Thread: Hypocrisy of the Religious

When I was growing up I had to go to church a lot, and one of the things I noticed was the apparent hypocrisy or many people going to church. Couples, who I knew were getting divorced for various reasons, went to church and sang, praised, and did all he other things devout Christians were supposed to do. Some of my friends acted with this faux calmness/happiness, constantly smiling and being polite, but it always seemed strange. In school I got yelled at by a nun who between bouts of talking about peace, love, and altruism would frequently become instantly pissed at me for looking at the ceiling.

I've been reading quite a bit about the hypocrisy of the religious on this forum and others. Why do you think most religious people are hypocrits? Is it the unrealistic standard that most religions ask people to hold themselves too? Is it the social aspect of people who pretend to be moral and upstanding when really doing very sinful things? Is it the almost insufferably fake kind of happiness or contentment and the strange kind of superiority some religious hold over others?

I don't think this hypocrisy has anything to do with those people being religious. It's more likely that it is because those people are part of a group or community. Other people expect you to be polite our happy so you are. But whenever they aren't around...

artemis has got one reason as peer pressure plays a large part of the organized church life.

the other thing youhave to remember is that people have freedom of choice to obey or not and most are like the people here, they let their 'interpretation' influence their decisions not the truth.

your error would be judging and condemning those people for you have thentaken your eyes off Christ and made yourself superior to those people. you do not know all the details why they do what they do and you assume they are all pretending to be christians when in reality there are so many other mitigating facors which influence their church activity.

if you are looking at what they do and making your conclusions you have also taken your eyes off Jesus and stopped doing what he wants you to do. it is best tolet God do the judging and you work on obeying Him.

keep in mind also that Jesus warned us that not all people in the church are true christians--wheat and the tares parable-- so while you are asusming they are followers of Christ, the reality is they are pretending.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

I've been reading quite a bit about the hypocrisy of the religious on this forum and others. Why do you think most religious people are hypocrits? Is it the unrealistic standard that most religions ask people to hold themselves too? Is it the social aspect of people who pretend to be moral and upstanding when really doing very sinful things? Is it the almost insufferably fake kind of happiness or contentment and the strange kind of superiority some religious hold over others?

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Could they... LOL Do you think perhaps.... LOL

They got it from Jesus?

13 times in the gospel of Matthew. (6:2, 6:5, 6:16, 15:7, 16:3, 22:18, 23:13-15, 23:23-29, 24:51)

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Could they... LOL Do you think perhaps.... LOL

They got it from Jesus?

13 times in the gospel of Matthew. (6:2, 6:5, 6:16, 15:7, 16:3, 22:18, 23:13-15, 23:23-29, 24:51)

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

well now, i realy do hate to defend organized religion, but the teaching of jesus were right even if he wasn't the son of god. you point out points in the bible where jesus is talking about the hypocricy of the pharusees, and if the events that he described did happen(and i believe they did and still do) then jesus was not being a hypocrite, and so you are being very unjust in that you accuse jesus of being a hypocrite.

granted: his followers can't seem to follow his teachings correctly, they select priests who preach hypocricy and practice it twofold what they preach, and those priests select bishops who are just as hypocritical and those bishops in turn(if they're catholic) select a pope that preaches that using condoms is wrong even if it saves hundreds of lives perday from aids, because he says that it kills babies, well guess what, if god(assuming there is one) wanted us to not use condoms then he'd magically make them all disapear!

unfortunately i will seem like a catholic basher because the only religion i found enough hypocricy to write a paragraph about in without an hour of research from uncomfirmed feilds is catholocism, but the truth is i don't dislike catholic people, if they could look at what's happening objectively they'd see the world clearly and do the right thing, but the church put blinder's over their eyes with rules never designated "by god" such as that in order to go to heaven you have to raise your children to be catholic. that's a load of crap in my opinion

Originally Posted by saul

well now, i realy do hate to defend organized religion, but the teaching of jesus were right even if he wasn't the son of god. you point out points in the bible where jesus is talking about the hypocricy of the pharusees, and if the events that he described did happen(and i believe they did and still do) then jesus was not being a hypocrite, and so you are being very unjust in that you accuse jesus of being a hypocrite.

Sorry my comment requires a little cogitation to comprehend. My comment was suggesting that we could say that the critics got their idea of pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious from Jesus Himself.

I am a Trinitarian Christian and I would not accuse Jesus of being a hypocrite. BUT I see ample precedence in the words and deeds of Jesus for seeing the greatest danger to humanity and the greatest obstacle to the work of God in organized religion.

Originally Posted by saul

granted: his followers can't seem to follow his teachings correctly, they select priests who preach hypocricy and practice it twofold what they preach, and those priests select bishops who are just as hypocritical and those bishops in turn(if they're catholic) select a pope that preaches that using condoms is wrong even if it saves hundreds of lives perday from aids, because he says that it kills babies, well guess what, if god(assuming there is one) wanted us to not use condoms then he'd magically make them all disapear!

As much as I disagree with the Catholics and the pope on this one, I don't think your argument is valid. God does not make bombs and guns disappear but that does not mean that God has no objection to guns and bombs being used to kill people.

Originally Posted by saul

unfortunately i will seem like a catholic basher because the only religion i found enough hypocricy to write a paragraph about in without an hour of research from uncomfirmed feilds is catholocism, but the truth is i don't dislike catholic people, if they could look at what's happening objectively they'd see the world clearly and do the right thing, but the church put blinder's over their eyes with rules never designated "by god" such as that in order to go to heaven you have to raise your children to be catholic. that's a load of crap in my opinion

On that we agree. I would in fact extend that to Christianity in general. I don't equate being Christian with being saved, I think that idea, in fact, replaces God with Christianity. It is God that saves not Christianity. But, to tell the truth, quite a few Catholics think that way (my way) too and possibly a greater percentage of Catholics think that way than do other Trinitarian Chrisitans.

Originally Posted by saul

well now, i realy do hate to defend organized religion, but the teaching of jesus were right even if he wasn't the son of god. you point out points in the bible where jesus is talking about the hypocricy of the pharusees, and if the events that he described did happen(and i believe they did and still do) then jesus was not being a hypocrite, and so you are being very unjust in that you accuse jesus of being a hypocrite.

granted: his followers can't seem to follow his teachings correctly, they select priests who preach hypocricy and practice it twofold what they preach, and those priests select bishops who are just as hypocritical and those bishops in turn(if they're catholic) select a pope that preaches that using condoms is wrong even if it saves hundreds of lives perday from aids, because he says that it kills babies, well guess what, if god(assuming there is one) wanted us to not use condoms then he'd magically make them all disapear!

unfortunately i will seem like a catholic basher because the only religion i found enough hypocricy to write a paragraph about in without an hour of research from uncomfirmed feilds is catholocism, but the truth is i don't dislike catholic people, if they could look at what's happening objectively they'd see the world clearly and do the right thing, but the church put blinder's over their eyes with rules never designated "by god" such as that in order to go to heaven you have to raise your children to be catholic. that's a load of crap in my opinion

These are very sweeping statements sir. Are you saying the vast majority, if not all, of the Catholic clergy is nothing more than a pile of intolerant, hypocritical bigots? I have heard alot about the Church's opposition to the use of condoms and why it is wrong and evil, but have you attempted to actually understand why the Catholic Church take such a stance and do you think there might actually be something other than a theological ban on condoms other to their argument? Do not condoms have a fairly large fail rate and I remember being taught in public school health class condoms were extremely porous to sexually transmitted diseases?

