Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Alisa]

But stop and think about it. Do you really think all these were driven by faith in God, or by other darker motivations that exist in the hearts and minds of men regardless of belief in God, and religion was twisted and used as a more palatable motivation for the gullible masses?

I agree that religion is often twisted and used as a motivation for the gullible masses. I also think that in the absence of religion, those with "darker motivations in their hearts and minds" would be hard pressed to draw others to their causes without religion.

Get rid of religion and people will still behave abominably toward each other.

Having not studied the crusades, I can't comment on your analysis. However, I have always agreed that bad people will do bad things, in the presence or absence of religion. That is not my point. My point is that the vast number of people who have been involved in atrocities in the past, pick any example you like, have been good and religous people. Not only has their religion not induced them to behave morally, it has, as you suggested above, been used to induce them to behave imorally. Therefore, given that religion does nothing to make people "good", and since it is also used to make some people "bad", then why have it at all? It sounds like you are trying to make the argument that people are just abominable by nature, and they would be much worse without religion. I hardly think that argument holds water.

Do you really think that an atheistic world won't obtain some moral lesson about right and wrong from evolutionary theory in the absence of religion?

Yes. You are talking about "social darwinism", which is utter nonsense.

What about blind nationalism? Rascism? Tribalism? Greed? Lust for Power? You don't think these will go away just because you've dispelled the concept of God do you?

No I don't think they will disappear. But I do think that without the "opiate of the masses" it would be impossible to rally together the masses of people required to cause destruction on the scale that we have seen in the past and are seeing now. Yes, you will still have power hungry leaders. You will still have racism and so on. But you will not have that spark that religion provides that incites people to irrational hatred.

People commit atrocities for many reasons: religion often gets used as a screen but the essence of mans inhumanity to man stems from our own greed and stupidity.

Yes but that is my point. Take away the screen. Remove the excuse. Then the results of that inhumanity will be less atrocious.

For myself, I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State and this is my response to the issue you've mentioned. My reasons for this are not to protect the state from religious influence, but rather to protect my faith from the corrupting influence of worldly power.

I also wholeheartedly believe in the separation of church and state, for the opposite reason though.

Alisa, I'm sorry, but this comes across to me as if you don't think anyone else has the right to believe as they wish (if their opinion differs from yours). As a matter of principle, this is no different than the religious right-wingers forcing their opinions on Gay rights down the throats of everyone else. Dangerous territory, Alisa. Morally, you're only one step away from using force/politics/education to enforce your worldview on others. Arguably, folks like Dawkins have already crossed that line with respect to education.

All adults obviously have the right to believe whatever they want. That is not what I am talking about here. You claim that you have chosen to have faith, and to believe that god exists. But I am willing to bet that you didn't awaken one morning and say, gee, I think there is a god, and I have faith that he exists. No, I am willing to be that religion was taught to you. This is the right I am talking about. The right for a child to grow up without being taught religion. Do you feel at all uncomfortable when you see people teaching their children to support one political candidate or party over another, when it is obvious that the child cannot possibly understand politics? I do. And I feel just as uncomfortable that 3 year olds, or even younger children, are taught to believe something that they are clearly too young to make up their own minds about.

 

[dan-cat]

Are you talking about Hitler?

No not particularily

In any case, my statement was too broad. What I should have said is that without religous division, the extreme hatred of other groups, such as the hatred that has spurred all great conflicts throughout human history, would not have developed.

So how do you account for the millions killed under Stalin's regime?

Lets assume you are talking about Hitler. Hitler may or may not have been religous - he was raised catholic but made a lot of conflicting statements throughout his life. In addition, WWII was not conducted in the "name" of a particular god. However, those facts are meaningless when you consider that Hitler's followers WERE religous, they were christians. Did their religous beliefs prevent them from committing atrocities? Furthermore, do you think they could have rationalized those atrocities if the persecuted, in this case the Jews, shared their religion? How would they have known who to persecute if not for their different religion?

Christians who believe in the bible revere Jews as they are God's people, Jesus himself was a Jew. (accordingly to Christian theology). I think it is a stretch to class people who committed these atrocities Christian regardless of their claims.

Besides the main thrust of the nazi propaganda machine against the Jews was socio-economic based not religious. Link

Hitler fabricated ample ammunition to attack the Jews without bringing religion into it. You really must understand this.

I stand by my original argument, which is that extremism of all kinds depends on groups being identified as "other". That "other" definition always comes down to religion one way or another.

I'll repeat my previous point. There are many different ways to discriminate against aside from religion.

If you would like another example of a war that is not conducted in the "name" of one god, but nonetheless depends on conflicts between religions to continue, look at the current war that the U.S. (with help from other parts of the christian world) is waging in Iraq. They may call it a war on "terror", but truly what you are watching is a religous war between the muslim and the christian world.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with religion. It is simply an attempt by the US to secure the last reserves of oil supplies. It was an attack on a secular state for economic reasons.

