Thread: Religion is not a scapegoat for violence

I often notice several attacks against religion as being reasons for war, rape, etc. etc. I'm sure the list is long. If only religion did not exist, these things would decrease or those who use religion for such evil acts would be lost amongst the world with no power beside them to influence the rest of us. I'm also sure you may continue what may occur if religion did not exist to your excitement.

Despite these claims, study will result in a different conclusion. Considering human history and human nature as well as the "what if God does not exist" concept. We will be left with humans will be humans, and an individual's decision is based purely on their own despite reasons, factors, or circumstances.

The main influences to mankind's actions towards that which many commonly refer to as "evil" is in itself based on "evil" - also known as sin. The most common practices being summed as Pride, Wrath, Lust, Greed, Envy, Gluttony, and Sloth. These things and their explanations may change a little from here to there, but it seems that every culture touches on the subject. Some, are against while others have made exceptions to them, perhaps even "idolizing" their existence. It should be no surprise that these are among the most violent communities.

We know animals protect their territory. Humans may have no other desire but to do the same. Unique to the animal kingdom, our minds and our thoughts are the likeness to whom we are. It is clear that they must be included as territory. If attacked, if conflicted, if opposed - it is our immediate desire to protect that which is us. the thing that makes you, you. That is pride. There is a line however, when this encroachment is a violation to our safety and self defense must take place. This line sure seems thin from time to time, but it is there.

History has shown a great example of religion having some influence during many conflicts. Although it - along with land, resources, people - has been used as reason for many unfavorable actions, religion itself is not the actual reason or purpose to such actions. This is incredibly evident during times that the participating peoples practice a religion that their actions are contrary to.

In conclusion, the absence of religion is not, what some hope for, a fix or solution; but an improbable hole in society in which those who abuse religion will only move on to another fix. Another excuse. For religion is no excuse, nor scapegoat for violence.


thoughts? wanted to see what others think of this.

I think humans will behave animalistically regardless of whether or not religion is involved. Religion may provide motivation for horrific acts, but without religion, there would probably be similar results with a different rationale.

If we didn't kill each other for God, we'd come up with another reason to kill each other.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I think humans will behave animalistically regardless of whether or not religion is involved. Religion may provide motivation for horrific acts, but without religion, there would probably be similar results with a different rationale.

If we didn't kill each other for God, we'd come up with another reason to kill each other.

However, the reason is not God. That is the whole purpose of the post. to point out and discuss that God is not the reason. People are their own reason. Pride is the fall of man, and is present in our weakness. It does not matter if an individual is God fearing or atheist. If that person commits murder under the pretense of "I did not like what they said about God" (whether that statement is "God is great and will damn you" or "there is no God, and you are an idiot" or for what ever reason) then that individual committed murder under their own liking. Therefore religion is not motivation nor could it ever be motivation. Only an individual's perception of right and wrong is motivation; that will either give into Pride/wrath or it will not. That will produce the outcome. Murder, or turning the cheeck.

Is it not as such?

Originally Posted by chero

Despite these claims, study will result in a different conclusion. Considering human history and human nature as well as the "what if God does not exist" concept. We will be left with humans will be humans, and an individual's decision is based purely on their own despite reasons, factors, or circumstances.

Agreed. Religion does not cause violence and suffering, nor is religion a necessary prerequisite for those things. At best it provides a belief framework for those who wish to practice it to justify their actions. Violence can ride under many banners (nationalism, xenophobia, religion, racism) - at best religion is one thing in a long list of things that makes it easier for violent people to justify their actions.

Originally Posted by chero

However, the reason is not God. That is the whole purpose of the post. to point out and discuss that God is not the reason.

What is God besides our individual interpretation?

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I think humans will behave animalistically regardless of whether or not religion is involved. Religion may provide motivation for horrific acts, but without religion, there would probably be similar results with a different rationale.

If we didn't kill each other for God, we'd come up with another reason to kill each other.

However, the reason is not God. That is the whole purpose of the post. to point out and discuss that God is not the reason. People are their own reason. Pride is the fall of man, and is present in our weakness. It does not matter if an individual is God fearing or atheist. If that person commits murder under the pretense of "I did not like what they said about God" (whether that statement is "God is great and will damn you" or "there is no God, and you are an idiot" or for what ever reason) then that individual committed murder under their own liking. Therefore religion is not motivation nor could it ever be motivation. Only an individual's perception of right and wrong is motivation; that will either give into Pride/wrath or it will not. That will produce the outcome. Murder, or turning the cheeck.

Is it not as such?

While I see your point, religion is often used as an excuse for justifying various deplorable behaviors.

Gods don't kill people; people kill people.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

What is God besides our individual interpretation?

Truth. Existence. Perfection. In which we may understand, but not 100% (or so in our existence). That is how I see it. others may differ in their opinion, but what is to be known is not always easy to know.

Originally Posted by wegs

...Is it not as such?

While I see your point, religion is often used as an excuse for justifying various deplorable behaviors.

Hm...
alcohol is often used as an excuse for actions individuals have taken. driving while under the influence, assault, etc. many claim their own actions were not their fault or did not mean to do as they have done.

are these two the same?

There is very little violence today based on religion. Actually violence has never been so low whether based on religion, ideology, nationalism, etc. There's always localized struggles going on but nations aren't burning and pillaging era other.I'm an atheist but have never seen religion as much of anything. I'm not a Marxist but agree with him that religion is just a manifestation of social issues. Violence in the name of religion is just a label on power struggles that are more about water reaching a stable level....social Darwinism.

Originally Posted by chero

I often notice several attacks against religion as being reasons for war, rape, etc. etc. I'm sure the list is long. <<<<<<< snip >>>>>>> thoughts? wanted to see what others think of this.

I've never subscribed to the philosophy of "well, if I don't take advantage, someone else will". Nobody denies that other things cause atrocities, but religion being the most prominent, must be held accountable, and the majority of ways people have been killed is also a direct result of religion. Religions hands are extremely dirty in this regard, to say that most killings would have been done anyway is quite honestly disingenuous.
Four fifths of the world is controlled by religion now, it used to be all the world. Religion cannot wash away it's guilt simply by saying it could have happened anyway, take away that incitement to violence and the evil isn't committed.