Id have to say its absolutely false that Catholicism is "only religion i found enough hypocrisy". Its my belief its not merely the religious but atheists too that are hypocritical. How many of you actually act and follow your beliefs to a T? How many of you actually do what you would like your neighbor to do unto you all the time? I know I dont, for all my pretense to trying to follow Christ's message of service and love to my fellow man, and I know nobody else does. Theists can charge atheists with immorality all they like, and atheists accuse theists of ignorance and hypocrisy, but we are all hypocrites and the faster we realize that that this us vs. them attitude wont cut it, whether you believe in a higher power or not, the faster we can look ourselves in the mirror and begin to improve.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

When I was growing up I had to go to church a lot, and one of the things I noticed was the apparent hypocrisy or many people going to church. Couples, who I knew were getting divorced for various reasons, went to church and sang, praised, and did all he other things devout Christians were supposed to do. Some of my friends acted with this faux calmness/happiness, constantly smiling and being polite, but it always seemed strange. In school I got yelled at by a nun who between bouts of talking about peace, love, and altruism would frequently become instantly pissed at me for looking at the ceiling.

I've been reading quite a bit about the hypocrisy of the religious on this forum and others. Why do you think most religious people are hypocrits? Is it the unrealistic standard that most religions ask people to hold themselves too? Is it the social aspect of people who pretend to be moral and upstanding when really doing very sinful things? Is it the almost insufferably fake kind of happiness or contentment and the strange kind of superiority some religious hold over others?

Religion does have the greatest opportunity to house elements of hypocrisy.

Basically the higher the values, the less likely people in general will be able to abide by it.

Aye, can agree to that.

it is easy to call people hypocrites, yet you do not know where they are at with their walk with God, or if they made a mistake or if they just do not meet your interpretation, etc.. one thing is for sure, if your eyes are on other people, then they are not on Christ nor your own life which will open the door to you being a hypocrite as well.

yes there are cases where it is blatant and we are to check the gospel they bring but one cannot condemn others without knowing for sure from God if they truly are hypocrites.

it is best to keep your eyes on Christ and let Him guide you until you have removed all beams from your own eyes first. once done then look at other people's lives and you will see how much they have changed.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

it is easy to call people hypocrites, yet you do not know where they are at with their walk with God, or if they made a mistake or if they just do not meet your interpretation, etc.. one thing is for sure, if your eyes are on other people, then they are not on Christ nor your own life which will open the door to you being a hypocrite as well.

yes there are cases where it is blatant and we are to check the gospel they bring but one cannot condemn others without knowing for sure from God if they truly are hypocrites.

it is best to keep your eyes on Christ and let Him guide you until you have removed all beams from your own eyes first. once done then look at other people's lives and you will see how much they have changed.

Very true.

If your eyes are on Christ - his life and his words will make you look at yourself with one eye and what He insists that you can be with the other eye. Always He says, "go and sin no more", "follow me" and "go and do as I have done". He lived his life as we should live ours competely for the sake of God and others, and it is in this way that He made Himself "the way" into the presence of the living God.

How then shall we follow Jesus when we observe how critical He is of established religion? Does this mean we should be critical of everyones relgion but our own, or does it mean that the more we try to follow Jesus, the more we must be critical of ourselves? Certainly we should be wary of how easily religion can become a show for the purpose of manipulation and power, both so that we are not manipulated and over-powered by men who do so and that we ourselves do not become as them.

Not sure where people ever get this idea that Christians are not going to sin.

One big point of the Bible is that we cannot keep from sinning. We cannot possibly be human and remain righteous and holy at the same time.

If it were humanly possible to be righteous and holy, there would be no need for the forgiveness and redemption that comes with salvation through Jesus Christ.

Several of the Bible references Mitchell uses, ironically point to people who were doing what "appeared" to be the right thing. My feeling is that these are the very people KomradRed would have championed as being among the few righteous people in his church.

Jesus seems to define two kinds of hypocrisy.

First of all, you have the people who are doing "religious" things to show off their piety without really having any religious conviction.

The second is people who demand piety in others when they, themselves, do not live up to the degree of piety they expect from others. KomradRed would seem to fit into this category.

I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that most Christians are involved in all sorts of sinful activities. But I think most of us do struggle with things that we know are not pleasing to God. Christians have affairs, get divorced, become hooked on drugs, view pornography, commit murder, spread rumors, lie, cheat, steal, and, collectively, can be involved in any activity that anyone might consider improper behavior. But not all of them are doing all of those things at the same time any more than the rest of humanity.

The difference is that as Christians, we realize that we are offending God and, therefore, need forgiveness. When the disciples asked Jesus how many times they needed to forgive their brother -- seven times?, Jesus replied, nay, but seventy times seven -- not indicating a mere 490 times, rather every time. Surely if God expects that of us, He is equally dedicated to forgiveness each and every time we fail Him, acknowledge it and ask forgiveness.

I cannot imagine one of my children coming to me and sincerely asking for my forgiveness for something he or she had done against me and withholding it. The neighbor's children who did not ask forgiveness would be a different matter. If you are a Christian, you are one of God's children; if not, you belong to the neighbor.

Non-Christians seem to think they can get around this forgiveness issue by:
1. saying God does not exist
2. saying sinful conduct is not sinful
3. believing they can earn their way into God's favor
4. thinking that since Christians sin, too, salvation is not effective
5. by thinking they avoid hypocrisy by not being Christians

We do not become perfect people by believing that Jesus Christ died for us; we become forgiven people who will be perfected when, by God's grace, we enter into His spiritual kingdom. That is when our hypocrisy ends.

The only seats in a church which do not have hypocrites in them are the empty ones. And there is always room for more. The only difference is whether you are a forgiven hypocrite or an unforgiven hypocrite.

?My feeling is that these are the very people KomradRed would have championed as being among the few righteous people in his church.?

Actually, no. I was just irritated that someone decided to single out the Catholic Church as the most hypocritical force in the world. Thats just idiotic. I myself was raised Catholic and had first hand experiences with the R.C.C.'s idiocy. Its heavy handed approach to teaching and preaching, its blatant earthliness, its seeming concern sometimes for its on political image than for what is right, are all problems with an organization that claims to be the representation of God's will on earth. But I also have a certain respect for it's clergymen who live a rather austere life and, I believe on the whole, truly believe what they are doing. In the end, to a large extent, I do not care what others do. Not to say if I see something wrong going on around me I will not try to help out to fix it, but I am more concerned with how I act rather than others.

Hypocrisy... It's prevalent in modern christian society. Basically comes down to what was said in the opening post...

Is it the unrealistic standard that most religions ask people to hold themselves too?

Yes. Thats the very reason why christians believe Jesus was sent into the world.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

When I was growing up I had to go to church a lot, and one of the things I noticed was the apparent hypocrisy or many people going to church. Couples, who I knew were getting divorced for various reasons, went to church and sang, praised, and did all he other things devout Christians were supposed to do. Some of my friends acted with this faux calmness/happiness, constantly smiling and being polite, but it always seemed strange. In school I got yelled at by a nun who between bouts of talking about peace, love, and altruism would frequently become instantly pissed at me for looking at the ceiling.