 

[CraigDolphin]

Rabbie, I'd quite cheerfully shout you a beer to celebrate that we can agree to disagree, as gentlemen should

Therefore, given that religion does nothing to make people "good", and since it is also used to make some people "bad", then why have it at all?

Sorry. That first is not a given to me. Did you know that early Christians refused to fight in wars? That was one of the reason the emperers of Rome feared the new religion and persecuted its adherants. It threatened their ability to raise armies if it became widespread enough. Of course, a pope (Pope Urban the first I think from memory) later on decided it would help his cause if Christians would fight wars so he subverted the teachings of Christ and made it 'ok' by the church.

The teachings of Christ emphasize tolerance, forgiveness, charity, and love for god and each other as well as an individual commitment to turn away from wicked behaviour. He also reserves extra condemnation on church leaders who lead their flock astray. I honestly believe that few of the leaders of today's church will find anything but contempt from God on their judgement day. Just like Jesus had contempt for the religious leaders of his day (the pharisees etc). It's a cliche, but going to McDonalds doesn't make you a hamburger, and neither does going to church make you a christian.

The issue will always be that there will be leaders and followers in the world. Whether the cloak is religion, nationalism, tribalism or just fearmongering, the masses will follow blindly where they are lead. You have only to look at the extreme right-wing propaganda machine called the US-media conglomerates to discern how this works. If you have control of the message, people will do as you want. It doesn't matter if you're a medieval priest, a modern day professor, or a corrupt politician.

No, I am willing to be that religion was taught to you.

And you'd be wrong. I was fifteen. Staying at a friends house. Out of curiosity I picked up his bible and read some of it. Changed my life. That's all.

But I do think that without the "opiate of the masses" it would be impossible to rally together the masses of people required to cause destruction on the scale that we have seen in the past and are seeing now.

And I think you're naive if you truly believe that. I live in the US now. Blind nationalism, masquerading as patrotism, was used as a whipping tool in the early part of the Invasion of Iraq. US public opinion at the time was firmly FOR the war. Nazi germany was led into atrocities using a similarly nationalist platform and justification. Likewise Stalin and his communists. Alexander conquered the ancient world for personal ambition and glory.

Unless you can eliminate all fear from the hearts of mankind, then mob behavior will still exist no matter whether you eliminate God from the mix or not.

 

[Rich]

Besides the main thrust of the nazi propaganda machine against the Jews was socio-economic based not religious. Link

Hitler fabricated ample ammunition to attack the Jews without bringing religion into it. You really must understand this.

Rubbish! Hitler and the Nazis' regime was based on a belief and was spread by mass hysteria and fear of retribution in the same way as religion and god

 

[sandy6078]

Originally Posted by dan-cat
Craig,

That is one awesome post.

Originally Posted by ShaneMan
Agreed and that is two in a row for you, as far as I'm concerned.

A round of applause

 

[dan-cat]

All adults obviously have the right to believe whatever they want. That is not what I am talking about here. You claim that you have chosen to have faith, and to believe that god exists. But I am willing to bet that you didn't awaken one morning and say, gee, I think there is a god, and I have faith that he exists. No, I am willing to be that religion was taught to you. This is the right I am talking about. The right for a child to grow up without being taught religion. Do you feel at all uncomfortable when you see people teaching their children to support one political candidate or party over another, when it is obvious that the child cannot possibly understand politics? I do. And I feel just as uncomfortable that 3 year olds, or even younger children, are taught to believe something that they are clearly too young to make up their own minds about.

I do not know if this is your intention but you seem to keep implying that people of a spiritual nature have been indoctrinated and lack the intelligence to think for themselves.

I know you have dismissed any such intention but it is a theme that keeps ringing in your posts.

 

[dan-cat]

Rubbish! Hitler and the Nazis' regime was based on a belief and was spread by mass hysteria and fear of retribution in the same way as religion and god

Did you read my link? Did you find any reference to religion?

The Jews were attacked mainly for economic corruption, not heresy.

 

[Rich]

Did you read my link? Did you find any reference to religion?

The Jews were attacked mainly for economic corruption, not heresy.

Religion def via Wik
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

 

[dan-cat]

Religion def via Wik
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Are you attempting to redefine the term 'religion' to not necessarily mean the belief in the super-natural? If so, I don't think that is Alisa's intended use of the term and it certainly wasn't mine.

Like I said, the Jews were not primarily attacked for their spirituality but for their supposed economic corruption.

 

[Alisa]

I do not know if this is your intention but you seem to keep implying that people of a spiritual nature have been indoctrinated and lack the intelligence to think for themselves.