Religion is the easiest and most convenient way of labelling an "enemy group". You don't have to prove a thing, and you've got god on your side. this is why religion features so heavily in the field of atrocities: religion is the easiest way for the powerful to have their will done.

If we hadn't had religion, it would have made things much. much harder for those atrocities to be committed, and that's a good enough reason to say religion is dangerous.
what makes religion particularly dangerous isn't that it's the only ideology that can spark the commission of atrocities, but that it's the least accountable.

Religion can get away with absurdities secular ideologies can't.

Without religion would anyone burn witches? Without religion, would anybody saw at the genitals of their children? Without religion, would any group of men get a free pass on child rape, especially when they have no armies under their control? Without religion, would anyone get away with trying to deny women contraceptives, prevent the distribution of condoms to fight AIDS, or teach blatantly false stories as science in schools?

Without religion we would have far fewer crazy people killing their families. If people were not taught to believe in superstition, demons and hell and Satan, and were taught to understand hyper-active agent detection, nobody would believe their child to be possessed by the devil. Stop teaching people that a vicious bloodthirsty God is the epitome of good and nobody would believe God wanted them to kill their kids. There would still be crazy people, but far fewer of them, and their symptoms could be recognized much earlier.

Yes we would still have war, but far fewer of them and they would be much smaller. It's hard to convince people to leave their family and march to their possible death without being able to claim God is on your side, it's your destiny, and that you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I think humans will behave animalistically regardless of whether or not religion is involved. Religion may provide motivation for horrific acts, but without religion, there would probably be similar results with a different rationale.

If we didn't kill each other for God, we'd come up with another reason to kill each other.

I agree with this. One function of religion has been to explain the world. Before we had scientific explanations for natural phenomena, we would say thunder is caused by the god Thor, or something of that nature. In a similar manner, somebody might have wondered, why do we make war on the neighboring tribe? There would be a religious explanation for that, too, although the real reason might be that it is a traditional behavior that served an evolutionary purpose of expanding the tribe's territory, or something similar.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Without religion would anyone burn witches?

No, but they'd burn traitors, subversives and the genetically inferior. Because, well, it's just evolution, and the gene pool is better off for it. (Or some other excuse.)

Religion is indeed a very convenient excuse to behave very poorly and explain it away. However, removing religion would not remove the will to violence - it would just require a (slightly) more convoluted excuse for it.

Without religion, would anybody saw at the genitals of their children?

Probably; decreasing the odds of your child dying of AIDS is not a negligible benefit. It would likely have been somewhat less common historically. After all, we used to bleed people not in the name of religion - but in the name of medicine.

Without religion we would have far fewer crazy people killing their families.

Fewer? Probably. Far fewer? Disagree. People willing to kill their families are not, in general, going to be stopped by the lack of a religious excuse.

Yes we would still have war, but far fewer of them and they would be much smaller.

Really? We wouldn't have had the US Revolutionary War? The Civil War? World War 1? World War 2? The Korean War? The Mongol conquests? We certainly wouldn't have had the Crusades, and the Troubles would have been far less violent and limited. But when you look at mankind's deadliest wars, religion was a pretty small part of the impetus overall.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by pavlos

Without religion would anyone burn witches?

No, but they'd burn traitors, subversives and the genetically inferior. Because, well, it's just evolution, and the gene pool is better off for it. (Or some other excuse.)

Citation needed! and what does that have to do with the believe that witches exist? Where else does it say "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" Your above remark is quite irrelevant and filled with special pleading.

Originally Posted by billvon

Religion is indeed a very convenient excuse to behave very poorly and explain it away. However, removing religion would not remove the will to violence - it would just require a (slightly) more convoluted excuse for it.

Strawman! Nobody said otherwise. I quote "Nobody denies that other things cause atrocities, but religion being the most prominent, must be held accountable, and the majority of ways people have been killed is also a direct result of religion. Religions hands are extremely dirty in this regard, to say that most killings would have been done anyway is quite honestly disingenuous."

Originally Posted by billvon

Without religion, would anybody saw at the genitals of their children?

Probably; decreasing the odds of your child dying of AIDS is not a negligible benefit. It would likely have been somewhat less common historically. After all, we used to bleed people not in the name of religion - but in the name of medicine.

Again strawman! Disingenuous Your remark has no relevance, to the point made, Vaginal mutilation, etc.. Has nothing to do with Aids or it's cause.

Originally Posted by billvon

Without religion we would have far fewer crazy people killing their families.

Fewer? Probably. Far fewer? Disagree. People willing to kill their families are not, in general, going to be stopped by the lack of a religious excuse.

Again never said they were, are you made of straw as you seem to be constantly making strawmen. You really need to read my entire post instead of cherry picking the pick you had issue with.

Originally Posted by billvon

Yes we would still have war, but far fewer of them and they would be much smaller.

Really? We wouldn't have had the US Revolutionary War? The Civil War? World War 1? World War 2? The Korean War? The Mongol conquests? We certainly wouldn't have had the Crusades, and the Troubles would have been far less violent and limited. But when you look at mankind's deadliest wars, religion was a pretty small part of the impetus overall.

Yes you are definitely made of straw! Where did I say in my post that war would stop if religion wasn't there. The second world war was started because a lutherian catholic had issues with certain ethnic groups, and wished to eliminate them from the face of the earth. the American civil war was one, regarding which interpretation of scripture was right. etc.
With regard to wars and killing, the holy book itself is an incitement to violence (and I do mean any holy book here, as I've yet to find one without a negative side.) which contains words and sentences like "kill the infidel", "crush your enemies asunder".

