Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if religion was not there to be used would the war mongers be able to stir up enough hate to get it off the ground?
As far as hate being a motivating factor to win a war -- look at the ultimate hate-mongerer: Hitler. He failed in his quest despite his intense propaganda efforts. Morality -- fueled by religious beliefs --conquered hate, albeit some would argue that the use of the A-bomb was immoral.
The atrocities and abominations committed in the name of religions are indisputable . . . as are the power, control, and corruption issues endemic to them. But you aren't giving a pass to the avowed atheistic societies (stalin, Mao, etc.) are you? OK . . . but what does any of that have to do with whether or not we are really creations of God or random cosmic accidents? Absolutely nothing. Some of the most ardent believers in God (based on their actions and attitudes)proudly and loudly profess atheism and some of the most heinous and evil humans profess belief in God. There is no necessary correlation between them . . . except that the institutions they support are used and misused (by both camps) for their political or societal ends.
Hmmm...can't really agree with you on that one. Humans by nature are a violent species, whether or not they believe in a deity.
I tend to agree with you on that one. There are a lot of people out there who really need religion ~ organized or otherwise ~ to keep themselves grounded.
But the surival instincts are still within us. When I think of early humans, Neanderthals, and even beyond, the need to protect ourselves and what is ours, was worth fighting for. Today, violence stemming from this instinct would be "natural" to both sides of the fence. The difference is that the non-atheists have the added obligation to protect their religion as well.
I read a lot of criticism on these religious and atheist forums about how religion creates violence. It has done it's fair share. But I think it has also established some restraint against it as well. So, no, I don't think our world would necessarily be more 'peaceful' without it. If anything, there would be even less conscience because there would be no sense of consequences, or remorse. There would be love, but there would also be more freedom to harm.
Well Lady Ice, this is gonna be another of my crackpot theories. Yes, religion has been and will continue to be one of the most devisive influences on humanity that mankind has been able to devise. But, it alone is not the major problem. I suspect that the major cause of warfare and virually every other evil (not counting natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis, floods, hurricanes et al) is Human Nature. Cynic that I am, mankind, as yet, has not been able, collectively speaking of course) to keep from coveting his neighbors ass and will actively seek to find any excuse to liberate same,(usually this means taking said ass from the neighbor and keeping it for himself) The rationale for this action is varied, since it is a sin to steal, the motive could never just be simple envy, that would never do. Mankind will manage to convince himself and someone else who has spotted an ass they like as well that they will not be stealing the asses they covet, but liberating them because their present owner does not treat them properly, doesn't feed them right, doesn't give them the respect they deserve. Human beings have the propensity of lying to themselves in such a way that they can claim to believe it to be true. This is what religion does, it feeds half-truths, myths, and hogwash in a palatable mixture so the audience will swallow the argument and go about to do the will of whichever of the churches makes the most effective sermon. It can actually convince its' followers that it is in the best interest of the non-believers to kill them, for it is the only way to save their souls. And, of course, since they are dead they will not need money, gold, silver, artwork, these things are best put into the hands of the church, because the clergy are the only ones smart enough to know how to rightly appreciate them and keep them for the greater glory of god. Most of the clergy have the same ills of human nature as do us peons, they just seem better able to hide it, or think they can. Not everyone buys this hogwash. My question is- How come, when the churches steal from others, and extort money in the form of tithes it isn't considered a crime?
Well Lady Ice, this is gonna be another of my crackpot theories. Yes, religion has been and will continue to be one of the most devisive influences on humanity that mankind has been able to devise. But, it alone is not the major problem. I suspect that the major cause of warfare and virually every other evil (not counting natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis, floods, hurricanes et al) is Human Nature. Cynic that I am, mankind, as yet, has not been able, collectively speaking of course) to keep from coveting his neighbors ass and will actively seek to find any excuse to liberate same,(usually this means taking said ass from the neighbor and keeping it for himself) The rationale for this action is varied, since it is a sin to steal, the motive could never just be simple envy, that would never do. Mankind will manage to convince himself and someone else who has spotted an ass they like as well that they will not be stealing the asses they covet, but liberating them because their present owner does not treat them properly, doesn't feed them right, doesn't give them the respect they deserve. Human beings have the propensity of lying to themselves in such a way that they can claim to believe it to be true. This is what religion does, it feeds half-truths, myths, and hogwash in a palatable mixture so the audience will swallow the argument and go about to do the will of whichever of the churches makes the most effective sermon. It can actually convince its' followers that it is in the best interest of the non-believers to kill them, for it is the only way to save their souls. And, of course, since they are dead they will not need money, gold, silver, artwork, these things are best put into the hands of the church, because the clergy are the only ones smart enough to know how to rightly appreciate them and keep them for the greater glory of god. Most of the clergy have the same ills of human nature as do us peons, they just seem better able to hide it, or think they can. Not everyone buys this hogwash. My question is- How come, when the churches steal from others, and extort money in the form of tithes it isn't considered a crime?
I think you already answered your own question, the church knows better than you what to do with your money.
