, 2005, 02:43 PM
Quote from: DOOM on January 27, 2005, 01:30 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 27, 2005, 06:36 AM
I have no doubt that if the western world were islamic, and the middle east christian, the bible would be used to justify the same kind of behaviour. I know this, because... it has! Just look at the crusades.
It's the circumstances of the countries in question, their politics and their economics that are the important factors - those are the things that create terrorists. Religion is just an excuse.
Except the difference is that the crusades happened hundreds of years ago and Islamic extremists are still carrying out their "jihads" to this day.
Besides isolated incidents and the problems between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, I have a hard time finding examples that put modern Christianity anywhere near on the same level as modern Islam.
Note that as Arta pointed out Islam is a religion several hundred years younger.
Islam may have formed a couple hundread years after Jesus died, but when you think about when the catholic church was formed it is no newer. It was the catholics who launced the crusaids, not other groups like the anabaptists.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 27, 2005, 11:43 AM
I agree that the western world is becoming more secular, and I think that's great. The US does seem to be doing it rather more slowly than the rest of us, though!
That is not how it looks from here. Our nation is going in the crapper.
so many freakin' immoral punk/hippie/rockers out there....pshht.
Corrupt Catholic church, Muslim fundamentalists, anyone see a parallel here?
Islam needs a reformation...
Quote from: dxoigmn on January 27, 2005, 02:43 PM
Quote from: DOOM on January 27, 2005, 01:30 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 27, 2005, 06:36 AM
I have no doubt that if the western world were islamic, and the middle east christian, the bible would be used to justify the same kind of behaviour. I know this, because... it has! Just look at the crusades.
It's the circumstances of the countries in question, their politics and their economics that are the important factors - those are the things that create terrorists. Religion is just an excuse.
Except the difference is that the crusades happened hundreds of years ago and Islamic extremists are still carrying out their "jihads" to this day.
Besides isolated incidents and the problems between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, I have a hard time finding examples that put modern Christianity anywhere near on the same level as modern Islam.
Note that as Arta pointed out Islam is a religion several hundred years younger.
So that means... their people are several hundred years less civilized...? Is that where we're going with this?
Quote from: DOOM on January 27, 2005, 09:48 PM
So that means... their people are several hundred years less civilized...? Is that where we're going with this?
No I didn't say that. Don't pull a Hazard. I am saying their religion hasn't had as much time to develop as christianity has.
Why does their religion have to develope?... why can't they develope as human beings on the plant earth? Are you making excuses for some of these people that kill others because of the styles/tradition of Western Civ?
Quote from: CrAz3D on January 28, 2005, 12:18 AM
Why does their religion have to develope?... why can't they develope as human beings on the plant earth? Are you making excuses for some of these people that kill others because of the styles/tradition of Western Civ?
It doesn't have to develop. But if someone is going to make a comparison with another religion like DOOM did (which he nearly states that Islam is worse than Christianity), then I'm going to argue give it time like christianity has been given time. This has nothing to do with people being civilized or not, nor am I making excuses. I just believe a comparison like DOOM made is inherently flawed.
I think DOOM is putting a rather ngative spin on my comment.
I'm not an expert in this kind of thing, so this might all be bs - but it seems to me like a reasonable idea that religions go through stages of development, and change over time, just the same way everything else does. Perhaps it's just a coindidence though.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Islam as a religion is not much different to christianity in its capacity to be abused to support evil things. The crusades are a good example of how Christianity has been used to justify evil, the spanish inquisition is another. I don't think anyone here would claim Christianity to be inherantly evil, and yet people do seem to be making noises in that direction about Islam, even though Christianity has been used to the same effect.
Evil people have the capacity to use whatever religion they follow to justify their rhetoric. It just so happens that at this period in history, it's Islam - and I think the reasons for that are politicial and socioeconomic, and have nothing to do with religion. If Islam were at fault, then all, or at least a majority of Muslims would be fundamentalist crazies - but that's not what we see at all. The vast majority of Muslims are not at all like that, just like the vast majority of Christians have nothing in common with the KKK, or the people who run around killing abortion doctors.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 28, 2005, 07:36 AM
I don't think anyone here would claim Christianity to be inherantly evil,
In a way, I believe that religion is inherently evil, which includes Christianity. I'd also say Christianity is eviller than Buddhism (has more potential for evil).
Religion is evil?! That has to one of the most lame-brained comments I've ever read! People are evil, all people. To what extent of which people are evil varies...some people can be more closed minded & then use religion as a tool...then there are a few people, that I didn't know exsisted until now, that believe religion is evil. These people that believe something that is so pure can be so vile are the true satanic people of the world, not Bush who supports his country & his home-state schools.
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on January 27, 2005, 09:38 PM
Corrupt Catholic church, Muslim fundamentalists, anyone see a parallel here?
Islam needs a reformation...
Islam needs a new holy book!
Quote from: dxoigmn on January 27, 2005, 11:14 PM
Quote from: DOOM on January 27, 2005, 09:48 PM
So that means... their people are several hundred years less civilized...? Is that where we're going with this?
No I didn't say that. Don't pull a Hazard. I am saying their religion hasn't had as much time to develop as christianity has.
As christianity? Let me make the point again, it was the catholics who launched the crusaids and they formed closer to the time of the founding of Islam.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 28, 2005, 07:36 AM
The crusades are a good example of how Christianity has been used to justify evil, the spanish inquisition is another. I don't think anyone here would claim Christianity to be inherantly evil, and yet people do seem to be making noises in that direction about Islam, even though Christianity has been used to the same effect.
No, they are not. Those are both terrible examples. You are confusing the catholics who are influenced by the pope with a biblical justification.
Infact the crusaids were not even largly justified by religion, at first the whole claim was it was in reponse to muslim aggression IIRC.