Gods of love, as they supposedly are would not use such terminology, Man's belief in his gods and his tendency to place himself in his gods position has imagined a god, who wishes him to destroy all who do not follow said god. As such religion in itself has a direct impact on war and killing, because any religious book that contains any of these type of expressions is an incitement to violence. Without these books suggesting, that they should be violent, they would not necessarily be violent.

"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." - Steven Weinberg

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

What is God besides our individual interpretation?

Truth. Existence. Perfection. In which we may understand, but not 100% (or so in our existence). That is how I see it. others may differ in their opinion, but what is to be known is not always easy to know.

Your description of God is the very definition of a personal interpretation.

My point is that God can be the reason to commit an act of good or evil based upon the individual's mindset.

Correlation does not mean causation.

Originally Posted by pavlos

I've never subscribed to the philosophy of "well, if I don't take advantage, someone else will". Nobody denies that other things cause atrocities, but religion being the most prominent, must be held accountable, and the majority of ways people have been killed is also a direct result of religion. Religions hands are extremely dirty in this regard, to say that most killings would have been done anyway is quite honestly disingenuous.
Four fifths of the world is controlled by religion now, it used to be all the world. Religion cannot wash away it's guilt simply by saying it could have happened anyway, take away that incitement to violence and the evil isn't committed.

Here is the issue. religion is a group of people. how can you say the my hands are dirty/bloody only because I choose to follow a religion? doing as such is ridiculous. That's like saying, all Germans are nazis for allowing the atrocities committed against Jews. its the same basis, same concept. you are deciding to brand several million (now billion) people because of actions by a dramatically less amount of individuals.

Keep in mind all religions are different. Some did value human sacrifice as much as some value forgiveness. Perhaps it is more reasonable to consider facts based on case by case situations. Still the ultimate action of any human is a singular event influenced by multiple factors; the most prominent being other humans. I do recognize these differences and think it should be considered.

Religion is the easiest and most convenient way of labelling an "enemy group". You don't have to prove a thing, and you've got god on your side. this is why religion features so heavily in the field of atrocities: religion is the easiest way for the powerful to have their will done.

Disagree. what is easy is understanding who you are to manipulate. To do so, you use what the other person(s) admire and even worship.

Sale forces across the globe purposely hire reps of similar ethnic, community background in order to appeal to their markets. Commercials show several different cultures to appeal to those cultures. A person trying to gain power in a religious community is going to appeal to their liking by acting religious.

Religion is not easiest way of labeling an enemy. Difference and Pride are. You want to isolate someone? you pick on their differences. that is what the nazi's did in Germany (prime reasons against Jews had nothing to do with religion), and that's what bullies do on the playground. Feed into a community's sense of pride and point out the differences in the opposing party. then proclaim all those differences as threats and bam you will see those amongst the community that appeal to you more than the opposing party align with your beliefs despite contradictions with their own.

If we hadn't had religion, it would have made things much. much harder for those atrocities to be committed, and that's a good enough reason to say religion is dangerous.

based on what? because the majority of the world has a religion and has been during several era's oh human history in which the environment and culture stressed "kill or be killed?" there are plenty of atrocities to have occurred w/o religion being dramatically present.

soviet union and china both have history of similar atrocities in which religion was not the dividing factor. Still, I press the issue to recognize that not only would crimes against humanity would continue w/o presence of religion, because deciding factors on human actions are the "sins" I mentioned earlier. If those things are not present, you will not have violence as you suggest. if those sins are present in any conflict, violence will generate to atrocities mankind is known to be capable of.

start of ww1 & ww2 are prime examples.
World War I - The History of World War I
World War II Starts

what makes religion particularly dangerous isn't that it's the only ideology that can spark the commission of atrocities, but that it's the least accountable.

Religion can get away with absurdities secular ideologies can't.

incorrect.
Soviet war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what makes war crimes or any crime against humanity difficult to find justice (have accountability) is political conflict and restrictions as well as passing of time.

lets say someone you know is murdered. 20 years from now you find out exactly what happen, can prove it, and have the legal ability to find justice/prosecute. However, that person is now dead. in their wake are their kids. will you charge them with the crime? that is the hard part about accountability. those who commit the crime are in power, and therefore untouchable unless over thrown. by the time they are over thrown, a new generation exists in which in many cases are they themselves attacked for something they did not do and possibly were unaware of. Now, it is a new attrocity if justice or vengeance is sought.

Without religion would anyone burn witches?

"Witches" were burnt becauase they were feared and believed to commit crimes against a community. those charged for witchcraft are often different than the rest of the community and their "arrest" unjust due to some tactic from those who hated them.

Without religion, would anybody saw at the genitals of their children?

after ww1 circumcision was made mandatory for all male babies because soldiers (who were not circumcised) were contracting diseases in their lower region.
History of Circumcision

the above is completely non-religious reason for circumcision.

Without religion, would any group of men get a free pass on child rape, especially when they have no armies under their control?

are you saying if someone had armies under their control, it would be okay for them to rape little kids? well if so, yuk.
ancient greek is known to accept pedophilia, which had nothing to do w/ religion.
still, the action itself has nothing to do with religion, but lust - sin - the abuse of sex.

here is an interesting perspective.
The Slippery Slope to Pedophilia

Would also like you to consider the # of teachers (public schools) that have committed sexual assault of a minor (in USA) which has been several times greater than the # of religious affiliation. In truth it is not the institute, but the individual taking advantage of their situation or using that position (where as they would join in order to abuse their power).

Without religion, would anyone get away with trying to deny women contraceptives, prevent the distribution of condoms to fight AIDS, or teach blatantly false stories as science in schools?

YES. there are very scientific reasons for not using various forms of contraceptives. the main ideal behind it is based on human dignity. shall you oppose human dignity? Condoms don't fight AIDS.

Originally Posted by http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/byAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/HIVandAIDSActivities/ucm126372.htm

Will a condom guarantee I won't get a sexually transmitted disease?
No. There's no absolute guarantee even when you use a condom. But most experts believe that the risk of getting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases can be greatly reduced if a condom is used properly.
In other words, sex with condoms isn't totally "safe sex," but it is "less risky" sex.

