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.
meh. not sure why you need something that is stretching it to prove a point against religion, when there is plenty of ammo available.
as far as dawkins goes, i agree with him, i like him, but he really does come across as a baffoon and maybe even a hypocrite when he gets into his child like rants and name calling. He talks about religion eliminating the need for understanding, well so does name calling as your conclusion.
The bible may be full of a lot of exaggeration, but it is one of the earliest forms of scientific observationtional evidence of major events in human/earths history. There is archaeological evidence that supports noah's flood, genetic evidence that supports adam and eve etc...just it's a bit more sophiscated then how it is presented in the bible. In fact one theory states that a noahs flood actually started in Canada..interesting stuff...Scientists are now turning to some biblical accounts and native american folklore as not just fictional stories, but as evidence that backs up some scientific theories.
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 07-10-2010 at 03:01 AM.
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.
Well... Likely Muslim since it was Charlemagne's Grandfather that turned them back in Southern France.
That said.....what about the Muslim faith Cheese and their atrocities?
What about the Romans? Europe and Carthage really took a beating from them!
Greeks? Persians?
Chinese? - How many people are truly buried under that wall?
A whole whack of killing NOT in the name of Christianity.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Then if I have mischaracterized your comments, you have mischaracterized mine as I have never said that it was not a contributing factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Almost every major conflict in human history is ultimately politically or economically motivated.
That second quote doesn't really jibe with the first. You are saying that the "ultimate motivation" for war is either political or economic quite plainly and unambiguously - I don't see how I'm misconstruing your comments at all, it's more like you're contradicting yourself.
There is no such thing as an "ultimate" cause for any war or other complex chain of events. The idea that there is such a thing is an illusion fostered by our limited human capacity for reason. There are proximate causes that are necessary for certain events, but every war ever waged had many causes, among which almost always include political, cultural, ethnic, religious and economic. In certain cases - including the Israeli wars which I think you've mentioned before, and repeatedly incorrectly identify as a mostly secular conflict - religion IS that proximate cause, as differences in religious belief act as a catalyst in turning peace into war.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Last edited by jammies; 07-10-2010 at 03:27 AM.
Reason: gas pains
That second quote doesn't really jibe with the first. You are saying that the "ultimate motivation" for war is either political or economic quite plainly and unambiguously - I don't see how I'm misconstruing your comments at all, it's more like you're contradicting yourself.
There is no such thing as an "ultimate" cause for any war or other complex chain of events. The idea that there is such a thing is an illusion fostered by our limited human capacity for reason. There are proximate causes that are necessary for certain events, but every war ever waged had many causes, among which almost always include political, cultural, ethnic, religious and economic. In certain cases - including the Israeli wars which I think you've mentioned before, and repeatedly incorrectly identify as a mostly secular conflict - religion IS that proximate cause, as differences in religious belief act as a catalyst in turning peace into war.
And you keep characterizing my comments in the absolute. I stand by my assertion that in most cases, the ultimate and underlying causes for the majority of human conflicts are political or economic. Religious tensions execerbate and often provide motivation and rationale for conducting these conflicts. On the balance, some factors will usually outweigh others. I don't see how a limited capacity to reason precludes you from reaching reasonably accurate conclusions about the main causes of human behavior and conflict in recorded history as long as there is sufficient and reliable information. People will kill in the name of religion but their underlying motivations are usually better framed in terms of political or economic motives even if they do not recognize this themselves. They want to exert dominance over other peoples, they want economic gain, they are territorial, they want to accumulate wealth and exercise power, etc.
I never said the Arab Isreali wars were mostly secular. I said that it was about about the survival of the relatively nascent Jewish state in the middle of Arab territory. This was exacerbated by the remnants of the Ottoman Empire jockeying for power and the effects of a Jewish territory being artifically created in territory the Arabs considered their own. The proximate cause is the ages old conflict between Arabs and Jews. Yes, these groups are often largely defined by their respective religions but in the bigger picture, this is a battle of competing cultures with centuries old animosity that is much larger than religion itself. This continues with the territorial wars of today in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, etc. Is Isreal really creating settlements in the name of Yahweh as the main factor in this? (though Zionism does play a part) Or is it their own way of creating living space for the expansion of their state? Isreal's motivations are about survival of their state. If it were mainly about religion, Isreal would not allow the Temple Mount to remain a mosque or have ceded control to a Muslim authority in land which is rightfully within their territory won in 1967.