I've been reading quite a bit about the hypocrisy of the religious on this forum and others. Why do you think most religious people are hypocrits? Is it the unrealistic standard that most religions ask people to hold themselves too? Is it the social aspect of people who pretend to be moral and upstanding when really doing very sinful things? Is it the almost insufferably fake kind of happiness or contentment and the strange kind of superiority some religious hold over others?

Heres a good read "Christians are hypocrites" It's from an essay from "The Church of Theists Suck" written by Charlotte Schnook. She came on to sciforums.com some years ago as Critiquing Christ

[quote = KomradRed]

These are very sweeping statements sir. Are you saying the vast majority, if not all, of the Catholic clergy is nothing more than a pile of intolerant, hypocritical bigots? I have heard alot about the Church's opposition to the use of condoms and why it is wrong and evil, but have you attempted to actually understand why the Catholic Church take such a stance and do you think there might actually be something other than a theological ban on condoms other to their argument? Do not condoms have a fairly large fail rate and I remember being taught in public school health class condoms were extremely porous to sexually transmitted diseases?[/quote]

well it is true that comdoms do have a high fail rate, and they are porous, but not nearly as porous as unprotected flesh. and i do try to understand where the catholic church is coming from, they belive that the child is alive even before the sperm ever mixes with the egg. the main reason i disagree with catholics about the use of condoms is that i disagree with that view of when something is alive.

[quote = KomradRed]

Id have to say its absolutely false that Catholicism is "only religion i found enough hypocrisy". Its my belief its not merely the religious but atheists too that are hypocritical. How many of you actually act and follow your beliefs to a T? How many of you actually do what you would like your neighbor to do unto you all the time? I know I dont, for all my pretense to trying to follow Christ's message of service and love to my fellow man, and I know nobody else does. Theists can charge atheists with immorality all they like, and atheists accuse theists of ignorance and hypocrisy, but we are all hypocrites and the faster we realize that that this us vs. them attitude wont cut it, whether you believe in a higher power or not, the faster we can look ourselves in the mirror and begin to improve.[/quote]

i agree that humanity as a whole is sometimes hypocritical, it's a flaw that is built into us by (insert your creation theory here) however the "us vs. them" attitude you reffered to is what has driven humanity to its greatest discoveries, and also its worst tragedies. i believe that the former outweighs the later. additionally: you took my words out of context. i did not say that catholics are the only hypocritical religion, what i said is that they're the only ones i could write a paragraph on without doing any research and that's not simply due to the level of hypocrisy contained therein, but also due to that i went through catholic schooling and knew most about the catholic church. if i offended you i'd like to say i'm sorry, but one of my few beliefs as a non-christian is that i shouldn't lie, this is my point of view, if it offends you then that's just another oppurtunity for discussion.

i do not understand why the OP stated that i singled out catholocism as the most hypocritical, i did not say that that was my opinion, i merely said that they were the only ones i could write a paragraph on. i believe that all in all, 99% of religions have a net positive influence on society, however i do like to point out where religions have room for improvement.

Originally Posted by saul

i believe that all in all, 99% of religions have a net positive influence on society,

I think you will find the opposite to be true.
Consider the Human Development Report (2004), commissioned by The
United Nations Development Program. This report ranks 177 nations on a
“Human Development Index,” which measures societal health through a
weighing of such indicators as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, per
capita income, and educational attainment. According to the 2004 Report, the
five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway,
Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are
characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism.
Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the “Human
Development Index” -- the bottom 50 -- all are countries lacking statistically
significant percentages of atheism.
Concerning the infant mortality rate (number of deaths per 1,000 live
births), irreligious countries have the lowest rates, and religious countries have
the highest.
According to the CIA World Factbook (2004), the top 25 nations with
the lowest infant mortality rates were all nations containing significantly high
percentages of organic atheism. Conversely, the 75 bottom nations with the
highest infant mortality rates were all nations without any statistically significant
levels of organic atheism.

Source Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns1 by Phil Zuckerman

What you don't bring up is the fact that the top five countries are modern, industrialized states that have long traditions of national unity. Almost all of the countries in the bottom fifty were once colonial possessions of European powers like Russia or Great Britain in the case of the Carribean the United States. These countries were not industrialized when conquered by the various Western powers and were exploited ruthelessly sometimes for their resources and people. In India for example the British used an extremely effective method of playing the Islamic population against the Hindu population in order to weaken defiance against British rule. Africa, a continent mostly organized around tribal ties, was quickly decolonized by most of the European powers with borders ambiguously drawn to separate the new nations. Chaos quickly ensued as cheap and potent weaponry flooded into Africa, helping to set up the new military dictatorships that flourished across that continent. The reason nations like Canada and Australia have a higher life expectancy rate even though they were colonial nations was because the native peoples in both countries were quickly replaced and dominated by a Western population that practiced and believed in Western values while being protected by the mother country. History has more to do with the numbers in the Human Development index than Atheism or religion does.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

What you don't bring up is the fact that the top five countries are modern, industrialized states that have long traditions of national unity. Almost all of the countries in the bottom fifty were once colonial possessions of European powers like Russia or Great Britain

As were Kazakhstan(78th), Dominican Republic(98th), Trinidad and Tobago(54th), Sri Lanka(71st), Ecuador(100th), Barbados(29th), Cuba(52nd), Bahamas(51st), Suriname( 67th), Equatorial Guinea(109th), Just a few from the middle of the list, if your argument were valid these would also be in the bottom of the list.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

in the case of the Carribean the United States.

Wrong Spain, France and Britain and the Netherlands too.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

These countries were not industrialized when conquered by the various Western powers and were exploited ruthelessly sometimes for their resources and people.

As were (see above list)

Originally Posted by KomradRed

In India for example the British used an extremely effective method of playing the Islamic population against the Hindu population in order to weaken defiance against British rule.

A link or too would not go amiss here.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Africa, a continent mostly organized around tribal ties, was quickly decolonized by most of the European powers with borders ambiguously drawn to separate the new nations. Chaos quickly ensued as cheap and potent weaponry flooded into Africa, helping to set up the new military dictatorships that flourished across that continent.

So it's the western oppressors fault that their not getting their act together. lol got you.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

The reason nations like Canada and Australia have a higher life expectancy rate even though they were colonial nations was because the native peoples in both countries were quickly replaced and dominated by a Western population that practiced and believed in Western values while being protected by the mother country.

So here your saying that all the countries in the list that are not in the bottom fifty have had there indigenous peoples eradicated, or suppressed, lol ok got you.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

History has more to do with the numbers in the Human Development index than Atheism or religion does

And the major factor in the domination of other countries is.?
The goal of the church since the First Council of Nicaea, was to enforce christianity onto the masses, by fair means or foal, so yes religion, and the lack of religion does play a large part,

1.) As of the 2008 report Barbados has fallen to #37. I think overall the ratings of the Human Development Index can be misleading. For example, Mexico rates 51 on the 2008 list. I traveled to Mexico a few years back and one of the first things I was warned about was not to drink the water, so we subsisted on bottled water. Mexico, while 51 on the list and rated in High development, has a great poverty gulf, with much of the country well below the standard of living prevalent in the United States and Western Europe. I think to truly argue whether Religiosity has as big effect as you think on the welfare of nations we should have a thread in the history subsection that analyzises the histories of various countries and geographical areas so as to get a more in depth picture as to why certain industrialized countries, like most of Western Europe, Japan, and the United States rate high on the list while so many others rate low. By the way, if high levels of Atheism and irreligion lead to a higher level of development, then why do nations like Russia, Albania, and China, who attempted to eliminate religiosity from their populations at various points throughout the 20th century, rate lower than Mexico? If religiosity played such a heavy roll, these countries should be close to the top of the list in development, but they arent.