Without religion we would have far fewer crazy people killing their families.

You need to back off on this subject. a man just killed his family near where I lived. religion had nothing to do with it. sad to say, it could have prevented it. I'd hate to use names in these situations. there has been a wrestler to have committed what you are talking about. these things occur due to depression, mental break down, and drugs. do your own research for this.

If people were not taught to believe in superstition, demons and hell and Satan, and were taught to understand hyper-active agent detection, nobody would believe their child to be possessed by the devil. Stop teaching people that a vicious bloodthirsty God is the epitome of good and nobody would believe God wanted them to kill their kids. There would still be crazy people, but far fewer of them, and their symptoms could be recognized much earlier.

You have no basis for any of this. it is addressed above.

Yes we would still have war, but far fewer of them and they would be much smaller. It's hard to convince people to leave their family and march to their possible death without being able to claim God is on your side, it's your destiny, and that you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Impossible. the reasons for war are often territory, resources, etc. all of these things are based on pride, wrath, greed, etc. as explained in o.p.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I think humans will behave animalistically regardless of whether or not religion is involved. Religion may provide motivation for horrific acts, but without religion, there would probably be similar results with a different rationale.

If we didn't kill each other for God, we'd come up with another reason to kill each other.

If there are other reasons, than is it not possible to say God is not the reason?

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I think humans will behave animalistically regardless of whether or not religion is involved. Religion may provide motivation for horrific acts, but without religion, there would probably be similar results with a different rationale.

If we didn't kill each other for God, we'd come up with another reason to kill each other.

If there are other reasons, than is it not possible to say God is not the reason?

Well, I absolutely don't believe God is the reason behind any violence or good deed because I don't accept that any such deity exists. Rather, I believe the individual's interpretation of God's will (a lofty thing to do considering we're such simple organisms and this God is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent, existing outside even the realm of physical space and time) is the reason behind many of these actions. To delve further into the issue, I believe many of those individuals who commit heinous crimes in the name of their God have some deep-seated psychological issues, thus rendering their interpretations nothing more than the whims of a broken psyche.

Flick, intriguing concept

Originally Posted by chero

Correlation does not mean causation.

So saying thou shall not suffer a witch to live, and than burning witches even today in africa is not causation, yeh right utter BS!
I wish religious people would start to admit the wrongs of religion. Until they are willing to admit the wrongs of religion these problems will continue.

Originally Posted by chero

Here is the issue. religion is a group of people. how can you say the my hands are dirty/bloody only because I choose to follow a religion? doing as such is ridiculous. That's like saying, all Germans are nazis for allowing the atrocities committed against Jews. its the same basis, same concept. you are deciding to brand several million (now billion) people because of actions by a dramatically less amount of individuals.

Religions are mainly the holy books they follow, the doctrines and tenets of said books. Are the books the problem, clearly. Wouldn't a person who incited someone to violence be apportioned some blame for said violence, or is it only the instigator of the violence? (Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot come to mind)Then the book must, for the same reason, be apportioned blame. IE if the person (Muhammad/Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot) has died, Then his words in book form are an incitement to violence. Especially if it has a huge following of people preaching his words as righteous.(Neo-Nazi's, Communists, Muslim, Christian, etc...)

Originally Posted by chero

Disagree. what is easy is understanding who you are to manipulate. To do so, you use what the other person(s) admire and even worship.

Sorry, can't agree with that.
People dont't just do things. They make decisions based on motives. What are the motives driven by? For al-Qaeda, it's their version of Islam.

Originally Posted by chero

Religion is not easiest way of labeling an enemy. Difference and Pride are. You want to isolate someone? you pick on their differences. that is what the nazi's did in Germany (prime reasons against Jews had nothing to do with religion), and that's what bullies do on the playground. Feed into a community's sense of pride and point out the differences in the opposing party. then proclaim all those differences as threats and bam you will see those amongst the community that appeal to you more than the opposing party align with your beliefs despite contradictions with their own.

There can't be tolerance between the religions, by definition, each religion claims to have the answers to everything, and that worship of anything other than their version is fundamentally deserving of eternal torture. They are incompatible, each in their moronic way.

Originally Posted by chero

based on what? because the majority of the world has a religion and has been during several era's oh human history in which the environment and culture stressed "kill or be killed?" there are plenty of atrocities to have occurred w/o religion being dramatically present.

It is when religion/theism enters the picture that man is given the PERMISSION, no, the COMMANDMENT by their respective gods to go out and kill other people. Rulers (both tribal and then later kingdom leaders) knew that they could not get men to go out and slaughter competing tribes or kingdoms because it goes against one's survival instinct. "If I go try to kill someone, they will try to kill me back and I can be seriously hurt or die."

Originally Posted by chero

soviet union and china both have history of similar atrocities in which religion was not the dividing factor. Still, I press the issue to recognize that not only would crimes against humanity would continue w/o presence of religion, because deciding factors on human actions are the "sins" I mentioned earlier. If those things are not present, you will not have violence as you suggest. if those sins are present in any conflict, violence will generate to atrocities mankind is known to be capable of.

Think again. It's just choosing one cult for another tis all, Communism is merely a different form of religion. it is not that it's too critical of religion; the problem is that it's too much like religion. The communist regime is dogmatic to the core, giving rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Communism is a Religion derived from Christianity, much the same as Protestantism from Catholicism.
See here Acts 4:33-35, Acts 5:1-11 this holy book is basically a Communist Manifesto.

Originally Posted by chero

what makes religion particularly dangerous isn't that it's the only ideology that can spark the commission of atrocities, but that it's the least accountable.
Religion can get away with absurdities secular ideologies can't.

incorrect.
Soviet war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sorry correct! I refer you to my previous reply.

Originally Posted by chero

Without religion would anyone burn witches?

"Witches" were burnt because they were feared and believed to commit crimes against a community. those charged for witchcraft are often different than the rest of the community and their "arrest" unjust due to some tactic from those who hated them.

