Tossing the "Yoke" of religion

[Joe Dangerous]

:rolleyes:

What ignorance -- faulting religion for what essentially amounts to innate human evil.

The sad truth is that people are just violent by nature, and from this it follows that every institution man creates, no matter how high-minded its goal may be, is going to be tainted with violence. Get rid of religion and mankind will find some other reason to get on with the killing.

It's just human nature. Of course the Bible basically preaches that human nature is sinful and you must therefore at least try to transcend it -- in fact, most human institutions, including democracy, are predicated on the belief that we ought not live in a state of nature. So we all know where the inquisitors are going.

I would even argue that the whole of mankind's bloody history has simply been a long argument over which system offers the least amount of violence, or at least the type of violence that's most acceptable to us.

Ask an armless child in Iraq, injured for GWB's love of oil and fear of the heathen.

Typical liberal nonsense.

Anyone who pays attention and doesn't allow their sensibilities to be gouged out by propaganda would know by now that Bush's commitment to religion is wildly questionable, at best -- he basically uses it as a blunt object with which to bludgeon his intellectual opposition and win votes of gullible rednecks who can't see through the facade. Whenever it proves politically inexpedient, he drops it like ten pounds of crap in a five pound sack.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Joe Dangerous Anyone who pays attention and doesn't allow their sensibilities to be gouged out by propaganda would know by now that Bush's commitment to religion is wildly questionable, at best -- he basically uses it as a blunt object with which to bludgeon his intellectual opposition and win votes of gullible rednecks who can't see through the facade. Whenever it proves politically inexpedient, he drops it like ten pounds of crap in a five pound sack.

I don't know that for sure, but I suspect that even with the most sincere politicians, if there is such a thing, that this is true to some extent or other.

Witness all the politicians screaming "UNDER GOD" on the capitol steps not too long ago. A lot of religion is for show, not only for politicians.

[Samildanach]

There is no such thing as a 'charter for goodness'. Again a fantasy, why does this world require such a charter?

[CJFreeman]

Quote by: Samildanach There is no such thing as a 'charter for goodness'. Again a fantasy, why does this world require such a charter?

It doesn't necessarily require it, but its latent in the language we use, and implied in the ways in which we live. If you think good and evil are fantasies, then you ought to reevaluate your perspectives on human ontology, and societal ethics.

More, "charter for goodness" is simply a title for ease of understanding. There is no physical charter.

Christopher J. Freeman

[Gorgo]

Quote by: CJFreeman More, "charter for goodness" is simply a title for ease of understanding.

It has already provoked some misunderstanding, but if what you are saying is that It does not exist outside of the laws of nature and human goals we can agree.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The fantasy is believing that we are mearly random atoms that happened join together to spawn life on an amazingly habitable world. And not only that, but said life became intelligent life. Fantasy is believing that all of this, the earth, the trees, the water, everything, is just one big cosmic coincidence. That for me, is the bigger leap of faith.

Atoms are governed by the laws of physics and they react & move accordingly. I wouldn't call that random.

Fantasy is believing in what we don't see, such as an invisible sky fairy shaping the Earth. I find it amusing that even though we see the world ticking along without supernatural help, people still need to invent a benevolent dictator to watch and rule over them; perhaps it is human nature?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: CJFreeman Stalin -- promoter of the most nefarious and subtle mass-murder scheme in all of history. 26,000,000 estimated to have been executed under his reign. Atheist. From the above, it seems that there is a 1:1 correspondence between those who believe and those who don't when it comes to doing bad things. Conclusion: the religious and the non-religious alike are culpable for bad things. Corollary 1: atheism is not the charter for goodness. Corollary 2: theism is not the charter for goodness. Corollary 3: people are not the charter for goodness. Corollary 4: something that is not people, religion, or non-religion must be the charter for goodness. Question: what is the charter for goodness? Please give support for your answer. Christopher J. Freeman

I shouldn't start reading Rummel if you wish to quote statistics about Stalin. His views are known and openly admitted to represent his views on authoritarian vs authoritarian regimes.

It is also very important to note in the contect of this dispute why Stalin commited his genocide, religion and his athiesm had nothing to do with it. Religious people killed because others didn't share their faith. Which is the most important distinction to make.

You also have to remember that the genocide commited by Stalin was not limited by the technology, if the verious inquisitions, had the transport links, population size and technology for such quick extermination then undoubtedly all of Europe would be sparsley populated.

If you wish to fling statistics around, I suggest you read up on the Taiping rebellion which led to the deaths of around 30,000,000 people alone, why you may ask? Simple, the Christians wanted to over throw the Manchu's and create their own Christian state, following the elimination of the "heathens".

What ignorance -- faulting religion for what essentially amounts to innate human evil.

You suggest that humans are "innately evil" yet fling around the term "ignorance"... what can I say?

The sad truth is that people are just violent by nature,

Despite the fact that we construct laws and society in deliberate contrast to your stated thesis? I think not.

Typical liberal nonsense.

You obviously weren't watching the news between 2001-2004, Bush invoked the authority of his God to legitimise his actions.

he basically uses it as a blunt object with which to bludgeon his intellectual opposition and win votes of gullible rednecks who can't see through the facade

So the 60 million plus people who voted for him are "gullible rednecks", and the "liberals" are typically nonsensical? Are you attempting to garner as much dislike as possible from as many people as possible?