2.) The fact that Spain, France, England, and the Netherlands interfered in the Carribean only highlights the fact that their actions were devastating to the development of effective, centralized governments and stable societies.

3.) Please explain in a little more detail what you mean by this.

4.) I was shallowly summarizing the mess in Africa and throughout the other post colonial nations. The problems throughout africa and many other nations that did not come out of Colonialism could fill an entire thread in the history section, which I would be happy to start if you care to join me in discussing those reasons. But a uncoordinated and swift pullouts by European powers before effective governments could be established, the flood of cheap and powerful weaponry into Africa, tensions created by arbitrary borders drawn by the European colonial powers that created nations that often ran in the face of traditional tribal factors, and a host of other problems plagued Africa and other colonial areas as the Empires were decommissioned. This was not always the case though, as France attempted to retain its colonial empire with a ferociousness that seemed born from its humiliation during the Second World War (a good book on the psychological effects of both world wars on France can be found in Alistair Horne's book The Price of Glory, which is mostly about the Battle of Verdun). John Keegan's A History of Warfare also contains an interesting point towards the end that discusses how the African nations attempted to create powerful military forces using the cheap weapons that became more readily available in Africa, but because these forces lacked the discipline of European armies, chaos quickly ensued in an Africa already racked by other problems. Overall Id say an interesting thread could be started about colonialism and why certain countries have higher standards of living than others in the history subsection.

5.) No, what I was saying is in countries like AUstralia, the United States, and Canada, the native populations were exterminated by disease, malnutrition, and warfare. This allowed for large scale migration of native European peoples into these now vacant lands, quickly establishing populations that shared cultural values with Europe. Now, of course in the case of the United States there was a significant tradition of self governance prior to the American Revolutionary War and Canada and Australia were longtime members of the British Empire, but it is still a significant factor as to why these countries managed to develop the way they did.

6.) I am not saying that religion wasn't used as a primary motivator or justifiar throughout history in military efforts and the domination of other peoples. The Crusades, Islamic Jihads, and the European Wars of Religion are all fine examples. But what must remembered is this isnt the only force that drives conquest and empire. Hell, historically it hasn't even come close to the dominant forces in aggression and expansion. Greed, politics, dynastic reputation, and economic competition played even bigger roles.

As far as links go, I find books far more effective and informative than information on the internets. India: A History by John Kaey, Keagan's a History of Warfare and History of the First World War, and many other books, including a fabuluous one about the 3 naval wars between the dutch and British all help shed light as to why the world is the way it is today. History is a very important subject.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

When I was growing up I had to go to church a lot, and one of the things I noticed was the apparent hypocrisy or many people going to church. Couples, who I knew were getting divorced for various reasons, went to church and sang, praised, and did all he other things devout Christians were supposed to do. Some of my friends acted with this faux calmness/happiness, constantly smiling and being polite, but it always seemed strange. In school I got yelled at by a nun who between bouts of talking about peace, love, and altruism would frequently become instantly pissed at me for looking at the ceiling.

I've been reading quite a bit about the hypocrisy of the religious on this forum and others. Why do you think most religious people are hypocrits? Is it the unrealistic standard that most religions ask people to hold themselves too? Is it the social aspect of people who pretend to be moral and upstanding when really doing very sinful things? Is it the almost insufferably fake kind of happiness or contentment and the strange kind of superiority some religious hold over others?

The thinking process of a theist has been altered from when they were children, due to indoctrination. The child is told to believe in the claims of the cult their parents were indoctrinated, without question. Hence, the child grows up not able to use critical thinking skills, but instead believes whatever their parents told them to believe. They then "cherry pick" and "shoe-horn" those beliefs into their personal lives.

Many pseudoscience nutters are theists, who use very much the same principles of cheery picking and shoe-horning. They come to a conclusion and then go out looking for so-called evidence to support their conclusions.

So, whenever those beliefs are brought into question and faced up to reality, the hypocrisy begins to flow.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by saul

i believe that all in all, 99% of religions have a net positive influence on society,

I think you will find the opposite to be true.
Consider the Human Development Report (2004), commissioned by The
United Nations Development Program. This report ranks 177 nations on a
“Human Development Index,” which measures societal health through a
weighing of such indicators as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, per
capita income, and educational attainment. According to the 2004 Report, the
five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway,
Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are
characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism.
Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the “Human
Development Index” -- the bottom 50 -- all are countries lacking statistically
significant percentages of atheism.
Concerning the infant mortality rate (number of deaths per 1,000 live
births), irreligious countries have the lowest rates, and religious countries have
the highest.
According to the CIA World Factbook (2004), the top 25 nations with
the lowest infant mortality rates were all nations containing significantly high
percentages of organic atheism. Conversely, the 75 bottom nations with the
highest infant mortality rates were all nations without any statistically significant
levels of organic atheism.

Source Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns1 by Phil Zuckerman

sorry to burst your quantitave bubble, but i wasn't reffering to any of those statistics when i said that religion as a whole usually has a net possitive influence. what i meant in my second to last paragraph was that people who are religious are generally more happy, this isn't always true, but all of the people that truely believe and don't just follow that i've met have been at peace with themselves. that's not to say that the religious are never sad, many of the people who are followers but don't truely belive(that would be from most common to least that i know of: politicians, merchants, beurocrats, stockmarket traders) all of these people have more than the poor people toward the bottom of your little list, but none of them are happy with their lives, if you went to the very lowest country on
"the human development index" and asked around, the vast majority of the population would tell you that they were somewhere between content and overjoyed with their life. THAT is the power(and in my opinion the point) of religion.

At least from my own experience, falling "short of the mark" seems to be associated with the amount of time spent in daily religious practice.

What I mean is, if you were trying to master anything (sport, class, profession, skill), and you put in an hour a week, how good would you expect to be? For most of us, the answer is "I would suck." So it is amazing that anyone expects huge benefits from religion, if he/she puts in an hour a week or less.

I believe Christian religious practice can transform a person--if you do it.
For me, falling short almost always is the result of minimal daily time with God.

Originally Posted by dedo

At least from my own experience, falling "short of the mark" seems to be associated with the amount of time spent in daily religious practice.

What I mean is, if you were trying to master anything (sport, class, profession, skill), and you put in an hour a week, how good would you expect to be? For most of us, the answer is "I would suck." So it is amazing that anyone expects huge benefits from religion, if he/she puts in an hour a week or less.

I believe Christian religious practice can transform a person--if you do it.
For me, falling short almost always is the result of minimal daily time with God.

However there is a huge difference between sports training, the intake of real knowledge, learning new skills, and your imagination, the latter is only subjective.