Yet it is only incited from a holy book.

Originally Posted by chero

Without religion, would anybody saw at the genitals of their children?

after ww1 circumcision was made mandatory for all male babies because soldiers (who were not circumcised) were contracting diseases in their lower region.
History of Circumcision
the above is completely non-religious reason for circumcision.

A strawman and irrelevant! What of the girls. And just because it is done for health reasons today does, in no way change the fact that it was done for religious reasons, does it. You seem to think I've said that only religion caused all the problems I suggest you read my post again.

Originally Posted by chero

Without religion, would any group of men get a free pass on child rape, especially when they have no armies under their control?

are you saying if someone had armies under their control, it would be okay for them to rape little kids? well if so, yuk.
ancient greek is known to accept pedophilia, which had nothing to do w/ religion.
still, the action itself has nothing to do with religion, but lust - sin - the abuse of sex.

Again a strawman. I never said there weren't other reasons.
Didn't Ancient Greece, have gods they worshipped?

Originally Posted by chero

Would also like you to consider the # of teachers (public schools) that have committed sexual assault of a minor (in USA) which has been several times greater than the # of religious affiliation. In truth it is not the institute, but the individual taking advantage of their situation or using that position (where as they would join in order to abuse their power).

That you know of! And are you sure, none of those teachers were religious? And what incited the said individual?

Originally Posted by chero

Without religion, would anyone get away with trying to deny women contraceptives, prevent the distribution of condoms to fight AIDS, or teach blatantly false stories as science in schools?

YES. there are very scientific reasons for not using various forms of contraceptives. the main ideal behind it is based on human dignity. shall you oppose human dignity? Condoms don't fight AIDS.

Another strawman. whether a million or trillion other reasons is irrelevant, The fact is that religion has a lot to answer for. Misogyny is rife within religion.

Originally Posted by chero

Without religion we would have far fewer crazy people killing their families.

You need to back off on this subject. a man just killed his family near where I lived. religion had nothing to do with it. sad to say, it could have prevented it. I'd hate to use names in these situations. there has been a wrestler to have committed what you are talking about. these things occur due to depression, mental break down, and drugs. do your own research for this.

Strawman! The point is that believers kill! And for the most innane of reasons.

Originally Posted by chero

If people were not taught to believe in superstition, demons and hell and Satan, and were taught to understand hyper-active agent detection, nobody would believe their child to be possessed by the devil. Stop teaching people that a vicious bloodthirsty God is the epitome of good and nobody would believe God wanted them to kill their kids. There would still be crazy people, but far fewer of them, and their symptoms could be recognized much earlier.

You have no basis for any of this.

Apart from the history of religions, and the obcessive behavior they show even today killing witches in Africa, flying into building, and sticking there children in microwaves.

Originally Posted by chero

Yes we would still have war, but far fewer of them and they would be much smaller. It's hard to convince people to leave their family and march to their possible death without being able to claim God is on your side, it's your destiny, and that you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Impossible. the reasons for war are often territory, resources, etc. all of these things are based on pride, wrath, greed, etc. as explained in o.p.

And above all religion. My gods better than your god. My god says I should convert you or you die. My gods people need more land, as we are the chosen. Read your holy book it is an incitement to violence and oppression.

Logical Fallacies:
Straw man argument is an informal fallacy in which a person misrepresents (falsely describes, skew, confuses audience to) an opposing statement/argument .


Straw Man
straw man noun (ARGUMENT) - definition in the British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online (US)
Straw man

Originally Posted by chero

Logical Fallacies:
Straw man argument is an informal fallacy in which a person misrepresents (falsely describes, skew, confuses audience to) an opposing statement/argument .

Exactly! So you should stop doing it.

I'm responding in parts.

Originally Posted by pavlos

....burning witches even today in africa is not causation, yeh right utter BS!

Pray, do give an example of modern witch burning, would you? could you? with a fox, in a box?

Communism is merely a different form of religion. it is not that it's too critical of religion; the problem is that it's too much like religion.

Might you, please, give example of how it is the same?

also, I did not say there was an issue of being too critical. I stated that it was an organization that in itself opposed religion just like you do. much of their excuses were the same as you say today. if ridding the world of religion would make it all the more peaceful (which it will not), then why did we not see that occur in countries in which religion was outlawed? Because, as I have just said, religion is not the source of violence. People are.

I have given supporting points in other posts. you may refer to them.

Originally Posted by pavlos

The communist regime is dogmatic to the core, giving rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship.

What are you doing now? saying that you and only you are correct for your own reasons. These things are incontrovertibly true, to you. that is why you have posted them. Clearly, for something you have done, it is not strictly a religious practice (in which if committed, is to be blamed as from a religion or cult as you have). Maintaining principles or morals appears to be a human trait (as it is exerted by those who are not religious or act against religion as you do), in which religion would have no cause.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Communism is a Religion derived from Christianity, much the same as Protestantism from Catholicism.

Communism's main substance or experience is Christianity, but it does not derive from Christianity.

Originally Posted by the word derive

obtain something from (a specified source).

Could you explain what communism takes from Christianity? If you refer only to the given bible verses, please only say that.

Do remember that communism is in opposition to religion much as you are. So what has been taken from religion?

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by chero

Logical Fallacies:
Straw man argument is an informal fallacy in which a person misrepresents (falsely describes, skew, confuses audience to) an opposing statement/argument .

Exactly! So you should stop doing it.

what?

My responses to you have not misinterpret your statements. no where have I given wrong indication to what you are saying. Nor have I given false indication to what is. if you think otherwise, please, quote me. explain your position.

Originally Posted by chero

My responses to you have not misinterpret your statements. no where have I given wrong indication to what you are saying. Nor have I given false indication to what is. if you think otherwise, please, quote me. explain your position.

Have you forgotten post #20 already??

Originally Posted by chero

I'm responding in parts.

Originally Posted by pavlos

....burning witches even today in Africa is not causation, yeh right utter BS!

Pray, do give an example of modern witch burning, would you?