Quote from: CrAz3D on January 28, 2005, 01:03 PM
Religion is evil?! That has to one of the most lame-brained comments I've ever read! People are evil, all people. To what extent of which people are evil varies...some people can be more closed minded & then use religion as a tool...then there are a few people, that I didn't know exsisted until now, that believe religion is evil. These people that believe something that is so pure can be so vile are the true satanic people of the world, not Bush who supports his country & his home-state schools.
Ever heard that religion is an opiate for the people? A way to calm the masses and make them follow your tune whenever you blow the pipe? A way to make people live happily in slavery because they're promised a better afterlife? A way to make a man kill his neighbour?
Those are common for many religions. A way to make people follow instead of thinking can't be a good thing.
Quote from: Adron on January 28, 2005, 05:58 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on January 28, 2005, 01:03 PM
Religion is evil?! That has to one of the most lame-brained comments I've ever read! People are evil, all people. To what extent of which people are evil varies...some people can be more closed minded & then use religion as a tool...then there are a few people, that I didn't know exsisted until now, that believe religion is evil. These people that believe something that is so pure can be so vile are the true satanic people of the world, not Bush who supports his country & his home-state schools.
Ever heard that religion is an opiate for the people? A way to calm the masses and make them follow your tune whenever you blow the pipe? A way to make people live happily in slavery because they're promised a better afterlife? A way to make a man kill his neighbour?
Those are common for many religions. A way to make people follow instead of thinking can't be a good thing.
Making people follow instead of thinking? I
thought about my options and chose religion.
Even if I am wrong and you are right what do I have to lose? I will be living a great life, and a moral life, and if I am wrong then maybe I just die. If you are wrong then you could be facing an unhappy afterlife.
Your view of religion is very warped ::)
Your post can almost be interpreted as you calling all religious people fools.
I don't really care if it was a papal or a biblical thing, it's still religion. It's still illustrative of the way in which any religion, or religious text, can be interpreted (or, indeed, misinterpreted!) to justify evil things.
As for the reason behind the crusades, that varies according to which crusade you are referring to. In any event, religion was a major factor in all of them - if for no other reason than people were motivated by their religion, as well as any political factors, to undertake them. In the first crusade, many knights saw themselves as holy warriors, and undertook the crusade - which at that time, was just a 'pilgrimage' ('crusade' was a term coined in the 12th century) - for spiritual reasons rather than material ones. Upon reaching the largely muslim Jerusalem, they killed just about everyone, including some Christians already living there (mistakenly or otherwise).
Anyway, the point is: any religion can be used to justify evil, not just Islam.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on January 28, 2005, 07:54 PM
I don't really care if it was a papal or a biblical thing, it's still religion. It's still illustrative of the way in which any religion, or religious text, can be interpreted (or, indeed, misinterpreted!) to justify evil things.
As for the reason behind the crusades, that varies according to which crusade you are referring to. In any event, religion was a major factor in all of them - if for no other reason than people were motivated by their religion, as well as any political factors, to undertake them. In the first crusade, many knights saw themselves as holy warriors, and undertook the crusade - which at that time, was just a 'pilgrimage' ('crusade' was a term coined in the 12th century) - for spiritual reasons rather than material ones. Upon reaching the largely muslim Jerusalem, they killed just about everyone, including some Christians already living there (mistakenly or otherwise).
Anyway, the point is: any religion can be used to justify evil, not just Islam.
But we were originally talking about biblical justification / justification based on the koran. The pope is not a religious text that can be misinterpreted. He is a man who (IMO) can be corrupted and some follow him and rever him as being holy (some believe him to be infaulable), but he is not some book that can be twisted in order to justify a cause.
Note* Not every christian follows the pope because there was a much needed reformation.
Quote from: quasi-modo on January 28, 2005, 08:36 PM
Note* Not every christian follows the pope because there was a much needed reformation.
Catholic != Christian, no Christian follows the pope.
Quote from: j0k3r on January 28, 2005, 08:53 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on January 28, 2005, 08:36 PM
Note* Not every christian follows the pope because there was a much needed reformation.
Catholic != Christian, no Christian follows the pope.
I did not make any remarks like that because I did not want to offend any forum catholics :-X, But I am not going to argue against you :P
Quote from: quasi-modo on January 28, 2005, 07:16 PM
Even if I am wrong and you are right what do I have to lose? I will be living a great life, and a moral life, and if I am wrong then maybe I just die. If you are wrong then you could be facing an unhappy afterlife.
Just theoretically, if you assume that some religion is correct, there's no particular reason that your religion would be. It's quite possible that you have actually offended the real god by having had other gods before him, and that your choice will have you facing a terrible afterlife.
A moral life can mean anything. It could mean that you make sure to stone any woman you see outside not wearing a burka.
Don't do things because some religion tells you to. Do them because you have considered the physical hard consequences of / reasons for doing or not doing so.
Quote from: quasi-modo on January 28, 2005, 07:16 PM
Your view of religion is very warped ::)
Your post can almost be interpreted as you calling all religious people fools.
I almost do... I consider most religious people fools.
Any that do what their religion tells them just because it tells them to are fools. Or that do what their religion tells them to because there's a reward promised in the next life / afterlife / ...
Quote from: Adron on January 29, 2005, 02:46 AM
Don't do things because some religion tells you to. Do them because you have considered the physical hard consequences of / reasons for doing or not doing so.
I agree. This is a major problem I have with religion and religious people. I don't need some book to tell me how to live a moral life.
Are you so sure that morals would survive as they have without religions?
I feel that regardless of if I believed in God or not I would go to church, there are life lessons to be learned. Everytime I leave a service sunday morning I feel as though I have learned something that has helped me, or will one day help me. A great example would be today, he spoke about anger and dealing with it. On friday a friend of mine did something to piss me off, alot, I woke up saturday and was pissed until mid afternoon when I did something stupid to make me feel better, had I not been angry I wouldn't have done it. Regardless of it being a bible teaching, I find everyone should listen and heed the advice.