[bishop]

back to the bit about "yoke"...

human history is pretty interesting in that regard. early humans practiced what we, today, would call primitive religions.. believing that animals were spirits sent by god(s), requiring sacrifices, etc.. the japanese created one, shintoism, to justify their existance - placing themselves as being the origin of life on earth.

years pass, we get the greeks and romans, constructing a religion which is now seen as mythology. etc..


while i do believe in a supreme being, i also believe that today's religions are still rooted in the primitive behavior of "mythology" (for lack of a better term). surely, the greeks believed in their gods, and humanity as a whole now regards them as being myths.. same with the aztecs, incans, aryans, etc...

[MerlinsByte]

Chris the Chees Quite a few others never burned anyone, too Good for them. In fact quite a few others have BEEN burned Yep, religioun has always been a dangerous buisness. Ask an armless child in Iraq, injured for GWB's love of oil and fear of the heathen.

Merlin ....We should agree that the true intent of all early Christianity was historically against most if not all government. In fact I believe that true evil is any large gathering of power. Man has proven time and time again that this kind of God like power perverts and overcomes our humble nature. Power is like any opiate or narcotic, if we are exposed to if for subscribed periods of time we become addicted to the effects of it. Given time ,and a dose that increases with that time, addiction and therfore abuse is certain. And the disease cycle from early addiction to death is predictable and repetitive in nature.
I think that this abuse of power (goverment) will be the manifest of the devil or the beast that the bible speaks of. This assemblage of power includes any government, ours included. The true beast like the gods head is going to be made up of at least three components one is money the other is sin the third is the supernatural influence of the old one AKA the devil etc.

mb

[MerlinsByte]

Merlin.......Saloth Sar (pol pot) Hitler, the warlords in Africa , these were atheists . But we are off topic here. Most religions do not command anyone to kill their brother especially Christianity. This is the perversion of religion by sin. This argument renders all others impotent , unless someone comes up with a rebuttal that is worthy of debate.

mb

[CJFreeman]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin.......Saloth Sar (pol pot) Hitler, the warlords in Africa , these were atheists . But we are off topic here. Most religions do not command anyone to kill their brother especially Christianity. This is the perversion of religion by sin. This argument renders all others impotent , unless someone comes up with a rebuttal that is worthy of debate. mb

Cheers, Merlin!

Christopher J. Freeman

[Lilith]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Saloth Sar (pol pot) Hitler, the warlords in Africa , these were atheists .

I thought Hilter considered himself a Christian? Or have I missed something here? Are the warlords in Africa really atheists? Religions are preverted by man not sin, we just call it sin so we can have hopes of redemption for our sometimes terrible acts.

But I say, find what works for you, Christianity, Atheist, Buddha, whatever and run with it. Let others believe what they want and let em' alone if they don't agree. Has anyone seen that movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?"....effing good movie...b/c really what do any of us know? Not a damn thing, I say....I know I find out everyday that I really don't know da da about da da. :)

[Gorgo]

"What the Bleep" was filled with pseudoscience.

[Rounddaworld]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin.......Saloth Sar (pol pot) Hitler, the warlords in Africa , these were atheists . But we are off topic here. Most religions do not command anyone to kill their brother especially Christianity. This is the perversion of religion by sin. This argument renders all others impotent , unless someone comes up with a rebuttal that is worthy of debate. mb

No they command them to kill the infidels, the unbelievers and the disobedient.

For example "Stone disobedient children" (Deuteronomy
21:18-21

In regards to Hitler

Biographer John Toland explains Hitler's reason for exterminating the Jews: Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,' he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God-- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.[Toland, p. 703] Moreover, there are no known documents, speeches, or proclamations by Hitler where he even comes close to denouncing his belief in Christianity, or Jesus.

Hitler and Christianity

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Lilith I thought Hilter considered himself a Christian?

Some articles about morality and atheism and Hitler's religion and whether or not that matters.

[Lilith]

Quote by: Gorgo What the Bleep" was filled with pseudoscience.

Well damn! Don't bust my bubble! Wah!

But I still say we don't know a damn thing about anything! :)

[Rave7pt0]

Quote by: Gorgo "What the Bleep" was filled with pseudoscience.

Actually... I did some research, trying to debunk this (particularly Ramtha) and found NOTHING.

What you've pointed out is something I did find, among many others, that simply restates what Ramtha said in a way that makes it sound ridiculous, thereby presupposing that it is ridiculous, which is of course, begging the question. Something can't be ridiculous because it's ridiculous.

Basically, the only opposition to the movie and even to Ramtha that I've found are people who don't believe it, restating what the movie said and expecting it to be self-evident that it's false. But it's not... that's a strawman. Where is the evidence that it's false?

Have you looked at the primary research? Have you even watched the movie? Many of those people in the movie are very well credentialed.

You're always spouting off on proof and rationality... show me the proof.

[Gorgo]

Yes, I watched the movie and it was ridiculous.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 What you've pointed out is something I did find, among many others, that simply restates what Ramtha said in a way that makes it sound ridiculous, thereby presupposing that it is ridiculous, which is of course, begging the question. Something can't be ridiculous because it's ridiculous.

You do have some good points, here. I'm not sure exactly what questions you're trying to discover the answer to. I am not an expert on physics, not an expert on Ramtha even, but if you'd be more specific, I can try to help you if I can. Can't say that I can, but I can try. Let me know.