Take your pick. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wi...LNGRhQeLuoD4Cw

Originally Posted by chero

Communism is merely a different form of religion. it is not that it's too critical of religion; the problem is that it's too much like religion.

Might you, please, give example of how it is the same?
also, I did not say there was an issue of being too critical. I stated that it was an organization that in itself opposed religion just like you do. much of their excuses were the same as you say today. if ridding the world of religion would make it all the more peaceful (which it will not), then why did we not see that occur in countries in which religion was outlawed? Because, as I have just said, religion is not the source of violence. People are.

Communism isn't opposed to religion it is religion, it's birthplace was Christianity.
People become violent for numerous reasons, one of them being by inciting them to violence. religion is one of those incitements. and as mentioned before where else is it written, "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" if this wasn't an incitement why did people do it in the past and why do they still do it today. It kind of moots your whole argument.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

The communist regime is dogmatic to the core, giving rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship.

What are you doing now? saying that you and only you are correct for your own reasons.

No merely stating facts. Communism is irrational, dogmatic and based on faith rather than science. I suggest you read the book of Acts it's communism to the core.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

Communism is a Religion derived from Christianity, much the same as Protestantism from Catholicism.

Communism's main substance or experience is Christianity, but it does not derive from Christianity.

Read the book of Acts.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by the word derive

obtain something from (a specified source).

Could you explain what communism takes from Christianity? If you refer only to the given bible verses, please only say it.

Marx clearly obtained his ideas from the bible. I'm glad you understand what the word derived means. and thanks for the definition, it made my point.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by chero

Logical Fallacies:
Straw man argument is an informal fallacy in which a person misrepresents (falsely describes, skew, confuses audience to) an opposing statement/argument .

Exactly! So you should stop doing it.

what?

My responses to you have not misinterpret your statements. no where have I given wrong indication to what you are saying. Nor have I given false indication to what is. if you think otherwise, please, quote me. explain your position.

I stated in my posted " Nobody denies that other things cause atrocities, but religion being the most prominent, must be held accountable, and the majority of ways people have been killed is also a direct result of religion. Religions hands are extremely dirty in this regard, to say that most killings would have been done anyway is quite honestly disingenuous.
Four fifths of the world is controlled by religion now, it used to be all the world. Religion cannot wash away it's guilt simply by saying it could have happened anyway, take away that incitement to violence and the evil isn't committed. " You went on to misrepresents my post. With Things like this "after ww1 circumcision was made mandatory for all male babies because soldiers (who were not circumcised) were contracting diseases in their lower region.
History of Circumcision
the above is completely non-religious reason for circumcision." this was done to adults not children. it was carried out on children by some of the soldiers who became parents after the war. You completely ignored female genital mutilation. That is a strawman. and this is a gross misrepresentation of my post. "are you saying if someone had armies under their control, it would be okay for them to rape little kids? well if so, yuk.
ancient greek is known to accept pedophilia, which had nothing to do w/ religion.
still, the action itself has nothing to do with religion, but lust - sin - the abuse of sex." An extreme strawman ignoring the fact that paedophilia is rife in the church. Your whole post was essentially a strawman.

Originally Posted by chero

I often notice several attacks against religion as being reasons for war, rape, etc. etc. I'm sure the list is long. If only religion did not exist, these things would decrease or those who use religion for such evil acts would be lost amongst the world with no power beside them to influence the rest of us. I'm also sure you may continue what may occur if religion did not exist to your excitement.

Despite these claims, study will result in a different conclusion. Considering human history and human nature as well as the "what if God does not exist" concept. We will be left with humans will be humans, and an individual's decision is based purely on their own despite reasons, factors, or circumstances.

The main influences to mankind's actions towards that which many commonly refer to as "evil" is in itself based on "evil" - also known as sin. The most common practices being summed as Pride, Wrath, Lust, Greed, Envy, Gluttony, and Sloth. These things and their explanations may change a little from here to there, but it seems that every culture touches on the subject. Some, are against while others have made exceptions to them, perhaps even "idolizing" their existence. It should be no surprise that these are among the most violent communities.

We know animals protect their territory. Humans may have no other desire but to do the same. Unique to the animal kingdom, our minds and our thoughts are the likeness to whom we are. It is clear that they must be included as territory. If attacked, if conflicted, if opposed - it is our immediate desire to protect that which is us. the thing that makes you, you. That is pride. There is a line however, when this encroachment is a violation to our safety and self defense must take place. This line sure seems thin from time to time, but it is there.

History has shown a great example of religion having some influence during many conflicts. Although it - along with land, resources, people - has been used as reason for many unfavorable actions, religion itself is not the actual reason or purpose to such actions. This is incredibly evident during times that the participating peoples practice a religion that their actions are contrary to.

In conclusion, the absence of religion is not, what some hope for, a fix or solution; but an improbable hole in society in which those who abuse religion will only move on to another fix. Another excuse. For religion is no excuse, nor scapegoat for violence.


thoughts? wanted to see what others think of this.

It is today's well known fact that people who create all kinds of nuisance in the name of religion are either not religious themselves but are hypocrites or for various reasons have misinterpreted the teaching of religion. It is sad that this obvious truth is often ignored by some people or attempts to dodge it is being made.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

It is today's well known fact that people who create all kinds of nuisance in the name of religion are either not religious themselves but are hypocrites or for various reasons have misinterpreted the teaching of religion.

Is this not a teaching "thou shall not suffer a witch to live"? And how is it misinterpreted? Or "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." is that not a teaching? and how is that misinterpreted? I suggest you read your bible before making such ludicrous statement as you have. both the above scriptures are direct causes of murder, incited by the holy book therein.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Strawman! Nobody said otherwise. . . . . Again strawman! Disingenuous Your remark has no relevance . . . Again never said they were, are you made of straw . . . Yes you are definitely made of straw!

"Strawman." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by pavlos

Strawman! Nobody said otherwise. . . . . Again strawman! Disingenuous Your remark has no relevance . . . Again never said they were, are you made of straw . . . Yes you are definitely made of straw!

