Thats what the church tells people now. Bad people do bad things regardless of punishment.Barry93 said:
Religion: is it for the good of mankind or not?
- Thread starter iggyus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I believe religion is good for mankind. You people tend to mix religion with the church. I fucking hate the church but if I didn't believe in hell I would probably go shoot up a post office out of boredom.
Well well well another "we hate religion! Everyone should be atheist! I am sick of religion shoved down my throat! I don't know the meaning of 'irony'" thread. Wonders never cease...
"It's time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks! [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22722981-663,00.html]". He later wandered around a school shooting kids before turning the gun on himself.
As for the rest, have you never heard of a kamikaze pilot? No, given your obvious lack of historical knowledge, I guess not.
If you want to actually learn something, try reading this [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-atheists-and-believers-have-got-religion-wrong-461594.html].
This is true. However, atheists do not go around slandering religion. What you are refering too is anti-theists, who do claim to come from being in a position of right before the argument starts.Razorback0z said:
Wrong. Religious persecutions by atheist governments such as the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Albania, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea.Razorback0z said:
Science has nothing to say on ethics, spirituality, morality, justice, or anything like that. This is why atheist states have always fared so badly - because they have always been run in such a logical yet unfeeling manner.Razorback0z said:
Darwinist:-James Raynor said:
"It's time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks! [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22722981-663,00.html]". He later wandered around a school shooting kids before turning the gun on himself.
As for the rest, have you never heard of a kamikaze pilot? No, given your obvious lack of historical knowledge, I guess not.
If you want to actually learn something, try reading this [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-atheists-and-believers-have-got-religion-wrong-461594.html].
You're not giving me much to work with by way of commentary, but do allow me to mention that the twentieth century was arguably the most violent in recorded human history judged by the proportional number of people killed in wars and genocides, and that the causes they were killed for - Marxism, varied nationalistic causes, fascism - were principally secular.GloatingSwine said:
It's pretty simple, really. Amplify anything a collective believes in to the point that they become overridingly aggressive about it and the result will be violence. In this regard, I have no doubt that if the "console wars" - a good example for this forum - were as widespread in their adoption or as socially prevalent as other dividers, such as ethnicity, political allegiance, religion, etc., mass murdering in the name of Nintendo or Sony would transpire on a bi-weekly basis.
Agreed. I can't add anything to this other than some proof...EzraPound said:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm
Sorry for all the snipping and cutting out, but I just wanted to comment on a couple of points. The 'Argument from Stalin' first: Yes, the CCCP killed a lot of people, as did Pol Pot and many others, in this case, primarily communistic countries. No one should argue against that. However it's relevant to consider why they killed people. People weren't killed in the name of atheism. They were killed because the system found it necessary for whatever reason. It's important to keep that in mind. The murders committed in the CCCP was not atheistically motivated. They were motivated by a political ideology gone insane.cuddly_tomato said:
I guess I should just be glad that you didn't mention Hitler as well.
Even if that would have allowed me to make the 'Argument from Facial Hair'.I think I've said it before but that guy has no idea how evolution by natural selection works. He's just crazy/insane.cuddly_tomato said:
It does so help to have objective fact on one's side, yes. Quite frankly, antitheism is the most respectable position. Not only are none of the world's religions supported in fact, they are so invariably hateful and harmful when practised that it is better that they are not. I am glad that the god that ordered the genocide of the Amalakites does not exist.cuddly_tomato said:
You will find in every one of these cases that there is just as strong a faith based position, usually centered around the state and the cult of the individual (the ultimate expression being North Korea, which far from being atheistic is deeply in thrall to confucianism and ancestor worship, the official Head of State is still Kim Il-Sung, and the official position is that Kim Jong-Il is the same spirit as his father, but it's also evident in the reverence accorded to Mao, and the enshrining of Lenin). These are not strictly "theistic", but they are still religious.
Actually, science does have a great deal to say on ethics and morality. The principles of ethical behaviour can be seen in our evolutionary development, the evolution of altruism and reciprocicity is the foundation of morality.
Religion, by contrast, certainly has nothing to say, because it has proven itself so morally bankrupt as to be the most unreliable guide imaginable.