Oh and Saul do you think people with a better standard of living who are less likely to be murdered or raped, are not happier. than those that are more likely to be murdered or raped, and have a poor living standard.
No sir the links I provided, show that people in religious societies are either completely ignorant, or unhappy. more likely the former, as ignorance is bliss.

Originally Posted by geezer

as ignorance is bliss.

Except that it isn't, is it?

It may have worked in "The Matrix" but that was a fantasy world made to run smoothly by the machines. In reality we have to make things work ourselves and ignorance doesn't do a very good job at that does it?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by geezer

as ignorance is bliss.

Except that it isn't, is it?

Well looking around the world at the amount of religious adherents, "you could have fooled me"

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It may have worked in "The Matrix" but that was a fantasy world made to run smoothly by the machines.

Lol and religion is not, a fantasy world made to run smooth by the religious hierarchy..

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

In reality we have to make things work ourselves and ignorance doesn't do a very good job at that does it?

Unfortunately only a small percentage see the world through un-blinkered eyes.

So yes I would repeat "Ignorance is bliss" to a vast majority of the world.

Your argument is still complete bullshit Geezer. You fail to take into account HISTORICAL reasons for why so many countries around the planet have lower human development index levels than modern, stable, industrialized nations like the United States, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and many others. You try to maintain an argument that religion is the primary reason for the disparity in wealth and that the enlightened and glorious countries with large numbers of irreligion are at the forefront of human development, but as I've said earlier your theory doesn't hold water since China, Russia, and Albania are far lower on the list than Mexico. You take an extremely simplified and if I may say so, imbecilic, view of the world and the condition it is in.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Your argument is still complete bullshit Geezer. You fail to take into account HISTORICAL reasons for why so many countries around the planet have lower human development index levels than modern, stable, industrialized nations like the United States, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and many others. You try to maintain an argument that religion is the primary reason for the disparity in wealth and that the enlightened and glorious countries with large numbers of irreligion are at the forefront of human development, but as I've said earlier your theory doesn't hold water since China, Russia, and Albania are far lower on the list than Mexico. You take an extremely simplified and if I may say so, imbecilic, view of the world and the condition it is in.

And theres you, displaying the very ignorance I'm referring too. take the blinkers off.

There has never existed in the world anything more intensely vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress as religious faith. The religious dominated societies of the world has painted a lovely picture of the faithful flock and how deserving faithful people are of praise and respect. But beneath the BS is the plain hard truth.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion" Stephen Weinberg

Originally Posted by geezer

There has never existed in the world anything more intensely vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress as religious faith.

It is difficult for me to understand how anyone having knowledge of global history and pre-history can fail to appreciate the positive role of religion in the development of civilisation.

The volume of studies on this issue carry it almost to the point where it cannot really be argued by anyone with respect for facts. Religion provided the cohesion within societies that helped regulate them as they increased in complexity. Was freedom stomped upon? Certainly, but no more so than under our present hysterical reaction to the threats of terrorism. Was peace compromised? Sometimes yes, but often no. Was progress delayed? At times, but the initial climb from cave to city would likely have been impossible without it.

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is difficult for me to understand how anyone having knowledge of global history and pre-history can fail to appreciate the positive role of religion in the development of civilisation.

I am truely flabbergasted! a positive role? a positive role? are you mad!

Originally Posted by John Galt

The volume of studies on this issue carry it almost to the point where it cannot really be argued by anyone with respect for facts.

What independent studies do you have

Originally Posted by John Galt

Religion provided the cohesion within societies that helped regulate them as they increased in complexity. Was freedom stomped upon? Certainly, but no more so than under our present hysterical reaction to the threats of terrorism. Was peace compromised? Sometimes yes, but often no. Was progress delayed? At times, but the initial climb from cave to city would likely have been impossible without it.

Where there is religion, there can not be no common sense.
There is in religion an immunity to reality.
Religion creates an aversion to change.
At this very moment religion is trying to remove evolution from the science books, even though it is established as fact.
Religion would relish a return to the dark ages.
Religion sings about freedom, but it's every endeavor is to control, outlaw and prohibit. it is nothing more than tyranny and always have been. There is nothing positive about control of people by force of faith, and under warrant of death, this kind of cohesion for societies is unwanted.
Religion like nothing else strengthens intolerance, which breeds and spreads like a virus.
Causing racism, homophobia, murder, infanticide, genocide, rape, kidnapping, and slavery, etc...

The institution of religion has had a negative impact on society. with it's poor ethics and morals, it does nothing but destroy the very rights of humanity.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Your argument is still complete bullshit Geezer. You fail to take into account HISTORICAL reasons for why so many countries around the planet have lower human development index levels than modern, stable, industrialized nations like the United States, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and many others. You try to maintain an argument that religion is the primary reason for the disparity in wealth and that the enlightened and glorious countries with large numbers of irreligion are at the forefront of human development, but as I've said earlier your theory doesn't hold water since China, Russia, and Albania are far lower on the list than Mexico. You take an extremely simplified and if I may say so, imbecilic, view of the world and the condition it is in.

And theres you, displaying the very ignorance I'm referring too. take the blinkers off.

There has never existed in the world anything more intensely vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress as religious faith. The religious dominated societies of the world has painted a lovely picture of the faithful flock and how deserving faithful people are of praise and respect. But beneath the BS is the plain hard truth.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion" Stephen Weinberg

A witty saying proves nothing-Voltaire

I don't give a flying fuck if you dislike religion or not Geezer, what I am concerned about is that you are perfectly willing to distort history and current world affairs around this idea that religious belief is the greatest evil mankind has ever known, yet you provide absolutely no evidence to back this up and when you do bring up points you misinterpret the information you are presenting, as in the case of the Human Development Index.

Religious belief, like many, many, many other things has been used for great evils. Humanity has shown itself to be perfectly capable of justifying horrifying deeds in the most insane ways possible.

I have a question though Geezer. Are you seriously going to state, with a straight face, that religion has done more damage to the world than communism? Are you going say that the commonly accepted number of 20 million that died in Stalin's modernization process of the Soviet Union, the 20-43 million that died from the events of the Great Leap Forward in China, and the Khmer Rouge's disgusting campaign in Cambodia to eliminate all intellectuals and people of learning and turn the nation into a country of farmers was less catastrophic than the conflicts and idiocy religion has created? What of the two world wars, which together killed anywhere from 80 to 100 million people?

Like I said Geezer, I don't care if you despise religion or not. I am perfectly comfortable with pointing out religion's negative impact on human society. Religious differences have generated many conflicts and even lead to the death of the Roman Empire (of the East). The deadliest religious war that I know of, the Thirty Years War, saw the population of central Europe drop by 15-30%. Religious institutions and sects sometimes go through periods of great corruption and intellectual stagnation and oppression, such as the Catholic Church in the 15th and 16th centuries, or are just naturally dismissive of anything but their bizaare and extreme interpretations of sacred writings, like the Westboro baptist Church.

if you would like to start a thread in the history subsection about the effects of religion on human civilization, negative and positive, id be perfectly happy to contribute.

geezer, do and try to make a proper, logical argument, with well thought out points and sources (books and online journals).

we've gotten quite a bit off topic.

geezer has gone off on a rant about how evil religion is.

i've done pretty much the same( my bad :oops: )

K.Red has been defending the role of the religious.

and no one has denied yet that the religous are hypocrites, it seems like a dead topic to me!

komrad, if you would be willing you could post the new thread and please leave the name of it on here so it can be easily located(if there are other easy means of locating it please inform me, as my freshmen status suggests, i'm new to the forum)

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Your argument is still complete bullshit Geezer. You fail to take into account HISTORICAL reasons for why so many countries around the planet have lower human development index levels than modern, stable, industrialized nations like the United States, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and many others. You try to maintain an argument that religion is the primary reason for the disparity in wealth and that the enlightened and glorious countries with large numbers of irreligion are at the forefront of human development, but as I've said earlier your theory doesn't hold water since China, Russia, and Albania are far lower on the list than Mexico. You take an extremely simplified and if I may say so, imbecilic, view of the world and the condition it is in.