What an intelligent answer you've given, I really like how your mind works. If only we could find a way to make people stop coveting each others asses!
I think they should be smacked with a coon tail! No religion? No God? What a sad world it would be. If you ask long enough you may just get it. And when you get it, you may realize it isn't what you really wanted. Sadly it non-exchangable.
In all fairness, it is a pretty sad world, and it has been for a long time - throughout this time, religion has been a very present and very powerful force.
I tend to agree with you on that one. There are a lot of people out there who really need religion ~ organized or otherwise ~ to keep themselves grounded.
But the surival instincts are still within us. When I think of early humans, Neanderthals, and even beyond, the need to protect ourselves and what is ours, was worth fighting for. Today, violence stemming from this instinct would be "natural" to both sides of the fence. The difference is that the non-atheists have the added obligation to protect their religion as well.
I read a lot of criticism on these religious and atheist forums about how religion creates violence. It has done it's fair share. But I think it has also established some restraint against it as well. So, no, I don't think our world would necessarily be more 'peaceful' without it. If anything, there would be even less conscience because there would be no sense of consequences, or remorse. There would be love, but there would also be more freedom to harm.
"People" are just a nasty, rotten bunch.
I would also agree that humans are violent as a species, and in some instances religion actually does help people overcome this. Jehova's Witnessess are a great example (maybe they're a little kooky, but they are probably the least agressive bunch I can think of).
I think that the inevatable (sp?) abuse and corruption of religion (coupled with the use of it to rationalize and justify pretty much any agenda one could gather support of) is what leads to problems. Religion is something that has a lot of power, and gives a lot of power to humans. When humans get power, some do good with it, but most will let it go to their head. Once we think about it, the same people that make bombs and support their use, are the same ones that attend and subscribe to religion (not all religious followers) what happens when you couple the power of both of them?
The followers (who are of many many MANY stripes) comprise a vast array of difference, from the Fred Phelps types to the JW types. but more or less what I'm getting at is that It is something that we have bastardized and we make it come to us more than we go to it - which is not how it was meant to be. Bottom line is that we have corrupted it and unlike many systems, it can handle that corruption somehow and even in many cases use that to its advantage.
I absolutely agree with you that if the state followed the teachings of Jesus or whoever they follow then the world would be a different place. But oftentimes acts of agression have been committed soley in the name of religion. Weren't the attacks of Sept 11 2001 and the bombing of the Bali nightclubs committed in the name of Holy Jihad? And didn't the inquisition happen because it was undertaken by the Church controlled leaders of the day?
first of all , i'm was talking in general , that relegions actually not the main reasons for violence , may be some groups tried to mislead the people and justify thier action in the name of relegion
honor killing commited usually in the name of relegion just to statisfy the action , but in fact it opposes the relegions completely
i will suppose that what happened in 11/9 was by muslims just for the sake of discusion
1- muslims in all the world condemned what happened in 11/9
2- the main reasons for what happened are completely political reasons not relegion reasons
3- the concept of the word "jihad" confusing you , it makes you think that it means " killing nonmuslims" , it's completely wrong
-i consider myself making jiahad as long as i'm defence my relegion in this forums
-if my country be attacked , i will fight to defend it , it means i do jihad
- if i killed innocents , so i made crime , but may be i will justify my work by saying it's jihad , it dosn't make it correct jihad and it dosn't make it islamic and dosn't make it acceptable action
some people commit thier crimes by the mask of relegions to misguide people .
first of all , i'm was talking in general , that relegions actually not the main reasons for violence , may be some groups tried to mislead the people and justify thier action in the name of relegion
honor killing commited usually in the name of relegion just to statisfy the action , but in fact it opposes the relegions completely
i will suppose that what happened in 11/9 was by muslims just for the sake of discusion
1- muslims in all the world condemned what happened in 11/9
2- the main reasons for what happened are completely political reasons not relegion reasons
3- the concept of the word "jihad" confusing you , it makes you think that it means " killing nonmuslims" , it's completely wrong
-i consider myself making jiahad as long as i'm defence my relegion in this forums
-if my country be attacked , i will fight to defend it , it means i do jihad
- if i killed innocents , so i made crime , but may be i will justify my work by saying it's jihad , it dosn't make it correct jihad and it dosn't make it islamic and dosn't make it acceptable action
some people commit thier crimes by the mask of relegions to misguide people .
I know that Muslims all around the world condemned terrorist attacks, and I hope that you don't think that I am saying that all muslims would do this because I don't think that for one second.
I don't know about the people who carried out the attacks on the US but the men who bombed the tourists in Bali openly admitted that they were doing it in the name of Islam. They believed that they would go to heaven and be greatly rewarded for their efforts. They killed many innocent people in the name of their religion .This is what they said, not just what I think. My question was would society be better without this behaviour.....and I still think that yes, it would.
well i am seeing religion going down, but that utopian society of rational educated well behaved selfless people i keep hearing about that are supposed to pop up when religion disappears, i am waitin for it to come up, where are those gladiolas. where are they?
i never saw this many mean streets in my life.
nor so many angry people.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 12-02-2008 at 12:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