Probably the worst example you could have found. The Emperor of Japan was literally the person of God. (Hell, the name means Divine Wind). So, you've found a shinto buddhist suicide bomber.
/agree.Maespa said:
He's exactly right, communism would be the best politcal formation except for one thing: human nature. We're all corrupt bastards no matter how much we try to prove otherwise. So religion itself is not bad, but the people who follow it are, along with everyone else.
Just incase you didn't get me. I'm not against religion, but against people.
Oh I would be utterly fine with religion, I find it rediculous that grown men and women need something so illogical to give them comfort but who am I to judge. All they need to do is stop indoctrinating children, its a form of abuse and we all know it they cant decide things properly for themselves at that age and they most definently should not be taught they are bad people or that they are going to hell. Oh and they should also lose the tax exempt status its pure hypocrisy at its best, the vast fortunes religion makes is ludicous and the paltry amounts it gives to its own funded motivated charities are paltry, just an exuse for fat rich old men to get richer.
Well if we take an objective standpoint and look at the two possible outcomes.
Assuming religion is wrong
Several million people have died in vain and wasted 20/30/40/50 years of their life following it.
Assuming religion is right - (Note i'm picking one that has eternal life after death like christianity, judaism, islam etc)
Every human's life on earth is completely insignificant compared to an eternal life afterwards so religion would then become the most important thing to anyone since being in extreme agony for eternity instead of being in heaven for eternity would be pretty important.
If religion is right and saves only 1 person then it would be worth billions of deaths if you take an objective stand point about the highest happyness of the most amount of people for the longest amount of time as your desired outcome.
If its wrong then religion being good for mankind would require knowing what the world would be like without it. Whether wars happen for other reasons, whether there are rebellions at certain times because peoples attention isnt being controled by religion, etc.
Assuming religion is wrong
Several million people have died in vain and wasted 20/30/40/50 years of their life following it.
Assuming religion is right - (Note i'm picking one that has eternal life after death like christianity, judaism, islam etc)
Every human's life on earth is completely insignificant compared to an eternal life afterwards so religion would then become the most important thing to anyone since being in extreme agony for eternity instead of being in heaven for eternity would be pretty important.
If religion is right and saves only 1 person then it would be worth billions of deaths if you take an objective stand point about the highest happyness of the most amount of people for the longest amount of time as your desired outcome.
If its wrong then religion being good for mankind would require knowing what the world would be like without it. Whether wars happen for other reasons, whether there are rebellions at certain times because peoples attention isnt being controled by religion, etc.
Yeah thanks...cuddly_tomato said:
Confusing the use of political power under the guise of religion, aetheism or any other ism is drawing an exceptionally long bow in terms of the logical connection between aetheism and systematic persecution. I think you will find those regimes persecuted their populace for a wide variety of reasons, some of which they probably even beleived in themselves.... in anycase, my last sentence was a reference to South Park not a cry for education....
But thanks for considering me... Im flattered...
teh_gunslinger said:Sorry for all the snipping and cutting out, but I just wanted to comment on a couple of points. The 'Argument from Stalin' first: Yes, the CCCP killed a lot of people, as did Pol Pot and many others, in this case, primarily communistic countries. No one should argue against that. However it's relevant to consider why they killed people. People weren't killed in the name of atheism. They were killed because the system found it necessary for whatever reason. It's important to keep that in mind. The murders committed in the CCCP was not atheistically motivated. They were motivated by a political ideology gone insane.cuddly_tomato said:
I guess I should just be glad that you didn't mention Hitler as well.
Ahhh but that's where you are wrong. They never killed everyone for atheism no, but they did kill people merely for being religious, in the name of atheism. But I am not actually blaming atheism. The problem is fundamentalist extremism, and my point is it can be applied to atheism as well as religion, or anything else for that matter. Look at some of the fundamentalist bigoted atheists in this very thread calling for an end to religion, just because they themselves don't like it. I have no doubt at all that if they became leaders of a country, religious people who refused to renounce their religion would suffer dearly for it.