Maybe I'm ignorant, maybe my church is an exception, maybe it's all right, what you get out of life is what you put into it and I don't see how I can go wrong with this.
Quote from: Adron on January 28, 2005, 05:58 PM
Ever heard that religion is an opiate for the people? A way to calm the masses and make them follow your tune whenever you blow the pipe? A way to make people live happily in slavery because they're promised a better afterlife? A way to make a man kill his neighbour?
Those are common for many religions. A way to make people follow instead of thinking can't be a good thing.
You know that Communism and Fascism were both against religion right? And how many millions of people did those two idealogies manage to kill? A few more than Christianity ever did.
Quote from: DOOM on January 30, 2005, 08:43 PM
You know that Communism and Fascism were both against religion right? And how many millions of people did those two idealogies manage to kill? A few more than Christianity ever did.
There could be many reasons for how many people a movement end up killing. I'm also not sure what numbers you are referring to, as far as I know Christianity may well have killed more people. And even if it didn't kill more in absolute numbers, that could just be because there weren't as many people around to kill.
Fascism wasn't strictly anti-Religious, Hitler was a Christian.
Quote from: j0k3r on January 30, 2005, 07:19 PM
I feel that regardless of if I believed in God or not I would go to church, there are life lessons to be learned. Everytime I leave a service sunday morning I feel as though I have learned something that has helped me, or will one day help me. A great example would be today, he spoke about anger and dealing with it.
There's nothing wrong with that. If you're getting useful psychological advice, use it. Many priests are quite good with the human mind. After all, to control people's minds, they have to be. Things don't have to be wrong just because a priest says them. They just don't necessarily have to be right either. Listen, understand, and use whatever parts make sense.
Just don't trust religion more than common sense. Evil example:
You lost friends in the tsunami disaster. You go talk to a priest about why things happen and he says everything that happens is the will of god, there's some hidden purpose to it. Well, perhaps that'll make you happier.
Then you follow that advice, and go lose your paycheck betting on dice, thinking: Ah, everything that happens is the will of god. He wanted me to lose my paycheck.
And then you go on to lose your house rolling dice against me. Strangely enough I keep rolling 6's all the time. But you think: Ah, god wants me to lose my house, he's creating a miracle with those dice coming up all 6's all the time.
Or, perhaps you use common sense instead of religion :)
Quote from: Adron on January 31, 2005, 04:12 PM
Quote from: j0k3r on January 30, 2005, 07:19 PM
I feel that regardless of if I believed in God or not I would go to church, there are life lessons to be learned. Everytime I leave a service sunday morning I feel as though I have learned something that has helped me, or will one day help me. A great example would be today, he spoke about anger and dealing with it.
Just don't trust religion more than common sense. Evil example:
You lost friends in the tsunami disaster. You go talk to a priest about why things happen and he says everything that happens is the will of god, there's some hidden purpose to it. Well, perhaps that'll make you happier.
Then you follow that advice, and go lose your paycheck betting on dice, thinking: Ah, everything that happens is the will of god. He wanted me to lose my paycheck.
And then you go on to lose your house rolling dice against me. Strangely enough I keep rolling 6's all the time. But you think: Ah, god wants me to lose my house, he's creating a miracle with those dice coming up all 6's all the time.
Or, perhaps you use common sense instead of religion :)
My views on this: God knows everything that is going to happen before it happens right? Yet it was your actions that made you loose the money, the fact that you lost it might have been in the will of God (he might have been trying to tell you not to gamble), but obviously the Tsunami was not the fault of the people who died in it directly. There are some differences here.
Quote from: Adron on January 31, 2005, 01:44 AM
There could be many reasons for how many people a movement end up killing. I'm also not sure what numbers you are referring to, as far as I know Christianity may well have killed more people. And even if it didn't kill more in absolute numbers, that could just be because there weren't as many people around to kill.
After doing a quick Google search, I found this link:
http://www.islam101.com/humanRelations/mcrtGaB.htm
It suggests that about 200,000 civilians were killed during the crusades. Contrast that with the 6 million Jews killed in World War 2. That isn't even counting the homosexuals, gypsies, communists, and political prisoners the Nazis killed. If I remember correctly, Joseph Stalin killed off even more people than that. The Soviet Union was well known for its atheism. And Hitler's plan was to eventually phase all religion out of Nazi Germany as well. In National Socialism, the state is all important. Any sort of God figure doesn't fit with the "state is supreme" ideal. So in the past 100 years, how many millions of people have been wiped out of existence by atheists? Religion may be used as an excuse in some conflicts, but give me a break.
Quote from: quasi-modo on January 31, 2005, 06:41 PM
My views on this: God knows everything that is going to happen before it happens right? Yet it was your actions that made you loose the money, the fact that you lost it might have been in the will of God (he might have been trying to tell you not to gamble), but obviously the Tsunami was not the fault of the people who died in it directly. There are some differences here.
There are differences, but not in principle, just in numbers. The chance of a Tsunami happening at the same time you're in the area is much much smaller than the chance of losing money in a game, but in both cases it's about chances. If god knows both in advance, he could warn you not to stay near the beach at the time of the Tsunami. Just as he could warn you not to wager your money on the throw that you lost.
And I actually thought god was considered to be able to affect things, not just have knowledge of them.
Quote from: DOOM on January 31, 2005, 06:48 PM
It suggests that about 200,000 civilians were killed during the crusades. Contrast that with the 6 million Jews killed in World War 2. That isn't even counting the homosexuals, gypsies, communists, and political prisoners the Nazis killed. If I remember correctly, Joseph Stalin killed off even more people than that. The Soviet Union was well known for its atheism. And Hitler's plan was to eventually phase all religion out of Nazi Germany as well. In National Socialism, the state is all important. Any sort of God figure doesn't fit with the "state is supreme" ideal. So in the past 100 years, how many millions of people have been wiped out of existence by atheists? Religion may be used as an excuse in some conflicts, but give me a break.