And theres you, displaying the very ignorance I'm referring too. take the blinkers off.

There has never existed in the world anything more intensely vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress as religious faith. The religious dominated societies of the world has painted a lovely picture of the faithful flock and how deserving faithful people are of praise and respect. But beneath the BS is the plain hard truth.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion" Stephen Weinberg

A witty saying proves nothing-Voltaire

What is witty about the above quote?
I see nothing witty, scary, yes but witty, no

It is states, that given the right? religious incentive, the adherent would do bad under a banner of righteousness, it would be better for him to follow his own conscience, and not somebody else's simply for a reward.( like a dog doing his masters biding for a morsel of food.)

"the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death." Voltaire

Originally Posted by KomradRed

I don't give a flying fuck if you dislike religion or not Geezer, what I am concerned about is that you are perfectly willing to distort history and current world affairs around this idea that religious belief is the greatest evil mankind has ever known,

No distortion here bud. Nearly all conflicts have religious overtones. the american civil war, the Tutsi and Hutu, the Protestants, and Catholics, the shiites and the sunnies, the jews and the muslim, if religion were such a good thing it would not have words like war, enemy, jihad, etc in its vocabulary.
Why does combat seem to solidified belief in God.
Throughout the centuries because of religious political powers, the only just ? cause for killing/war was a religious one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/ess...ligiouswar.htm

Originally Posted by KomradRed

yet you provide absolutely no evidence to back this up and when you do bring up points you misinterpret the information you are presenting, as in the case of the Human Development Index.

lol and what links did you provide?

Originally Posted by KomradRed

I have a question though Geezer. Are you seriously going to state, with a straight face, that religion has done more damage to the world than communism?

Yes, it is afterall the "opium you feed your people" marquis de sade

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Are you going say that the commonly accepted number of 20 million that died in Stalin's modernization process of the Soviet Union, the 20-43 million that died from the events of the Great Leap Forward in China, and the Khmer Rouge's disgusting campaign in Cambodia to eliminate all intellectuals and people of learning and turn the nation into a country of farmers was less catastrophic than the conflicts and idiocy religion has created? What of the two world wars, which together killed anywhere from 80 to 100 million people?

Fascism and Communism, are merely different forms of religion. it is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core, giving rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok.
Communism is something that Marx merely adapted from Acts in the NT. The Bible is basically a communist manifesto.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."John.E.E.Dalberg

Yes we did have several despots in the last century, be they religious or not. all abused people, and some even their own people.
hence why the above quote fits.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Like I said Geezer, I don't care if you despise religion or not. I am perfectly comfortable with pointing out religion's negative impact on human society. Religious differences have generated many conflicts and even lead to the death of the Roman Empire (of the East). The deadliest religious war that I know of, the Thirty Years War, saw the population of central Europe drop by 15-30%. Religious institutions and sects sometimes go through periods of great corruption and intellectual stagnation and oppression, such as the Catholic Church in the 15th and 16th centuries, or are just naturally dismissive of anything but their bizaare and extreme interpretations of sacred writings, like the Westboro baptist Church.

if you would like to start a thread in the history subsection about the effects of religion on human civilization, negative and positive, id be perfectly happy to contribute.

geezer, do and try to make a proper, logical argument, with well thought out points and sources (books and online journals).

And the pot calls the kettle black, lol.

EDIT: poor grammar

Originally Posted by geezer

I am truely flabbergasted! a positive role? a positive role? are you mad!

You are sufficiently blinded by hatred that any rational discussion with you on this issue is pointless. I hope you are more rational in your daily life.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Don't bother to do so again.
John

Originally Posted by KomradRed

When I was growing up I had to go to church a lot, and one of the things I noticed was the apparent hypocrisy or many people going to church.
Couples, who I knew were getting divorced for various reasons, went to church and sang, praised, and did all he other things devout Christians were supposed to do.
Some of my friends acted with this faux calmness/happiness, constantly smiling and being polite,
In school I got yelled at by a nun who between bouts of talking about peace, love, and altruism would frequently become instantly pissed at me for looking at the ceiling.

Please explain what you consider to be hypocritical about your three emboldened examples. I see nothing untoward about any of them.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by geezer

I am truly flabbergasted! a positive role? a positive role? are you mad!

You are sufficiently blinded by hatred

No hatred here bud, religious people are victims, they just not thinking rationally, but don't realize it. I have a distinct disdain for religion because it causes the nicest of people to do abominable things.

Originally Posted by John Galt

that any rational discussion with you on this issue is pointless.

Well of course it is, because if your religious, your not thinking rationally from the onset.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I hope you are more rational in your daily life.

Oh yes more rational and more moral, I do whats right because it is whats right, it's not whats right according to a book or whats right according to an imaginary god. I think about what I do and how it will effect my neighbour, I want their life and mine to be a happy and pain free existence, which is impossible to achieve whilst religion tells us we're sinners. Take the blinkers off.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Don't bother to do so again.
John

It's a debate forum, I'll do as I please,(without impinging the rules, that is) thank you.

wow. okay. religion is entirely corrupt and evil. nice argument. I have a question though, how is Buddhism evil? Isn't the morality of the spirituality that is Buddhism rather good, and not specifically an ethical pitfall? And to make so bold a claim as all religion is pointless, well, I'd have to say that there may be a mistake in that thinking. Never in my life have I encountered a person who would agree with you that religion has no positive effects, and quite the contrary, many religious people I know happen to be QUITE rational, and logical. Granted, it isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but historically, it has been a beacon for people to flock to, a means of uniting vast peoples, and holding them together. There is nothing irrational in believing that there is a God, though there may be irrational thought that comes to that conclusion, there is nothing irrational about God.

Originally Posted by saul

and no one has denied yet that the religous are hypocrites, it seems like a dead topic to me!

Yes and no one has countered the response that the religious are no more or less hypocrites than anyone else.

Granted that sometimes the religion of people is about pretending that they are not hypocrites with a holier-than-thou approach, sometimes it is instead about an awareness and acknowledgement that they are quite often hypocrites and continuing to try to be a better person no matter how often they fail.

The relgious certainly have no corner on this holier-than-thou stuff because changing the word from "holy" to "rational" or whatever doesn't change the effect all that much.

I typed down the Voltaire quote because "A witty saying (quote) proves nothing." If you were born with your brain inside your head and not your rectum, maybe you could actually start linking some books so as to reinforce your points. You know books, right? Books those papery, sandwich looking things with words written on them.

Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1618-1991 by Michael Clodfelter, The Chomsky Reader and Deterring Democracy by Noam Chomsky, A History of Europe by Norman Davies, and Modern Times by Paul Johnson are just a short list of some of the books you should read if you really want to know what you are talking about Geezer.

Many conflicts do have religious overtones, but does that mean religion was the primary motivation, or even one of the major motivations for war? In the American Civil War the slave based south used parts of the Bible to justify slavery while the abolitionist north used the Bible to justify abolition, but the ACW was mainly of whether secession legal and whether slavery was justifiable in the face of the American ideal of everyone having certain inalienable rights. WHile the religous aspect was present, it was negligible. What I do know of the Hutu and Tutsi conflict can be summed up more by the ethnic difficulties between each people and the fact that the empire that controlled Rwanda beforehand had catered to the Tutsis, leading to even more ethnic hatred between the groups. I have already mentioned the Crusades, the Wars of Religion, and the Islamic Jihads, but please don't try and take other conflicts that were clearly dominated by different factors and try to inject your own irrational hatred into them.

Would anyone be help me to verify whether his comment on fascism and communism being religions is a no true scotsman or not, because that is what is it looks to me. For one, Fascism (however nebulous it is to define) and communism are political and economic philosophies.

"The Bible is basically a communist manifesto." I don't remember reading about the evolution of capitalist societies to socialist societies who violently turn into communist societies once the proletariat has finally been oppressed long enough by the middle class in the New Testament. I dont remember reading about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or worker unions dominating factories in the New Testament. Perhaps you could explain this in a less retarded way.

"And the pot calls the kettle black, lol."

Do try and explain this one as well. Maybe my poor deluded theist brain is unable to comprehend the magnitude of your enlightened argument, but perhaps you failed to realize that your argument seems to be nothing more than "Religion is totally evil, the worst thing that has happened in the history of mankind!" whereas mine is "religion has caused many of problems and has a lot to answer for, but it has been uniformly positive throughout history."

Originally Posted by KomradRed

whereas mine is "religion has caused many of problems and has a lot to answer for, but it has been uniformly positive throughout history."

"Uniformly" is obviously the wrong word when you look at the context of your post so maybe you mean "generally positive" or "positive over all".

What is really strange is the responses you get when you point out the devastatingly destructive role of the fundamentally atheistic movement of Marxist-Leninism. Granted that you can argue that Communism is not identical to atheism, but the point is that identifying evil with religion and then trying to say that communism is a form of religion you end up redefining the word "religion" to force the claim to be true in a way that is typical of simple minded ideological approaches to the world and when you do something like this you end up making the original statement something without meaning. If you redefine religion as this thing embodying all the evil deeds of any kind of thinking whatsoever then are you sure you haven't redefined the debate so that everyone is already on the side that you are arguing? LOL

I think part of the argument here is that man is a religious creature and any attempt to take religion out of the equation can only result in a lot of prentious semantics and self-delusion, therefore what we should be seeking here is not some simple-minded ideological nonsense of eliminating religion but intead reaching for some discernment concerning what sort of religion is psychologically healthy or at least benign and what sort of religion is destructive and a source of human misery. And of course what we need in such a search is not a lot of emotional opinions from either side but some solid scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

wow. okay. religion is entirely corrupt and evil. nice argument. I have a question though, how is Buddhism evil? Isn't the morality of the spirituality that is Buddhism rather good, and not specifically an ethical pitfall?

Do you know that Pol Pot was Theravada Buddhist. Read "Pol Pot : Anatomy of a Nightmare" Phillip Short Or go here.
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b3polpot.htm

Sri Lanka has just cleansed it self of the Tamil Tigers Hindu by faith, the Sinhalese Govenment is Theravada Buddhist by faith.
kind of doesn't help to but Buddhism as a good thing does it.
it is interesting to see how something as seemingly docile as Buddhism can have a role in somethings that are so barbaric.
Religion makes good people bad.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

And to make so bold a claim as all religion is pointless, well, I'd have to say that there may be a mistake in that thinking. Never in my life have I encountered a person who would agree with you that religion has no positive effects, and quite the contrary, many religious people I know happen to be QUITE rational, and logical. Granted, it isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but historically, it has been a beacon for people to flock to, a means of uniting vast peoples, and holding them together.

When I point out the evil that is religion. I don’t mean that religion has no value whatsoever. it does have a very minuscule effect in the positive, (and I mean minuscule) However I do mean that the net world effect from religion is to promote evil.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

There is nothing irrational in believing that there is a God, though there may be irrational thought that comes to that conclusion, there is nothing irrational about God.

Then in that case there is nothing irrational in believing that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Russells teapot. There is nothing irrational about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Russells teapot.

As this is, as you believe, a rational belief system, which does not provide a sound basis for clear thinking. Where people are encouraged to believe things that are unverifiable or illogical, such as God/Gods, Devils/Demons, etc. They are then led into a state where they can easily be swayed by this total BS, which in turn causes them to do evil.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by KomradRed

whereas mine is "religion has caused many of problems and has a lot to answer for, but it has been uniformly positive throughout history."

"Uniformly" is obviously the wrong word when you look at the context of your post so maybe you mean "generally positive" or "positive over all".

What is really strange is the responses you get when you point out the devastatingly destructive role of the fundamentally atheistic movement of Marxist-Leninism. Granted that you can argue that Communism is not identical to atheism, but the point is that identifying evil with religion and then trying to say that communism is a form of religion you end up redefining the word "religion" to force the claim to be true in a way that is typical of simple minded ideological approaches to the world and when you do something like this you end up making the original statement something without meaning. If you redefine religion as this thing embodying all the evil deeds of any kind of thinking whatsoever then are you sure you haven't redefined the debate so that everyone is already on the side that you are arguing? LOL

I think part of the argument here is that man is a religious creature and any attempt to take religion of the equation can only result in a lot of prentious semantics and self-delusion, therefore the real quest here is not some simple-minded ideological nonsense of eliminating religion but intead reaching for some discernment concerning what sort of religion is psychologically healthy or at least benign and what sort of religion is destructive and a source of human misery. And of course what we need in such a search is not a lot of emotial opinions from either side but some solid scientific evidence.

I'll agree to that.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

I typed down the Voltaire quote because "A witty saying (quote) proves nothing."

Yes I know what it meant, but my quote has no wit in it.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

If you were born with your brain inside your head and not your rectum, maybe you could actually start linking some books so as to reinforce your points. You know books, right? Books those papery, sandwich looking things with words written on them.

Your anger proves my point, I have not once condemned you, but I have condemned what controls your ever thought,
You are so blinkered with this mind virus you could kill me if I were face to face with you now.

Using your critical mind, and a little civility, helps your cause, rage does not.
More is spoken with a whisper, than with a shout.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1618-1991 by Michael Clodfelter, The Chomsky Reader and Deterring Democracy by Noam Chomsky, A History of Europe by Norman Davies, and Modern Times by Paul Johnson are just a short list of some of the books you should read if you really want to know what you are talking about Geezer.

