What Im saying is that Christianity is responsible for these atrocities. What MAY have happened otherwise is pure speculation and we can never know where we would be now if left to grow naturally and with an open mind.
What Im saying is that Christianity is responsible for these atrocities. What MAY have happened otherwise is pure speculation and we can never know where we would be now if left to grow naturally and with an open mind.
How? This is such a ridiculous and historicist naive statement. How is it responsible?
It doesnt have to be me thats persecuted. There are millions of cases of atrocities by the Christian faith, so many in fact that without these happening it would be highly likely you wouldn't even know about Christianity other than from your history class.
Why should we perpetuate a lie?
oh and...Dawkins speaks the facts, thats what pisses off the Christians, they have no answers for him, so the best thing that they can offer is "he is an atheist zealot" or evangelical atheist. We need thousands more just like him, and we are getting them.
What lie are we perpetuating. I don't think anyone is in denial about the past attrocities of church's.
Are the attrocities you refer to in the link actual products of the religion itself or are they means of enforcing political control over a group of people through fear and violence.
The crusades is one of the best examples. They had nothing to do with religion. These were political wars. Religion was used to get people to sign up but those at the top weren't fighting for God.
The one thing I do agree with Dawkins is that organized religion's heirarchy does cause problems with the world but instead of Dawkins attacking the institutuions directly he attacks the individual who believe. Even on that front Dawkins wasn't the first to attack organized religion. Jesus started that right from the start attacking the Sadducies and Pharisies.
The one thing I do agree with Dawkins is that organized religion's heirarchy does cause problems with the world but instead of Dawkins attacking the institutuions directly he attacks the individual who believe.
I'm not sure why that's a problem.
__________________
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Dawkins is evangelical as any religious group. His mantra is not to get religion out of influencing politics his mantra is to discredit religion and eliminate belief. His focus is on pointing out the logical flaws in religion then essentially calling everyone who believes stupid is very similar to the believer or you are going to hell pitch of the southern evangelical christians.
I'm not in the business of defending Richard Dawkins, but you seem to be saying that "pointing out the logical flaws" is a bad thing. Poking holes and exposing the flaws in powerful, international organizations and movements is a good thing.
And even if he does say that people who believe are stupid, it's a far cry from that saying (and enforcing) the idea that they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as non-believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I will also ask the question to you. When have you ever been persecuted for your non-belief. In canada this does not happen and when the discussion turns to Africa or even the Muslim world just blaming religion is a gross over simplification of the issue.
You are the one that brought it up. You said you, as a Christian, weren't allowed to have your beliefs, and then you didn't explain how.
Anyway, I've never been persecuted for my beliefs. But I've had "Christian values" pushed on me all my life, even in public school. I've never had an atheist tell me what to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
This board is a good example of the passive attack that occurs on idvidual christians. It really isn't socially acceptable to be religious outside of a religious group. Which is why most people just don't talk about it.
Now come on, this just isn't true. Our political leaders are always religious/Christian. We hear all the time that the majority of Canadians identify themselves as religious (and mainly Christian). There are churches in every community, and religious organizations are given a mighty favorable status by the tax man.
The most popular guy in town is a smiley-faced hockey playing hero who is openly Christian, and everybody, even the atheists, love him.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
Do you know what bugs me about these evangelical Athiests. Its that they won't let us crazy christians have our beliefs.
You know what we all know if you use only logic and reason and the scientific method that religion doesn't make sense. We don't care. We have developed a system of belief that gives us comfort and enjoyment in our lives. What is it that athiests find so threatening about this.
The answer always is that organized religion is a scourge and the organized religion is at fault for all of the worlds problems. While this may be true the individual religious person who gets lambasted by athiests has no control over what the top of the religion does. It is like holding a low level BP employee responsible for the oil spill just because they work there.
Beyond that organzied religion is used as a means of control. In the past we have had Nationalism, Racism, Communism and so on have all been used as a means to control people and deliver power to a small group of people. So if you got rid of religion and left the poverty in this world in place other means of control would develop that would give hope to the oppressed. The real solution to the moderation of religion is to lift people out of poverty. The attacking mentality of the evangelical athiests only serves to piss off moderates and galvanize the zealots. It may convert those on the fringe but they aren't the problem and the more you remove the moderates from the fold the more extreme the religion will become.
Fantastic post. Not too dissimilar from Nero blaming the fire of Rome on all the Christians and having them randomly burned at the stake.
We speak out against being racist and being mad at all Asians because some of them are bad drivers. But because organized religion is supposedly responsible for all the world's problems, we don't miss a chance to make fun of the next guy's religious beliefs because they aren't completely atheistic.
I'm likely being way too melodramatic here, but you have to admit this is true to some degree. Frankly, I think the incessant bashing gets in the way of what is some awesome discussions on religion both on this forum and in general.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The crusades is one of the best examples. They had nothing to do with religion. These were political wars. Religion was used to get people to sign up but those at the top weren't fighting for God.
Sorry, this is just not true. "Nothing to do with religion"? Indulgences offered for crusading against the Saracen were a powerful motivator for many that went; do you really believe hundreds of thousands of men went to try to conquer a tiny bit of land of no strategic importance and little wealth for exclusively "political" reasons?