World War 2 - Killing jews. Ever consider that "jew" is a definition of religious beliefs? Someone else pointed out that Hitler was christian. I'm sure you'll find if you look that many people in the trenches in the world wars were christians. Relatively few people are probably killed by atheists.
Like I said, you need to put the 200000 civilians killed during the crusades in relation to the number of people available in those days, and the efficiency of their weapons.
Finally, my point wasn't about how many people are killed in this or that conflict. I wasn't talking about religion used as an excuse for wars but religion used as a tool to motivate people to do things. Good things, bad things, anything, without thinking.
Quote from: Adron on February 01, 2005, 03:00 AM
Quote from: DOOM on January 31, 2005, 06:48 PM
It suggests that about 200,000 civilians were killed during the crusades. Contrast that with the 6 million Jews killed in World War 2. That isn't even counting the homosexuals, gypsies, communists, and political prisoners the Nazis killed. If I remember correctly, Joseph Stalin killed off even more people than that. The Soviet Union was well known for its atheism. And Hitler's plan was to eventually phase all religion out of Nazi Germany as well. In National Socialism, the state is all important. Any sort of God figure doesn't fit with the "state is supreme" ideal. So in the past 100 years, how many millions of people have been wiped out of existence by atheists? Religion may be used as an excuse in some conflicts, but give me a break.
World War 2 - Killing jews. Ever consider that "jew" is a definition of religious beliefs? Someone else pointed out that Hitler was christian. I'm sure you'll find if you look that many people in the trenches in the world wars were christians. Relatively few people are probably killed by atheists.
All jews were killed. Even if you were not jewish (by faith) but your dad was a jew or your mom was not or vice versa you were put on a train. In this case I say we reguard to jews as a race. Hitler did not kill the jews b ecause he did not like their religion, he killed them because they were a small group (relative to others) that he could unite the people against to propel him to a more powerful position. He made the people hate them because of their wealth. WWII was not a holy war. The people in the trenches being christian means nothing. You could even say tht the catholic church looked the other way because they did not like the jews... but this is not so. Hitler basically blackmailed the catholic church not to get involved.
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 01, 2005, 05:19 AM
All jews were killed. Even if you were not jewish (by faith) but your dad was a jew or your mom was not or vice versa you were put on a train. In this case I say we reguard to jews as a race. Hitler did not kill the jews b ecause he did not like their religion, he killed them because they were a small group (relative to others) that he could unite the people against to propel him to a more powerful position. He made the people hate them because of their wealth. WWII was not a holy war. The people in the trenches being christian means nothing. You could even say tht the catholic church looked the other way because they did not like the jews... but this is not so. Hitler basically blackmailed the catholic church not to get involved.
That's religious. It's part of some religions that you belong to the chosen people by being born by parents belonging to the chosen people. If you're chosen to own land or chosen to die, that's the same thing. But like you say, religion isn't really just about god and beliefs. It's used for various reasons. In this case, to identify a group to kill.
Quote from: Adron on February 01, 2005, 07:46 AM
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 01, 2005, 05:19 AM
All jews were killed. Even if you were not jewish (by faith) but your dad was a jew or your mom was not or vice versa you were put on a train. In this case I say we reguard to jews as a race. Hitler did not kill the jews b ecause he did not like their religion, he killed them because they were a small group (relative to others) that he could unite the people against to propel him to a more powerful position. He made the people hate them because of their wealth. WWII was not a holy war. The people in the trenches being christian means nothing. You could even say tht the catholic church looked the other way because they did not like the jews... but this is not so. Hitler basically blackmailed the catholic church not to get involved.
That's religious. It's part of some religions that you belong to the chosen people by being born by parents belonging to the chosen people. If you're chosen to own land or chosen to die, that's the same thing. But like you say, religion isn't really just about god and beliefs. It's used for various reasons. In this case, to identify a group to kill.
My point was it is not a religion... it is an ethnicity.
Quote from: Adron on February 01, 2005, 03:00 AM
World War 2 - Killing jews. Ever consider that "jew" is a definition of religious beliefs? Someone else pointed out that Hitler was christian. I'm sure you'll find if you look that many people in the trenches in the world wars were christians. Relatively few people are probably killed by atheists.
Now you're really stretching. Before you were trying to blame religion for the wrongs in the world, now because fascists targeted jews, it's the same thing because jews are religious...? Like someone else pointed out, Hitler killed Jews whether they practiced their religion or not. He didn't care. And I already pointed out that Hitler was planning on phasing out religion all together because it stood between him and his plans for totally dominating the people.
And what does the religious beliefs of those in the trenches have to do with anything? They weren't the ones who started the war.
Quote
Like I said, you need to put the 200000 civilians killed during the crusades in relation to the number of people available in those days, and the efficiency of their weapons.
Maybe you need to take that into account, but you can't ignore the insane amount of people killed either by the Nazis and communists either.
Quote
Finally, my point wasn't about how many people are killed in this or that conflict. I wasn't talking about religion used as an excuse for wars but religion used as a tool to motivate people to do things. Good things, bad things, anything, without thinking.
You can find people that blindly follow any belief system, it doesn't have to be religious. You can also find plenty of people that don't blindly follow a belief system, they follow it because they choose to. You don't seem very open to religion, maybe atheism or agnosticism is causing you to reject it without thinking. You can turn anything around to try to dismiss someone else's beliefs offhand.
Quote from: DOOM on February 01, 2005, 05:41 PM
Now you're really stretching. Before you were trying to blame religion for the wrongs in the world, now because fascists targeted jews, it's the same thing because jews are religious...? Like someone else pointed out, Hitler killed Jews whether they practiced their religion or not. He didn't care. And I already pointed out that Hitler was planning on phasing out religion all together because it stood between him and his plans for totally dominating the people.