I don't know why we are arguing, I've said over and over again that religion is used as a motivation and justification for many wars. That is exactly the same as being the catalyst that is the tipping point into war as you say. We are arguing over semantics. My definition of political is one of social relationships regarding authority and power and group decision making. That includes religious, racial, cultural aspects. It is intended to be a much broader umbrella than simply governance or state actions as you may interpret it.
What I am trying to get at, is that it is human nature to act in this manner, to seek power and to dominate what they see as different. Even if you took away religion in historical times, humanity would not be any less war-like. We would have found other ignorant ideas and superstitions to act around such as differences in race, culture, or how to order society. The greatest global wars civilization has ever seen were secular and largly among people that obstensibly shared the same religious heritage and backgrounds in a time where we were considered englightened by civilization, scientific knowledge, and liberalization. In the end, western civilization was only talked out of their tendancy for all-out war by the fact that for the first time, the risks of war far outweighed the potential gains...ie: total annhilation through mutually assured destruction.
Dude, I am "on your side", but wow, what a classy, professional, and totally scholarly and balanced website.
This sort of brutality was practiced by every culture in their respective times, even ones totally alien to Christianity. Read up on Asian history and you can see some of the attrocities and genocides that occured. The numbers probably dwarf those victims of Christianity.
Can you say Christianity killed 6,000,000 people in the span of only 5 years? And if you try to equate Christianity with Nazism, you pretty much give up all credibility (as much as religious advocates try to equate Nazism with atheism are also absurd). Brutality and attrocities are a common trait of all our ancestors throughout human history regardless of religion or culture.
Well... Likely Muslim since it was Charlemagne's Grandfather that turned them back in Southern France.
That said.....what about the Muslim faith Cheese and their atrocities?
What about the Romans? Europe and Carthage really took a beating from them!
Greeks? Persians?
Chinese? - How many people are truly buried under that wall?
A whole whack of killing NOT in the name of Christianity.
I am equally appalled at the atrocities of all religions, we are stuck in a Christian world so my focus is largely on their faith. As to whether we'd be Muslims if the Christian faith didn't exist? Doubtful as that religion stemmed from Christian influence.
Yes there are many examples of atrocities from other groups as well, equally as horrifying, but what has that to do with the question at hand?
A diversion? The list I provided, and an extensive one at that, caused millions of deaths in the name of religion and the propagation of that religion. Other religions have their own manifestations as well.
Are you suggesting that is the path humans would have taken had their been no Christianity? Are you suggesting it was ok for millions to lose their lives, and continue to do so in order for that or other religions to survive?
I have no idea on the likely path we as humans would have taken without the Christian influence, one thing I can be pretty sure about is that science may not have been gagged for the last two thousand years.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
Dude, I am "on your side", but wow, what a classy, professional, and totally scholarly and balanced website.
This sort of brutality was practiced by every culture in their respective times, even ones totally alien to Christianity. Read up on Asian history and you can see some of the attrocities and genocides that occured. The numbers probably dwarf those victims of Christianity.
Can you say Christianity killed 6,000,000 people in the span of only 5 years? And if you try to equate Christianity with Nazism, you pretty much give up all credibility (as much as religious advocates try to equate Nazism with atheism are also absurd). Brutality and attrocities are a common trait of all our ancestors throughout human history regardless of religion or culture.
Read the end of my post above yours.
read post above...and my apologies if that link didnt appeal to you. The fact is the information in it, is accurate.....dude
To me the historical death toll is irrelevant, its all about today and how religion affects the world's discourse.
I still can't get over calling atheists religious, its ludicrous.