"Strawman." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you misrepresent anything said by me in my posts, making it appear like you actually answered it and also try to divert what said to mean something else then that is a Straw Man.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

It is today's well known fact that people who create all kinds of nuisance in the name of religion are either not religious themselves but are hypocrites or for various reasons have misinterpreted the teaching of religion.

Is this not a teaching "thou shall not suffer a witch to live"? And how is it misrepresented? Or "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." is that not a teaching? and how is that misrepresented? I suggest you read your bible before making such ludicrous statement as you have. both the above scriptures are direct causes of murder, incited by the holy book therein.

I did not say "misrepresented", I used the word "misinterpreted". Do you now see how we humans can even misunderstand a simple sentence by simply misreading a single word? That's what can easily happen to religious teachings too.

I am not an expert at interpreting the Bible, but do you even know for sure what was meant by term "witch" in that particular sentence and what context was it used in? How can you be so sure that the sentence has not been misinterpreted as time passed by, even by some religious people? Do we have an instance where Jesus gave out this kind of sentence to any woman?

About the phrase " ..... they shall surely be put to death.....", again I am not an expert at interpreting the holy text, but I do not see a commandment of a "death sentence" in that phrase but rather a statement maybe be referring to suffering of a soul, in which a soul suffers because of the guilt of the sin it committed. "they shall surely put to death" does not necessarily mean that it is an instruction of death sentence, but it could also mean what I stated above or something entirely different, the context of which got lost.

How can you not agree that people creating nuisance in the name of religion are just hypocrites is beyond me. We all know the purpose of religion is for humanity to not let go of humanity! Misinterpreting certain verses is just a fault of followers, which should not be blamed on religion.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

It is today's well known fact that people who create all kinds of nuisance in the name of religion are either not religious themselves but are hypocrites or for various reasons have misinterpreted the teaching of religion.

Is this not a teaching "thou shall not suffer a witch to live"? And how is it misrepresented? Or "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." is that not a teaching? and how is that misrepresented? I suggest you read your bible before making such ludicrous statement as you have. both the above scriptures are direct causes of murder, incited by the holy book therein.

I did not say "misrepresented", I used the word "misinterpreted". Do you now see how we humans can even misunderstand a simple sentence by simply misreading a single word? That's what can easily happen to religious teachings too.

Semantics.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I am not an expert at interpreting the Bible, but do you even know for sure what was meant by term "witch" in that particular sentence and what context was it used in?

Yes Exodus 22:18 it was amongst a set of teaching/rules given by god to man.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

How can you be so sure that the sentence has not been misinterpreted as time passed by, even by some religious people?

Nobody can, so we go to the oldest source. In the hebrew bible it actually states a Sorceress. and OED defines a Sorceress as a female sorcerer; a witch. So could you tell me what was actually misinterpreted?

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Do we have an instance where Jesus gave out this kind of sentence to any woman?

Not relevant to the argument. It is written as a teaching in th OT and as such is part of the tenets and doctrines of the bible.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

About the phrase " ..... they shall surely be put to death.....", again I am not an expert at interpreting the holy text, but I do not see a commandment of a "death sentence" in that phrase but rather a statement maybe be referring to suffering of a soul, in which a soul suffers because of the guilt of the sin it committed. "they shall surely put to death" does not necessarily mean that it is an instruction of death sentence,

Well as Leviticus 20:13 is part of another set of instuction, just like Exodus 22, Then how can it be misinterpreted?

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

but it could also mean what I stated above or something entirely different, the context of which got lost.

Well as the context is a set of teaching/rules etc. I think you will find it is in context.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

How can you not agree that people creating nuisance in the name of religion are just hypocrites is beyond me. We all know the purpose of religion is for humanity to not let go of humanity! Misinterpreting certain verses is just a fault of followers, which should not be blamed on religion.

Incorrect! Show me how it is misinterpreted. and I might just agree with you? Your failing bad at the moment.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Take your pick. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wi...LNGRhQeLuoD4Cw

WARNING, links may contain disturbing images. Do contain disturbing descriptions.

Elderly Kenyans burned alive as 'witches' after refusing to give up desirable coastline land | Mail Online

Above is from your own example. it indicates that there is more to a story than its cover. Despite the lies to cover an act for greed, the main cause is not religion. This gives example for my position; in which the main causes of violence and all other actions possibly described as evil are human desires that are arguably inherited or arguably an abuse/corruption of that which is inherited, or comes from what medicine describes as mental illness.

All stories should not be taken at first glance. the African continent as a whole is known for its history of violence. Take the following scene from "Black Hawk Down" for example:
Black Hawk Down - Killing is negotiation. - YouTube

In it the man says, "killing is negotiation." This is very true for many cultures. Africa is a unique land in which its own ancient culture is merged with modern habits and goals. There is constant conflict between these two worlds, and one must examine/study a particular areas heritage before bluntly saying that a problem is and only is one thing.

An excuse is a lie, often to cover a reason, but is not the actual reason itself.

Communism isn't opposed to religion it is religion, it's birthplace was Christianity.
People become violent for numerous reasons, one of them being by inciting them to violence. religion is one of those incitements. and as mentioned before where else is it written, "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" if this wasn't an incitement why did people do it in the past and why do they still do it today. It kind of moots your whole argument.

If a political system defines itself as being absent of another system (political or not) then that original political system is against/opposed to the system it is absent from. Every communist society has declared the exact same thing you are; that religion is the curse of the world. you can not be from that which you deny. otherwise, you yourself are indeed from religion.

...stating facts...Communism is irrational, dogmatic and based on faith rather than science.

What is science? Also, there are several communists that would increasingly deny your claim. why would they be wrong?

could you give support to your claim on how soviet union may not have based actions on science?

I suggest you read the book of Acts it's communism to the core.