And what does the religious beliefs of those in the trenches have to do with anything? They weren't the ones who started the war.
It has to do everything with what I'm trying to say: Religion as a means to motivate people to do things. But let's abandon all the war and death counts, since they're not really important to the point anyway.
Quote from: DOOM on February 01, 2005, 05:41 PM
You can find people that blindly follow any belief system, it doesn't have to be religious. You can also find plenty of people that don't blindly follow a belief system, they follow it because they choose to. You don't seem very open to religion, maybe atheism or agnosticism is causing you to reject it without thinking. You can turn anything around to try to dismiss someone else's beliefs offhand.
Could you give me some examples of belief systems that are blindly followed without being of the religious kind? It seems to me that religion is the one totally dominating type of belief system that expects you to follow just because (a higher power wants you to / god will reward you / your afterlife will be better / insert other non-existant reward)
Quote from: Adron on February 01, 2005, 09:03 PM
It has to do everything with what I'm trying to say: Religion as a means to motivate people to do things. But let's abandon all the war and death counts, since they're not really important to the point anyway.
Yeah, I am sure you want to ignore wars and death counts: they contradict your little theory. For all motivation and evil intentions you try to tell us are in religion, you want to quickly sidestep the far greater evils that have been unleashed upon the world that were not religiously motivated.
Quote
Could you give me some examples of belief systems that are blindly followed without being of the religious kind? It seems to me that religion is the one totally dominating type of belief system that expects you to follow just because (a higher power wants you to / god will reward you / your afterlife will be better / insert other non-existant reward)
What about political idealogy? There are plenty of people that will just fall in line with what their political party tells them is right without thinking on their own. What about laws? Plenty of people blindly follow the law simply because it is "the law" without beginning to consider why it is the law. There are people in abusive relationships that will do whatever their abusive partner tells them to do. You can find examples of people being controlled by pretty much anything. It isn't difficult.
Quote from: DOOM on February 01, 2005, 11:04 PM
Yeah, I am sure you want to ignore wars and death counts: they contradict your little theory. For all motivation and evil intentions you try to tell us are in religion, you want to quickly sidestep the far greater evils that have been unleashed upon the world that were not religiously motivated.
No, they do not actually contradict my theory. Religion has caused much suffering throughout the world, and many wars, conflicts and misunderstanding. A recent example is how Bush used religion to motivate americans to fight the war against terror. A crusade against evil. Evil against evil.
And actually, I don't claim that religion is the root of all evil. That some evil is not based on religion doesn't say anything about whether religion is good or bad.
Religion can and has been used as a driving force for war and terrorism (see crusades, IRA, jews, israel, etc). Religion also does not prevent wars started for other reasons (men fighting wars for other reasons can be christians and that doesn't stop them).
And apart from that, religion is used to slow down progress on stem cell research, abortion, gay relationships etc.
Quote from: DOOM on February 01, 2005, 11:04 PM
What about political idealogy? There are plenty of people that will just fall in line with what their political party tells them is right without thinking on their own. What about laws? Plenty of people blindly follow the law simply because it is "the law" without beginning to consider why it is the law. There are people in abusive relationships that will do whatever their abusive partner tells them to do. You can find examples of people being controlled by pretty much anything. It isn't difficult.
Political ideology, yes, falling in line without thinking on their own is bad. And the "Politically correct" is a curse. It's almost as bad as religion.
Laws, well... They are supposed to be less restrictive and more adaptable than religion. Of course, there are religious laws as well. Very bad. Religion and laws are very similar in many ways - the big difference is that religion is less flexible. Today you might forbid some kind of food because it's dangerous. In the old days, pork was forbidden in some religions, most likely since eating pork could transfer diseases / parasites. Today, hygiene has improved and there's no longer a need for the prohibition, but because it was made religion instead of just law, it's not possible to change. That's why religion is much worse than laws.
Abusive relationships... Well yes, some people do follow those. I don't think we consider them sound though? Religion has been used to help promote abusive relationships. If you don't feel like beating your wife and risking that she might hurt you when you're unprepared, religion is a much better way of controlling her. If god has said she must serve you, obviously she has to? Perhaps in next life she'll be born a man too, if she serves well.
Quote from: Adron on February 02, 2005, 09:39 AM
No, they do not actually contradict my theory. Religion has caused much suffering throughout the world, and many wars, conflicts and misunderstanding. A recent example is how Bush used religion to motivate americans to fight the war against terror. A crusade against evil. Evil against evil.
Religions also do a lot of work to ease suffering throughout the world too.
I don't know that religion was the motivating factor... Some asshole killing thousands of my fellow citizens was enough for me.
Critics of the Bush administration do confuse me though. One minute they say he is leading a holy war against the poor poor Muslims, but they next they say how he is in bed with the Saudis...
Quote
Religion can and has been used as a driving force for war and terrorism (see crusades, IRA, jews, israel, etc). Religion also does not prevent wars started for other reasons (men fighting wars for other reasons can be christians and that doesn't stop them).
Religion itself is a rather abstract idea. It seems to me that it is a great deal easier to blame an abstract concept for all the wrong in the world rather than to lay the blame on the individuals that actually commit the wrongs. It reminds me of the Columbine school shooting. I don't know how many articles I've read by people trying to lay the blame on some band that the two shooters listened to or some video game that they played. How about blaming the shooters? How about blaming their parents for not noticing that their children were nuts? How about blaming the kids that beat the piss out of them every day? How about blaming the school that did nothing to stop the beatings? People don't like addressing tough questions. Not in school shootings and not in war either. It's much easier to blame "religion" that to blame someone like the individual that causes the problem.