They've been using the wrong semantics and terminology (call atheists evangelical) but many atheists are as fervent about prosetylizing their beliefs as the most zealous religious evangelical...or your average global warming dude on either side We're lucky we can all be internet tough guys today and not get beheaded or stuck in an iron maiden or burned at the stake for all our discussions and disagreements.
read post above...and my apologies if that link didnt appeal to you. The fact is the information in it, is accurate.....dude
The information is accurate but I am saying you can bring up any list of any powerful culture, society, state, or religion in human history and come up with a similar litanty of attrocities that we in the modern world would view as morally reprehensible. You are assigning complete blame to Christianity for something that I believe to be a trait of human nature. If the world were without religion, mankind would find some other ignorance or superstition to kill each other over until the point where we realize that killing each other becomes so devastating that it's better to hold back (mutually assured destruction).
What is the point of even making hypothetical guesses at what the world would be like? It'd probably be unrecognizable. Without unifying forces like Christianity in western europe, western society would probably be overrun by muslims and mongols and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment would have never happened and we'd probably be in a much more backward and barbarous society today. It's fun conjecture I guess. If only you could guarantee the Roman Empire didn't fall apart (whether that is due to Christianity or total mismanagement by Imperial rule after the fall of the Republic is something else to be debated).
Alright, I agree with you that religion impeded science in certain ways, but I think that the critical mass of societal and economic development was simply not good enough to foster enough of an educated class to really create the educated and liberal world that we have today. I would agree with you that superstitious and religious Europe (along with political and economic factors such as the decline of the Roman Empire) probably killed off scientific advancement for 2000 years where it was left to Muslim scientists to provide any applicable science of today. That said, Christianity and science existed side by side throughout the important scientific advances of the 17th-19th centuries where the political and religious atmosphere of those times were especially more tolerant and fostering than most other societies of the world.
In the end, I agree with Thor's statement. I don't care much for the historical death toll or the historical tragedies or delay of science and "enlightened" society. That's crying over spilt milk. Sure I'd rather that we'd be 2000 years ahead and have flying cars and space ships and live for hundreds of years, etc. but we have what we've got. Like Thor, I don't the only relevant thing to discuss is how religion affects modern day society and discourse.
Oh I agree on the fervent part, but thats a whole different idea than suggesting they are a religious group as is often suggested by annoyed believers.
So 2 rules we've decided to go forward with now, #1 Stop playing the "your so mean to us christians/muslims/etc and #2 Fervent Atheists are NOT like a Religion, nor is atheism a religion.
Oh and militant atheist, lol, again part of #2.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Oh I agree on the fervent part, but thats a whole different idea than suggesting they are a religious group as is often suggested by annoyed believers.
So 2 rules we've decided to go forward with now, #1 Stop playing the "your so mean to us christians/muslims/etc and #2 Fervent Atheists are NOT like a Religion, nor is atheism a religion.
Oh and militant atheist, lol, again part of #2.
And the #1 Rule of Bible Discussion Club is...There is no Bible Discussion Club.
What Messiah died and made you boss?
As for actual rules I'd like:
1. stop reposting pictures and videos from all the other religious threads, they are probably hilarious and enlightening but they get tiring
2. stop bringing up the trope that religion is the root cause of all wars/bloodshed/suffering/ills of society, etc.
3. Photon should post more because he sounds smarter than me and he wears the forum administrator belt of invulnerability to critcism
4. Talk more about the actual religion and beliefs and practicies and debate the plausibility or applicability of those in our contemporary world with contemporary knowedge in a critical manner instead of fighting over evolution/big bang/dawkins/intelligent design/spaghetti monsters ad nauseam as always. Challenge and discuss actual beliefs held by people, stop arguing about semantics and the metaphysical which never goes anywhere.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 07-10-2010 at 06:25 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
Oh and for honesty and full disclosure there is definitely a part of the new atheist movement which favors soft sell approach rather than the more in your face ways of PZ Meyers, Hitchins and of course Dawkins.
I think both ways are inevitable, just as you had Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement.