Oh yes books those things you can read on line, why do you seem to think that anything on line is suspect. have your read History of Modern Europe, 1792-1878 by Charles Alan Fyffe or A General History of Europe, From the Origins of Civilization to the Present Time by James Harvey Robinson, James Henry Breasted, and Emma Peters Smith and The War: Its Causes and Consequences, by C. C. S. Farrar and what about War and Democide: Never Again, by R. J. Rummel, all can be found here for you to read.
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/search.html
The internet sir is a great source of material.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

Many conflicts do have religious overtones, but does that mean religion was the primary motivation, or even one of the major motivations for war?

I would go with the former on that, I'm not denying other motivations, but religious differences has always been the main cause for a just ? war.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

What I do know of the Hutu and Tutsi conflict can be summed up more by the ethnic difficulties between each people and the fact that the empire that controlled Rwanda beforehand had catered to the Tutsis, leading to even more ethnic hatred between the groups.

And there basic religious tenet one group were protestant, the other catholic. The tutsi protestants had control of the country. The Hutus catholics wanted control hence the war/genocide.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

I have already mentioned the Crusades, the Wars of Religion, and the Islamic Jihads, but please don't try and take other conflicts that were clearly dominated by different factors and try to inject your own irrational hatred into them.

What hatred, Fear is a better word, with an irrational religious mindset, must come irrational actions, religion has always been in the drivers seat when it comes too war/killings.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

Would anyone be help me to verify whether his comment on fascism and communism being religions is a no true scotsman or not, because that is what is it looks to me. For one, Fascism (however nebulous it is to define) and communism are political and economic philosophies.

Then it would be wise to check out what the word religion actually means, don't you think. IE A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects, the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, something one believes in and follows devotedly.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

"The Bible is basically a communist manifesto." Perhaps you could explain this in a less retarded way.

(remember a little civility)
Basic communism states to hold all property in common rather than privately, is practiced by numerous Christian communities now and throughout history. references to it can be found in Acts:

Acts 4:33-35 "With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "
The similarity to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.

And here again in Acts:

Acts 5:1-11 "But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.

The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things."

Their deaths served as an example to all the others of what would happen if they, too, held back profits for themselves instead of giving everything to the community.
So we can see that this was the first christian commune(ist) society.

Originally Posted by KonradRed

"And the pot calls the kettle black, lol."

Do try and explain this one as well. Maybe my poor deluded theist brain is unable to comprehend the magnitude of your enlightened argument, but perhaps you failed to realize that your argument seems to be nothing more than "Religion is totally evil, the worst thing that has happened in the history of mankind!" whereas mine is "religion has caused many of problems and has a lot to answer for, but it has been uniformly positive throughout history."

However You did say this "do and try to make a proper, logical argument, with well thought out points and sources (books and online journals)." well as your rants were not well thought out, and you provide no sources, you were being hypocritical. hence the pot calling the kettle black reference. (Note it was the rudest statement you got from me) Can you say the same.

Heed these words, for future reference. "There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable"

Religion is flawed because man is flawed,which stands the reason I don't too much believe what the bible says.I use common sense along with education to dispel most of what I read.

why take the extreme approach? God is no more illogical than a scientific explanation for the origins of the universe, unless you do believe in spontaneous existence, as most people who understand the big bang theory as being how the universe began. I don't think it's any more illogical to say God created the universe than the Big Bang Theory is true. I never said it's logical to believe that God impregnated a 'virgin.' I never said God talked to a lunatic through a burning bush. I'm not siding with the christian view, and as such I do not feel that it is right to say that God is prevalent in our universe, though it is equally likely that a God created it as it is for the universe to have spontaneously come into existence (same argument, I think).

As for Pol Pot, that's one hell of a flimsy argument for saying that Buddhism produces evil. Religion does not turn good people bad, as you have NO idea who he would have been without Buddhism. Appeal to ignorance. There will always be Bad people doing Bad things, and to label the beliefs they have as the purpose, is not only ignorant but outright asinine. So, Atheism is equally horrible because Stalin, Lenin, Marx, All atheists, all having bad ideas. Especially the first two. look at the monstrosities that came from Stalin and Lenin, and now tell me it wasn't because they were atheist. your argument would make the assumption that any belief system causes evil behavior, so therefore ALL belief systems (including a lack of one) to be responsible for the evil of the world.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

why take the extreme approach? God is no more illogical than a scientific explanation for the origins of the universe,

God of the gaps. Why call it god if it's not any different, why not just call it The universe,

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

unless you do believe in spontaneous existence,

Why would you want to make it more complicated, Squeezing a god into the gap presented by any absent explanation tends to increase the number of questions we’re left with. Or is it turtles all the way down.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

as most people who understand the big bang theory as being how the universe began.

Yes that is one theory, but I take the stance of an eternal universe and existence which was never created from nothingness. Why not an eternal universe that has always existed in the same form or constantly changing in cycles of birth and death but eternal in cyclic form. Quantum physics and M-theory, string theory, also science tells us that matter/energy cannot be ever created or destroyed, thus it is eternal.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

I don't think it's any more illogical to say God created the universe than the Big Bang Theory is true. I never said it's logical to believe that God impregnated a 'virgin.' I never said God talked to a lunatic through a burning bush. I'm not siding with the christian view, and as such I do not feel that it is right to say that God is prevalent in our universe, though it is equally likely that a God created it as it is for the universe to have spontaneously come into existence (same argument, I think).

No not equal more complicated, Rather than say goddidit, we say we don't know.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

As for Pol Pot, that's one hell of a flimsy argument for saying that Buddhism produces evil. Religion does not turn good people bad,

Any holy book professing love should not have words like kill, enemy, hate, etc, written within. it only incites it's adherents, to do things that are evil, but they believe, their doing it for the right reasons, so yes it does. the holy books are nothing more than an incitement to violence.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

as you have NO idea who he would have been without Buddhism. Appeal to ignorance.

lol out load, neither do you. nobody knows, but there are no tenets for non-believe, so nothing to incite hatred, like holy books do.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

There will always be Bad people doing Bad things, and to label the beliefs they have as the purpose,

Take away the drug and you have no drug addict, take away the alcohol and you have no alcoholics, take away the ring leader and you have no revolt, take away the books that incite violence and you a have no killings.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

is not only ignorant but outright asinine.

Thats your opinion, however the right opinion, no I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

So, Atheism is equally horrible because Stalin, Lenin, Marx, All atheists,

What atheistic tenets, did they follow, what atheistic dogma, the fact the may have had no belief in a god is irrelevant. People of faith often claim that the crimes of Stalin, Lenin were the inevitable product of unbelief. This is a common mistake made by theists, they believe atheism is essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. How stupid!
the first thing we should note is there is an automatic and almost unconscious assumption made by these theists that religion is somehow equal to capitalism. Marx got his ideas for communism from the bible, Read Acts.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

all had bad ideas. Especially the first two. look at the monstrosities that came from Stalin and Lenin, and now tell me it wasn't because they were atheist.

It was because they were communist,
Communism is not inherently atheistic. It is possible to have communistic or socialistic views while being a theist and it isn't at all wrong to be an atheist whilst staunchly defending capitalism, which is a combination often found among objectivists and libertarians.
their existence alone demonstrates, that atheism and communism are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

your argument would make the assumption that any belief system causes evil behavior, so therefore ALL belief systems (including a lack of one) to be responsible for the evil of the world.

Lol, that would only work if the lack of a belief system, was a belief system.