Quote
And apart from that, religion is used to slow down progress on stem cell research, abortion, gay relationships etc.
But that assumes that those things are "good." One doesn't have to be religious in order to oppose any of those either.
Quote
Political ideology, yes, falling in line without thinking on their own is bad. And the "Politically correct" is a curse. It's almost as bad as religion.
We definitely agree about political correctness.
Quote
Laws, well... They are supposed to be less restrictive and more adaptable than religion. Of course, there are religious laws as well. Very bad. Religion and laws are very similar in many ways - the big difference is that religion is less flexible. Today you might forbid some kind of food because it's dangerous. In the old days, pork was forbidden in some religions, most likely since eating pork could transfer diseases / parasites. Today, hygiene has improved and there's no longer a need for the prohibition, but because it was made religion instead of just law, it's not possible to change. That's why religion is much worse than laws.
Is religion less flexible? Plenty of religions spawned off of other religions because people didn't agree with certain practices.
You seem to lump all religions in together instead of evaluating each one on an individual basis. My religion doesn't attempt to restrict me from eating pork, for example.
Quote
Abusive relationships... Well yes, some people do follow those. I don't think we consider them sound though? Religion has been used to help promote abusive relationships. If you don't feel like beating your wife and risking that she might hurt you when you're unprepared, religion is a much better way of controlling her. If god has said she must serve you, obviously she has to? Perhaps in next life she'll be born a man too, if she serves well.
The actual ideals expressed in religious texts, such as the Bible, tell us to love people, not to hurt them. If someone twists religion and uses it as a tool, it is the person who twisted it who is at fault, not the concept of religion.
Quote from: DOOM on February 02, 2005, 02:40 PM
Religions also do a lot of work to ease suffering throughout the world too.
That is the only good thing about religion. Sometimes it can help ease unavoidable suffering. But there isn't a far distance between "helping ease people's unavoidable suffering" and "helping keep people content with suffering instead of doing something about the root cause of their suffering".
Quote from: DOOM on February 02, 2005, 02:40 PM
I don't know that religion was the motivating factor... Some asshole killing thousands of my fellow citizens was enough for me.
Critics of the Bush administration do confuse me though. One minute they say he is leading a holy war against the poor poor Muslims, but they next they say how he is in bed with the Saudis...
Maybe that's his nature? Leading a holy war against poor people, yet allying himself with the devil when the devil offers good stuff? But, that's the topic of an entirely different discussion.
Quote from: DOOM on February 02, 2005, 02:40 PM
Quote
Religion can and has been used as a driving force for war and terrorism (see crusades, IRA, jews, israel, etc). Religion also does not prevent wars started for other reasons (men fighting wars for other reasons can be christians and that doesn't stop them).
Religion itself is a rather abstract idea. It seems to me that it is a great deal easier to blame an abstract concept for all the wrong in the world rather than to lay the blame on the individuals that actually commit the wrongs. It reminds me of the Columbine school shooting. I don't know how many articles I've read by people trying to lay the blame on some band that the two shooters listened to or some video game that they played. How about blaming the shooters? How about blaming their parents for not noticing that their children were nuts? How about blaming the kids that beat the piss out of them every day? How about blaming the school that did nothing to stop the beatings? People don't like addressing tough questions. Not in school shootings and not in war either. It's much easier to blame "religion" that to blame someone like the individual that causes the problem.
Columbine shootings, well... You bring up a lot of things. In these cases there's rarely a one single cause of everything. It's a combination of factors, and to prevent future occurrences you have to work with reducing all the factors. Yes, you can put the blame on the boy and crucify him. Then you can crucify the next boy that does the same thing. Or you could root out the causes and do something about them.
Quote from: DOOM on February 02, 2005, 02:40 PM
But that assumes that those things are "good." One doesn't have to be religious in order to oppose any of those either.
True, but there's a difference to how people oppose things. I may be opposed to something being done to me, and that's one thing. Religious people are typically opposed to the thing being done to / by anyone in the world. They want to control everyone else's lifes, not just their own.
Quote from: DOOM on February 02, 2005, 02:40 PM
Is religion less flexible? Plenty of religions spawned off of other religions because people didn't agree with certain practices.
You seem to lump all religions in together instead of evaluating each one on an individual basis. My religion doesn't attempt to restrict me from eating pork, for example.
Yes, religion is typically less flexible.
When you try to keep people free from parasites by not eating pork in a scientific fashion, you'll tell them not to eat pork because it contains parasites. If later a way to remove the parasites is found, the whole argument falls away and you can eat pork freely.
When the same thing is done in a religious way instead, you tell them not to eat pork because god says so. You produce a script, claiming it is the words of god that say what you want the people to do. When later a way is found to remove the parasites, those scripts will still remain. In religious people's minds, they will be even more valid now, because they're old. And so, religion becomes less flexible.
Quote from: DOOM on February 02, 2005, 02:40 PM
Quote
Abusive relationships... Well yes, some people do follow those. I don't think we consider them sound though? Religion has been used to help promote abusive relationships. If you don't feel like beating your wife and risking that she might hurt you when you're unprepared, religion is a much better way of controlling her. If god has said she must serve you, obviously she has to? Perhaps in next life she'll be born a man too, if she serves well.
The actual ideals expressed in religious texts, such as the Bible, tell us to love people, not to hurt them. If someone twists religion and uses it as a tool, it is the person who twisted it who is at fault, not the concept of religion.
The concept is at fault because it is not inherently good, and it's easily abusable. Religion promotes following instructions without questioning, which is bad. Things that do not make sense are explained away by asserting the weight of "god" to your opinion.
The only redeeming quality about the concept of religion is that making up explanations for a bad thing can help people get over it quicker. White lies, like how you tell a child the dog moved out instead of saying it was run over by a truck. Except in this case it's helping adults get over things.