And what about fighting monastic orders like the Templars and the Hospitallers? Do they not count as religiously inspired?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Sorry, this is just not true. "Nothing to do with religion"? Indulgences offered for crusading against the Saracen were a powerful motivator for many that went; do you really believe hundreds of thousands of men went to try to conquer a tiny bit of land of no strategic importance and little wealth for exclusively "political" reasons?
And what about fighting monastic orders like the Templars and the Hospitallers? Do they not count as religiously inspired?
Religion was the motivation and justification for many in the Crusades but as is all wars in human history, it was politically and economically motivated at the highest levels. It's like how ficticious African yellow cake and WMD was the justification for the Iraq war and religion or anti-muslim feeling motivated many to engage in that war but it is almost certainly political.
Popes were political and economical manipulators of the highest degree. The crusades first began because the eastern empires were concerned with the political and territorial expansion of Turks into their land.
There were almost a dozen crusades, you cannot paint them all with the same brush. Almost every major conflict in human history is ultimately politically or economically motivated.
Do these threads always have to degenerate into Reggie Dunlop posting irreverant youtube videos and pictures, Cheese blaming Christianity for every war in human history, Richard Dawkins thrown about, etc. It's all getting tired people. The atheists spouting absurb hyperbole like how religion is the cause of all mankind's ills are just as blind and ignorant to reality as the religious people who do not question their faith or challenge their beliefs.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Popes were political and economical manipulators of the highest degree.
Leaving the rest of your dubious claims aside, why exactly were the popes powerful enough to do any political and economic manipulation if not because of their religious authority? No God = no pope = no call to Crusade = no crusades.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
I'm not in the business of defending Richard Dawkins, but you seem to be saying that "pointing out the logical flaws" is a bad thing. Poking holes and exposing the flaws in powerful, international organizations and movements is a good thing.
And even if he does say that people who believe are stupid, it's a far cry from that saying (and enforcing) the idea that they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as non-believers.
I'm not going to defend church's in the same way you shouldn't have to defend Dawkins. What the church does and what the individual christian does are two completely different things. I for one believe all people should be afforded the same rights.
My problems with Dawkins is he attacks individuals with his Mantra not the organizations. His Mantra does nothing more then entrench extremists and alienate moderates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
You are the one that brought it up. You said you, as a Christian, weren't allowed to have your beliefs, and then you didn't explain how.
Sorry I think I wasn't clear. Its not that you are not allowed to have you beliefs without ridicule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Anyway, I've never been persecuted for my beliefs. But I've had "Christian values" pushed on me all my life, even in public school. I've never had an atheist tell me what to believe.
Christian values shouldn't be pushed on people and to a large degree especially in public schools this has been eliminated. Athiesm has definately become a stronger voice over the past 5 years. Somehow the debate has become either you are a creationist or an athiest and anyone who declares that they believe all of a sudden becomes a creationist. The middle ground of being a quiet christian who believes has disappeared to a large degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Now come on, this just isn't true. Our political leaders are always religious/Christian. We hear all the time that the majority of Canadians identify themselves as religious (and mainly Christian). There are churches in every community, and religious organizations are given a mighty favorable status by the tax man.
The most popular guy in town is a smiley-faced hockey playing hero who is openly Christian, and everybody, even the atheists, love him.
Look at the 30 an under demos on religion. Here is as close as I can find
Athiests 31.8 Canada 37.3 with Catholics being 38 and the other christian religions over 40. So amoung the younger crowd religion is not prominant at all outside of religious groups.
Religous organizations are no more favoured by the tax man then any other non-profit community or charitable organization and essentially that is the purpose they serve.
Anyway the real way to get rid of the organzational consequences of religion is just to increase standard of living and access to information a wait. Demographics will take care of the problem on its own. The biggest thing is that you probably don't want to come on hear and read how great Jesus is and how to be saved and I don't particularly want to read how stupid everyone who believes in religion is. Simple respect of people's beliefs goes a long way. If I like my Spegehtti Monster you shouldn't care.
Leaving the rest of your dubious claims aside, why exactly were the popes powerful enough to do any political and economic manipulation if not because of their religious authority? No God = no pope = no call to Crusade = no crusades.
You cannot distill it down to such a ridiculously simple explanation and then explicate and blame the whole upon the common denominator. Papal authority of course is religiously derived but we are arguing from two points of the same side of the argument.
If you have ever studied the history of Europe you would know that the root causes of the crusades are countless. Due to political and economic stabilization of Europe, there was a large yet lay warrior class that had nothing to do. Furthermore, the eastern Byzantium empire was facing territorial expansion by Muslim armies. With this large force of restless soldiers and the political and military threat of Islamic expanion, this was a good opportunity to vent that building frustration as well as to take advantage of a large swelling up of religious fervor as a further motivating factor for both peasant class soldiers to perform a pillgrimage and find a livelihood and for landless nobles to make a name for themselves and hopefully be rewarded with land and property upon their return.