Does this not equally apply to religious suicide bombers? People who don't really get religion, take it to extremes, but at the end of the day are just crazy/insane? Hell - this could even apply to video games. People have undoubtedly died/been killed in the name of video games. Look at the "Dying for a Wii" crap for a starters. Are all us gamers here going to all fail to urinate and die anytime soon?teh_gunslinger said:
If you study a religions belief closely it sort of resembles a political party's program. I think most of the religious leaders from the ye olden days were very cynical when they were on their own. I don't think that they chose kill blasphemers because their god said so. It was to keep the people in check.
I'd probably support the old religious elite since they knew what they were doing and why. The masses were illiterate peasants that would have been easily swayed by any politician. Democracy would never have worked back then. The upper class were the only ones that had any spare time to think about politics. These days most people have an education and therefore democracy is a much better option.
No god could ever be wrong otherwise the people could question their authority. That was an absolute necessity in case some peasant got lucky and had a good point about something. If they couldn't strike him down as a blasphemer people would have thought of him/her as someone wise when they really just got lucky. Of course, there is a chance that they actually were but, better safe than sorry otherwise you could have violent revolution and a civil war at your hands possibly resulting in the death of the entire elite and an instability in the region for centuries to come. All that for nothing else than democracy for the sake of democracy.
In a world were your god could never be wrong you can't debate about the different systems since you can't debate with someone who can never be wrong. Hence holy wars. If you wanted to spread your system because you rightly thought the others were worse you had no other choice.
I think that it has done wonders to unite people in attempt to create a better society. We don't need it anymore though since politicians and political party's are better. Religions can't change with the times and they rely on peoples fear of an invisible man in the sky to create order whilst politicians are required to adapt to the times and can back up the laws with a police force. Some people argue that religions lack of change is an advantage since political party's may make mistakes. However advancing through trial and error is better than no advancement at all.
Thanks for reading and sorry about the wall of text.
I'd probably support the old religious elite since they knew what they were doing and why. The masses were illiterate peasants that would have been easily swayed by any politician. Democracy would never have worked back then. The upper class were the only ones that had any spare time to think about politics. These days most people have an education and therefore democracy is a much better option.
No god could ever be wrong otherwise the people could question their authority. That was an absolute necessity in case some peasant got lucky and had a good point about something. If they couldn't strike him down as a blasphemer people would have thought of him/her as someone wise when they really just got lucky. Of course, there is a chance that they actually were but, better safe than sorry otherwise you could have violent revolution and a civil war at your hands possibly resulting in the death of the entire elite and an instability in the region for centuries to come. All that for nothing else than democracy for the sake of democracy.
In a world were your god could never be wrong you can't debate about the different systems since you can't debate with someone who can never be wrong. Hence holy wars. If you wanted to spread your system because you rightly thought the others were worse you had no other choice.
I think that it has done wonders to unite people in attempt to create a better society. We don't need it anymore though since politicians and political party's are better. Religions can't change with the times and they rely on peoples fear of an invisible man in the sky to create order whilst politicians are required to adapt to the times and can back up the laws with a police force. Some people argue that religions lack of change is an advantage since political party's may make mistakes. However advancing through trial and error is better than no advancement at all.
Thanks for reading and sorry about the wall of text.
Congrats, in identifying "religion" as being any cult of personality or any fervid cause, you've just basically agreed with what everyone sensical in this thread was already saying. And yes, I'm antitheist and neostructuralist by your definition.GloatingSwine said:
No. Religious suicide bombers are deliberately created by some of the most foul means imaginable. Either by secluding young men from the world and indoctrinating them in hatred and fear, or in one heinous case in Iraq, organizing the rape of young women, and then predating on their emotional vulnerability to convince them to perform suicide attacks to expiate their "shame".cuddly_tomato said:
The difference is that these are isolated individual cases, whereas religions produce systematised suicidal attacks.
Bull.GloatingSwine said:
Using evolution as a moral guide would have the terminal, old, frail, diseased, and handicapped people killed since they aren't offering anything to the propagation and advancement of the species, and thus are merely a 'drain'.
Hitler did similar killings for similar reasons.
Science isn't a moral device. Science is amoral, and therefore not in any position to be a moral framework. Science isn't a 'worldview'. It's an attempt at a better understanding of the world around us through the observation and recording of the observable and recordable elements of said world.
Your theophobia, and anyone else's, is just as detrimental to the stability of social interactions between opposing worldviews as the fundamentalist theists.
Short version? You're a hypocrite.