Quote from: Adron on February 03, 2005, 09:53 AM
That is the only good thing about religion. Sometimes it can help ease unavoidable suffering. But there isn't a far distance between "helping ease people's unavoidable suffering" and "helping keep people content with suffering instead of doing something about the root cause of their suffering".
I can't speak for everyone (even if you seem to think you can), but when my church collects supplies to help people, there's no secret meeting in the basement where we discuss about how we're going to send them just enough to keep them content so that the poor become de facto slaves to the church. People at my church seem genuinely interested in easing the suffering of others.
Quote
Columbine shootings, well... You bring up a lot of things. In these cases there's rarely a one single cause of everything. It's a combination of factors, and to prevent future occurrences you have to work with reducing all the factors. Yes, you can put the blame on the boy and crucify him. Then you can crucify the next boy that does the same thing. Or you could root out the causes and do something about them.
What is the "root cause?" I played the video game DOOM. I listen to Marilyn Manson. My family owns guns. Those were the things the media wanted to blame. Yet, I and the thousands of others like me don't go around shooting up schools.
Quote
True, but there's a difference to how people oppose things. I may be opposed to something being done to me, and that's one thing. Religious people are typically opposed to the thing being done to / by anyone in the world. They want to control everyone else's lifes, not just their own.
I am curious. What would your response be if I said: most blacks are stupid people that can barely speak English and the only thing most of them are good for is to play sports. Most people would be offended by that assertion. They would label it as racist and at the least would say that it is an unfair, ignorant generalization. Yet you repeatedly make generalizations about religious people. I don't think you have a clue who the "typical" religious person is. If all religions want to control your life, why are some okay with homosexuality? And why even in religions that are against homosexuality can you find plenty of people that support it? You know there are a lot of Catholics that vote Democrat, right? Plenty of Catholics believe abortion is okay. And that's just in the Catholic church, one of the more conservative branches of Christianity and one of the historically most repressive branches of Christianity. If their followers are "allowed" to think for themselves and decide what is right, if not all of them can agree on what is right, then how in the hell does that mean that religion is "controlling" everyone?
Quote
Yes, religion is typically less flexible.
When you try to keep people free from parasites by not eating pork in a scientific fashion, you'll tell them not to eat pork because it contains parasites. If later a way to remove the parasites is found, the whole argument falls away and you can eat pork freely.
When the same thing is done in a religious way instead, you tell them not to eat pork because god says so. You produce a script, claiming it is the words of god that say what you want the people to do. When later a way is found to remove the parasites, those scripts will still remain. In religious people's minds, they will be even more valid now, because they're old. And so, religion becomes less flexible.
I know plenty of people from different branches of Christianity. They all eat pork.
Quote
The concept is at fault because it is not inherently good, and it's easily abusable. Religion promotes following instructions without questioning, which is bad. Things that do not make sense are explained away by asserting the weight of "god" to your opinion.
Wrong. There are plenty of stories in the Bible that involve "questioning." I don't recall any story that involves God smiting someone for asking a question though. And again, you're talking about individual people promoting following instructions without questioning. That isn't how most religious people act. Nor do I hear most religious people using the "weight of God" to back up their opinions. I don't know what sort of bizzaro world you live in, but I'm glad I'm not there.
Quote
The only redeeming quality about the concept of religion is that making up explanations for a bad thing can help people get over it quicker. White lies, like how you tell a child the dog moved out instead of saying it was run over by a truck. Except in this case it's helping adults get over things.
That's your opinion that it's "all just a lie." In my opinion, that seems a little narrow minded.
Quote from: DOOM on February 03, 2005, 11:31 AM
I can't speak for everyone (even if you seem to think you can), but when my church collects supplies to help people, there's no secret meeting in the basement where we discuss about how we're going to send them just enough to keep them content so that the poor become de facto slaves to the church. People at my church seem genuinely interested in easing the suffering of others.
Charity is nice. There are plenty of charity organizations that aren't religious, so that's nothing specific to religion. When I said "ease unavoidable suffering", I was not speaking about physically supporting people. I'm speaking about easing suffering on purely religious grounds, based on faith.
Quote from: DOOM on February 03, 2005, 11:31 AM
Quote
In these cases there's rarely a one single cause of everything. It's a combination of factors, and to prevent future occurrences you have to work with reducing all the factors. Yes, you can put the blame on the boy and crucify him. Then you can crucify the next boy that does the same thing. Or you could root out the causes and do something about them.
What is the "root cause?" I played the video game DOOM. I listen to Marilyn Manson. My family owns guns. Those were the things the media wanted to blame. Yet, I and the thousands of others like me don't go around shooting up schools.
I highlighted the areas in what you quoted from me where I said that there is no one root cause.
Quote from: DOOM on February 03, 2005, 11:31 AM
Quote
True, but there's a difference to how people oppose things. I may be opposed to something being done to me, and that's one thing. Religious people are typically opposed to the thing being done to / by anyone in the world. They want to control everyone else's lifes, not just their own.
I am curious. What would your response be if I said: most blacks are stupid people that can barely speak English and the only thing most of them are good for is to play sports. Most people would be offended by that assertion. They would label it as racist and at the least would say that it is an unfair, ignorant generalization. Yet you repeatedly make generalizations about religious people. I don't think you have a clue who the "typical" religious person is. If all religions want to control your life, why are some okay with homosexuality? And why even in religions that are against homosexuality can you find plenty of people that support it? You know there are a lot of Catholics that vote Democrat, right? Plenty of Catholics believe abortion is okay. And that's just in the Catholic church, one of the more conservative branches of Christianity and one of the historically most repressive branches of Christianity. If their followers are "allowed" to think for themselves and decide what is right, if not all of them can agree on what is right, then how in the hell does that mean that religion is "controlling" everyone?