I will not respond directly to that except to say that the correlation between religion of the parent and religion of the child is close to 100%.

 

[Rich]

Are you attempting to redefine the term 'religion' to not necessarily mean the belief in the super-natural? If so, I don't think that is Alisa's intended use of the term and it certainly wasn't mine.

Like I said, the Jews were not primarily attacked for their spirituality but for their supposed economic corruption.

I challenge you again

http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67

look at definitions 3 and 4, they're not my definitions by the way

 

[ColinEssex]

I was fifteen. Staying at a friends house. Out of curiosity I picked up his bible and read some of it. Changed my life. That's all.

Easily brainwashed then?

That's how Bush gets away with mass killing of innocent people just to appease his old Daddy.

Col

 

[dan-cat]

I challenge you again

http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67

look at definitions 3 and 4, they're not my definitions by the way

I used the term with reference to spirituality which has been the entire theme of the thread. If you think that Jews were primarily attacked for their spirituality and not economic corruption then please state your case.

Hitlers inciteful tactic was based on socio-economic dissatisfaction. Not on a differing spiritual culture.

 

[Rich]

Easily brainwashed then?

That's how Bush gets away with mass killing of innocent people just to appease his old Daddy.

Col

And Bliar didn't get the result he wanted when he spoke to god so he changed to a religion more in tune with his needs, Catholicism

 

[dan-cat]

I will not respond directly to that except to say that the correlation between religion of the parent and religion of the child is close to 100%.

Your lack of a direct response suggests more implications.

 

[Rich]

I used the term with reference to spirituality which has been the entire theme of the thread. If you think that Jews were primarily attacked for their spirituality and not economic corruption then please state your case.

Hitlers inciteful tactic was based on socio-economic dissatisfaction. Not on a differing spiritual culture.

I didn't say the Jews were attacked for their spirituality

 

[dan-cat]

I didn't say the Jews were attacked for their spirituality

Then you never disagreed with my argument.

 

[Alisa]

The issue will always be that there will be leaders and followers in the world. Whether the cloak is religion, nationalism, tribalism or just fearmongering, the masses will follow blindly where they are lead. You have only to look at the extreme right-wing propaganda machine called the US-media conglomerates to discern how this works. If you have control of the message, people will do as you want. It doesn't matter if you're a medieval priest, a modern day professor, or a corrupt politician.

I agree with this for the most part. I think it is interesting that the extreme aspects of nationalism are extremely similar to the extreme aspects of religion. However, I also think that I have a good basis for speculating, emphasis on speculating, that extremism of all kinds would be reduced without the presence of religion. In the name of religion, young children are taught to believe in something, namely god, unquestioningly, with blind faith. Taking things on faith instead of thinking critically about them is a very bad habit, and we can see the results of this when the media conglomerates, politicians, fear mongers, etc. take advantage of it.

And I think you're naive if you truly believe that. I live in the US now. Blind nationalism, masquerading as patrotism, was used as a whipping tool in the early part of the Invasion of Iraq. US public opinion at the time was firmly FOR the war. Nazi germany was led into atrocities using a similarly nationalist platform and justification. Likewise Stalin and his communists. Alexander conquered the ancient world for personal ambition and glory.

Unless you can eliminate all fear from the hearts of mankind, then mob behavior will still exist no matter whether you eliminate God from the mix or not.

Let me explain why I said that the invasion of Iraq was religously motivated. It is well known at this point that the invasion of Iraq was being planned long before 9/11 (obviously for oil). However, "they" knew that they had to bide their time until they could swing public support for it. Anyway, 9/11 happened. 9/11 was a religous attack pure and simple. The terrorists sincerely believed that by attacking the infidels, they would be going to paradise. Naturally, people in the U.S. became fearful of and hateful towards muslims, because the belief that motivated the attackers is widespread in the muslim world. Now, instead of capturing/assasinating/prosecuting the master mind of the attack, Bush decided to use that fresh fear to justify his invasion of Iraq. How did he do it? He told Americans that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Nevermind that it didn't, it was very easy for Americans to believe this because Iraq is part of the muslim world, and the attackers were part of the muslim world.

And you'd be wrong. I was fifteen. Staying at a friends house. Out of curiosity I picked up his bible and read some of it. Changed my life. That's all.

I don't really want to talk about your personal faith so much as faith in general.

 

[Alisa]

Your lack of a direct response suggests more implications.

What do you make of the correlation? And btw, I DO think this one is causal.

 

[Rabbie]

Like I said, the Jews were not primarily attacked for their spirituality but for their supposed economic corruption.

It is worth remembering in the context of Nazi Germany and the tacit support of the Catholic Church for that regime was the teaching of the church that the jews were guilty of the murder of Jesus Christ. This doctrine was not abandoned until the 1960's and it certainly helped people to see the jews as different and in some way sub-human.