You are arguing that religious inspiration or pious motivation are completely the causes and to be blamed for the Crusades. I'm pointing out that your explanation is too simple and ignoring many facts of history. Religion was the justification and motivation for many but politics and economical reasons are always chief among the arbiters of human endeavor, especially among those in power.
If you want to convince someone to question the validity of religion, challenge the core tenets of their faith, not point out examples of how people historically behaved or did things (at the core, this is just the nazi argument, find something bad associated with something and then pin it all on that). As much as religion needs to get out of the dark ages, people need to stop pointing to the dark ages as criticism of contemporary religion.
Leaving the rest of your dubious claims aside, why exactly were the popes powerful enough to do any political and economic manipulation if not because of their religious authority? No God = no pope = no call to Crusade = no crusades.
Some other means of control would have been used. Say nationalism for example. Look at the spread of communism.
How would wars for resourses and land been fought without religion as a motivator? How would excess population be eliminated that posed a threat to the ruling monarch if people began to starve moreso then they already were. Religion was the tool that was chosen to be most effective. That it was chosen doesn't make it inherantly bad no more then a gun murdurs people.
Now if God isn't real and religion is a human construct that effectively got our society to where it is now shouldn't survival of the fitest be aloud to prevail. If religion is an evil to humanity that doesn't help us survice shouldn't it slowly disappear as its need disappears or does religion ensure the propagation of humanity by increasing birth rates and therefore will ever expand its influence. And if religion does survive and help to propagate humanity then hasn't evolution showed religion to be a good thing?
Conception to me really is the only cut and dry point. Any other point becomes an agrument akin to when is the soul installed during evolution.
There is no point, it's like having a spectrum of billions of colours and saying "at what point does green start". Or asking at what point does a child become a teen? Or a teen an adult? Just because we like to make clear cut lines doesn't mean reality will play along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckluck
I cringe to even think about a world without religion. I would be one bad mutha effa.
I don't think so, if you look at actual statistics for things like crime, murder, teen pregnancy, suicides, etc, first world democracies with low religiosity have a distinct advantage over the same with a higher religiosity.
I don't see any indication that religion leads to a better society overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Now if God isn't real and religion is a human construct that effectively got our society to where it is now shouldn't survival of the fitest be aloud to prevail. If religion is an evil to humanity that doesn't help us survice shouldn't it slowly disappear as its need disappears or does religion ensure the propagation of humanity by increasing birth rates and therefore will ever expand its influence. And if religion does survive and help to propagate humanity then hasn't evolution showed religion to be a good thing?
"Survival of the fittest" is for animals, we're people, we think and consider our actions and circumstances and make decisions beyond immediate survival. Things change, society changes, at some point humanity may grow out of religion. Or it might not, the roots of belief are very deep.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
You are arguing that religious inspiration or pious motivation are completely the causes and to be blamed for the Crusades.
Really? Where did I say that?
Religion was a *necessary* cause of the Crusades, but not by any means the only cause. If you read back and look at what I actually say as opposed to what you assume I am saying, I took issue with the idea that Crusades had, and I quote, "nothing to do with religion." No where have I claimed that religion was the only cause of this, or any other war. On the other side, YOU have claimed that almost all wars are politically or economically motivated, and then you accuse me of being overly simplistic? How ironic.
Religion has been a contributing factor to many wars, from the Jewish revolts against the Romans, to the Crusades, to the European conquests in the New World, to the Arab-Israeli wars of the last 60 years. Anyone claiming it's the only factor in any particular war is a fool, agreed, but anyone claiming it is not a contributing factor throughout history is equally deluded.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Some other means of control would have been used. Say nationalism for example. Look at the spread of communism.
Maybe, but so what? That religion is a handy means of control to commit evil is enough in itself to condemn it; the "well other things are bad too!" defence isn't very convincing.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Religion was a *necessary* cause of the Crusades, but not by any means the only cause. If you read back and look at what I actually say as opposed to what you assume I am saying, I took issue with the idea that Crusades had, and I quote, "nothing to do with religion." No where have I claimed that religion was the only cause of this, or any other war. On the other side, YOU have claimed that almost all wars are politically or economically motivated, and then you accuse me of being overly simplistic? How ironic.
Religion has been a contributing factor to many wars, from the Jewish revolts against the Romans, to the Crusades, to the European conquests in the New World, to the Arab-Israeli wars of the last 60 years. Anyone claiming it's the only factor in any particular war is a fool, agreed, but anyone claiming it is not a contributing factor throughout history is equally deluded.
Then if I have mischaracterized your comments, you have mischaracterized mine as I have never said that it was not a contributing factor. The Jewish revolts (fighting against occupation), Arab-Isreali wars (Survival of relatively new Isreali state in the middle of an Arab dominated region) however are all great examples of overtly politically motivated conflicts. The European conquests of the New World were also economically motivated for but religion plays a big part of this as the riches of the new world were used to fund the wars of religion before the Peace of Westphalia.
I've been reading Richard Dawkins' latest The Greatest Show On Earth on my iPad. Quite engrossing. He's quite an engaging person in print. Absolutely slays Creationists with surgical precision.
__________________
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