It means that they are avoiding the ugly areas and trying to only keep what little in religion there is that is good. It means that there are shades of gray, and not everyone are hardcore religious nutcases. I know that there are more and less religious people. There are people that renounce parts of religion that doesn't make sense, because they want to think for themselves. The less religious can be pretty OK.
I agree that I've been focusing too much on the either-or, normal people vs hardcore religious people without acknowledging that there's a middle ground. Still, speaking just about the concept of religion, I can't see any doubt in that the more fundamentalistically religious people get, the worse they get.
Quote from: DOOM on February 03, 2005, 11:31 AM
Quote
Yes, religion is typically less flexible.
When you try to keep people free from parasites by not eating pork in a scientific fashion, you'll tell them not to eat pork because it contains parasites. If later a way to remove the parasites is found, the whole argument falls away and you can eat pork freely.
When the same thing is done in a religious way instead, you tell them not to eat pork because god says so. You produce a script, claiming it is the words of god that say what you want the people to do. When later a way is found to remove the parasites, those scripts will still remain. In religious people's minds, they will be even more valid now, because they're old. And so, religion becomes less flexible.
I know plenty of people from different branches of Christianity. They all eat pork.
It's an example. I could've just as well said "walking under ladders". It's just generally against putting down rules and recommendations as religious commandments versus putting them as changeable laws. Actually, in with religious commandments, I'd also include the constitution of the USA. It's another of those scriptures that become immensely valuable just because they were written when they were written.
Quote from: DOOM on February 03, 2005, 11:31 AM
Quote
The concept is at fault because it is not inherently good, and it's easily abusable. Religion promotes following instructions without questioning, which is bad. Things that do not make sense are explained away by asserting the weight of "god" to your opinion.
Wrong. There are plenty of stories in the Bible that involve "questioning." I don't recall any story that involves God smiting someone for asking a question though. And again, you're talking about individual people promoting following instructions without questioning. That isn't how most religious people act. Nor do I hear most religious people using the "weight of God" to back up their opinions. I don't know what sort of bizzaro world you live in, but I'm glad I'm not there.
Have you ever had Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on your door? If you haven't, you should be glad. They're around in the world I'm in.
About the questioning - I suppose you can ask questions, you just don't get any real answers. And if you want to hear the weight of god being tossed around, try getting into a discussion with someone who is deeply religious.
Quote from: DOOM on February 03, 2005, 11:31 AM
Quote
The only redeeming quality about the concept of religion is that making up explanations for a bad thing can help people get over it quicker. White lies, like how you tell a child the dog moved out instead of saying it was run over by a truck. Except in this case it's helping adults get over things.
That's your opinion that it's "all just a lie." In my opinion, that seems a little narrow minded.
It might seem a little narrow minded, but it's the conclusion I've come to after giving it consideration. There are many factors that have contributed to that conclusion.
Here's one to think about for logical christians: If there was one god that wanted you to believe in him, why would there be so many different religions - i.e. what would give rise to those extra religions that aren't true? The most logical answer is that there is something in humans that makes us susceptible to being lulled into believing in religions that aren't true. If there is something like that, you must also assume that you yourself suffer from it, and thus your religion most likely isn't true either.
Quote from: Adron on February 04, 2005, 10:43 AM
Charity is nice. There are plenty of charity organizations that aren't religious, so that's nothing specific to religion. When I said "ease unavoidable suffering", I was not speaking about physically supporting people. I'm speaking about easing suffering on purely religious grounds, based on faith.
No, charities aren't purely religious, but it is still a positive aspect of religion.
Quote
I highlighted the areas in what you quoted from me where I said that there is no one root cause.
Agreed. But I think we should look at the people involved as the cause before we start looking at abstract ideas "forcing" them to do it.
Quote
It means that they are avoiding the ugly areas and trying to only keep what little in religion there is that is good. It means that there are shades of gray, and not everyone are hardcore religious nutcases. I know that there are more and less religious people. There are people that renounce parts of religion that doesn't make sense, because they want to think for themselves. The less religious can be pretty OK.
I agree that I've been focusing too much on the either-or, normal people vs hardcore religious people without acknowledging that there's a middle ground. Still, speaking just about the concept of religion, I can't see any doubt in that the more fundamentalistically religious people get, the worse they get.
I think most people probably fit in that middle ground. And I hate religious nutcases as much (if not more) than you do. It gives the rest of us a bad name that simply isn't deserved.
Quote
Have you ever had Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on your door? If you haven't, you should be glad. They're around in the world I'm in.
Oh I think they're nuts too. The ones I've met (outside of knocking on my door) were pretty nice though.
Quote
About the questioning - I suppose you can ask questions, you just don't get any real answers. And if you want to hear the weight of god being tossed around, try getting into a discussion with someone who is deeply religious.
That sounds kind of like philosophy, which I wouldn't say is a bad thing. I
don't want to hear the "weight of God" tossed around any more than you do. The thing that annoys me most is Creationists that just can't stand evolution. It's ridiculous. If God could create the whole damn universe, you're telling me he couldn't make a monkey turn into a human over time? Yeah, right.
Quote
It might seem a little narrow minded, but it's the conclusion I've come to after giving it consideration. There are many factors that have contributed to that conclusion.
I respect that you can come to your own conclusions about religion, but evaluating every religious person as a whole instead of on an individual basis doesn't seem right to me.
Quote
Here's one to think about for logical christians: If there was one god that wanted you to believe in him, why would there be so many different religions - i.e. what would give rise to those extra religions that aren't true? The most logical answer is that there is something in humans that makes us susceptible to being lulled into believing in religions that aren't true. If there is something like that, you must also assume that you yourself suffer from it, and thus your religion most likely isn't true either.
Three of the worlds main religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are based off of the same thing though. They've drifted apart over the years, but they're not "totally different." As far as that goes, some people are trying to claim Atheism is a religion. Maybe Atheists are being lulled into not believing in something that is true?