Everyone expresses their frustration differently, both sides, and to waste time and energy pointing that out or focusing on this as a debate point really wastes the time we could be spending on real worthwhile discussions.
I mean I think from even a few years ago I mellowed out on my religion sucks attitude on these boards and am more mild mannered (usually.)
But really, and again in point of honesty even though there are what you'd call accomidationists in the non believer camp (you'll find many of them don't like being called atheists), they still hold the viewpoint religious people are dead wrong, they are just nicer to them about it.
Oh and for honesty and full disclosure there is definitely a part of the new atheist movement which favors soft sell approach rather than the more in your face ways of PZ Meyers, Hitchins and of course Dawkins.
I think both ways are inevitable, just as you had Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement.
Everyone expresses their frustration differently, both sides, and to waste time and energy pointing that out or focusing on this as a debate point really wastes the time we could be spending on real worthwhile discussions.
I mean I think from even a few years ago I mellowed out on my religion sucks attitude on these boards and am more mild mannered (usually.)
But really, and again in point of honesty even though there are what you'd call accomidationists in the non believer camp (you'll find many of them don't like being called atheists), they still hold the viewpoint religious people are dead wrong, they are just nicer to them about it.
I always believe in compassion, empathy, and tolerance and don't deny the existence of things I will never have knowledge of. I am in the camp of "I don't care anymore if certain religions or people are dead wrong" and I will go out of my way to accomodate them because I am a humanist and whatever makes you happy will float my boat. Almost all my close family and friends are religious in some way whether it is Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Mormon (no Scientologists thank Xenu!) and I cannot deny the benefit of faith in their lives. Honestly, I wish all atheist vs. religious debates were instead between the apostates and the religious trying to convert them back. That'd be much more entertaining and intellectually stimulating to me. You need to have common ground to have any gripping discussion or any good argument that will keep my interest otherwise it's just cat fighting.
And the #1 Rule of Bible Discussion Club is...There is no Bible Discussion Club.
What Messiah died and made you boss?
Odin obviously!
Quote:
As for actual rules I'd like:
1. stop reposting pictures and videos from all the other religious threads, they are probably hilarious and enlightening but they get tiring
Mainly agree, some images/videos are appropriate at times, but spamming the same ones over and over isn't that great.
Quote:
2. stop bringing up the trope that religion is the root cause of all wars/bloodshed/suffering/ills of society, etc.
Agree, add to that Stop saying Atheism was responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and their atrocities.
Quote:
3. Photon should post more because he sounds smarter than me and he wears the forum administrator belt of invulnerability to critcism
lol yup agree, and be nice to see Textcritic more often, but I'm sure he's on another level in regards to biblical knowledge, he's probably have more fruitful conversations with theologans (probably frustrate even them.)
Quote:
4. Talk more about the actual religion and beliefs and practicies and debate the plausibility or applicability of those in our contemporary world with contemporary knowedge in a critical manner instead of fighting over evolution/big bang/dawkins/intelligent design/spaghetti monsters ad nauseam as always. Challenge and discuss actual beliefs held by people, stop arguing about semantics and the metaphysical which never goes anywhere.
Couldn't agree more, if we find anyone claiming they don't believe in evolution however Id suggest its fair to ask them what points and debate them, but again if we try to keep it more focused on specific issues rather than god vs no god we'd all be better off I think.
Also add maybe one more, people posting "Oh no here we go again, bashing religion thread" can also stop, its not hard to not click on a thread if you are bothered by the discussion.
I'd give you some thanks but I'm all out, so here's a picture instead:
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Thor, you are really Loki aren't you? Could you set me up on a date with Frejya? Man, I wish the global religion fight wasn't between Christianity and Islam but it was the Norse vs. Roman Pantheons. That would be so much more awesome and less boring.
Don't you have a volcano to plug up or a shattered banking system to rebuild or something?
We're lucky we can all be internet tough guys today and not get beheaded or stuck in an iron maiden or burned at the stake for all our discussions and disagreements.