The books from the Bible, along with any theological book is complex and intricate. No one will understand it all in one reading. When one does read it, one must look at several variables besides the words themselves. for instance, the culture in which wrote the words. the era in which the words were written. the purpose to the words.

this brings me to something else. as you claim, ""thou shall not suffer a witch to live." supposedly this mutes my argument, however if we take into consideration the information in front of us. Deuteronomy and the "law" you describe is not from God (as the Ten Commandments are described). It is a historical count of the Jewish laws. All that which is written appears to be according to the ideal of protection. Protection of territory, of which I earlier stated, includes mental ideals.

Historically, how any govt. or authority is over thrown is by having those in service to believing that their govt. is inadequate. logically, this may include common principle. For example; American revolution. The colonialists believed in local governance, while the English empire concluded that the crown maintained undeniable sovereignty. Well, we know what ensued.

What is also important is how said laws are understood today. In actuality, Christianity observes that laws of the past are invalid in which God Himself created a new Covenant. Some laws, traditions however were freely interpreted because God had not given such things to us. Jewish law does not include all the things listed in Deuteronomy any more, either. these are things of the past, whose purpose was to secure territory, in which sins as well as virtues (that which is opposite of sins) played a factor.
DEUTERONOMY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

NOTE: sin is italic to indicate what was stated in the o.p. not any and all sins possible. virtues would be that which is opposite of those sins.

we go to the oldest source

Marx clearly obtained his ideas from the bible. I'm glad you understand what the word derived means. and thanks for the definition, it made my point.

I missed the spot in which Marx sources the Bible for his works. I did not miss how he described religion as opium of the masses and the Bible as rubbish. could you clarify how his opinions derive from the Bible despite his dislike towards it? Perhaps it was subconscious? the only way I view "derive" is that a person looks at something, and uses it. is this what you mean?

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

How can you not agree that people creating nuisance in the name of religion are just hypocrites is beyond me. We all know the purpose of religion is for humanity to not let go of humanity! Misinterpreting certain verses is just a fault of followers, which should not be blamed on religion.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Incorrect! Show me how it is misinterpreted. and I might just agree with you? Your failing bad at the moment.

The universe is made in seven days. right? supposedly that's what the Bible says?

Or was it made in seven stages in which actual time, as we perceive it, does not compute to being nor meaning the passing of 7 sequenced 24 hours.

People misinterpret/change communicated meanings every day. to say it is not possible for a person to take a meanings and change it for their own use is ignorance.


example of misinterpretation
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...in-matthew-199


lets consider thou shall not kill. does this only include homicide? Teaching includes the "killing" of someone's mental and spiritual well being as well. this includes bullying, verbal abuse, etc.

False religion IS a scapegoat for both greed AND violence. Jesus' words are not false religion, and his words are clear.

I think it to be important to clarify this.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by pavlos

Strawman! Nobody said otherwise. . . . . Again strawman! Disingenuous Your remark has no relevance . . . Again never said they were, are you made of straw . . . Yes you are definitely made of straw!

"Strawman." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you misrepresent anything said by me in my posts, making it appear like you actually answered it and also try to divert what said to mean something else then that is a Straw Man.

Logical Fallacies» Straw Man Fallacy

if someone is arguing what you say and defends their statement (counter claim) by using support that is not the same as yours, it is not strawman.
is a person tries to explain how they see something, it is not a strawman.
just because you think a statement has no relevance (or simply argues your point) does not make it a strawman arguement.
just because someone mentions something opposite to you, does not make it strawman
if someone so chooses to take what you mention and argue that you used it wrong is not a strawman

I stated in my post " Nobody denies that other things cause atrocities, but religion being the most prominent, must be held accountable, and the majority of ways people have been killed is also a direct result of religion.

And my claim is that religion (except, perhaps, for "idolizing" sin existence) is not a cause.

Religions hands are extremely dirty in this regard, to say that most killings would have been done anyway is quite honestly disingenuous.

I follow a religion, ergo I am religion. how is my hand dirty for what someone else did?

Four fifths of the world is controlled by religion now, it used to be all the world.

that is what you said. i never denied that nor tried to change your statement.

Religion cannot wash away it's guilt simply by saying it could have happened anyway, take away that incitement to violence and the evil isn't committed.

except some religions you describe as having said guilt are morally against the things you describe. how might a group of people be blamed for that which they did not do nor believe in as being morally right?

You went on to misrepresents my post. With Things like this "after ww1 circumcision was made mandatory for all male babies because soldiers (who were not circumcised) were contracting diseases in their lower region...
the above is completely non-religious reason for circumcision."

That does not misrepresent your post as I did not describe your post. i presented evidence as to why it was wrong! that is not misrepresenting anything!

this was done to adults not children

wrong! it was manditory for hospitals to circumcise male babies. that was the law. I am describing the law as it was written (or as I have read it), which is in no way is me retelling your post.

You completely ignored female genital mutilation. That is a strawman.

wrong! I do not even remember reading that part in your post. either way not mentioning or addressing what someone else says, is not a straw man argument !!! you stated that all circumcisions were conducted based on religious practice. that is how I read your post describing how the absence of religion would rid of such actions/mutilations.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Without religion, would anybody saw at the genitals of their children?

so to answer the above question, I said yes. then gave my reason for saying yes. there is logical reasons for circumcision or at least for male circumcision. that was enough (or so I thought) to present that there is a possibility of things to occur w/o religion as a source or reason.

and this is a gross misrepresentation of my post. "are you saying if someone had armies under their control, it would be okay for them to rape little kids? well if so, yuk.

nope. I took your words literally. same as you have mine, yes?

Without religion, would any group of men get a free pass on child rape, especially when they have no armies under their control?

When I read this, I took that you meant there was an exception as to when armies are present. I then asked for you to clarify your question, in which you did not. so I'll ask again. what do you mean by such a statement? would men raping kids be possible and even hidden only because those men have armies under them...is that what you mean?

ancient greece is known to accept pedophilia, which had nothing to do w/ religion.
still, the action itself has nothing to do with religion, but lust - sin - the abuse of sex."
An extreme strawman ignoring the fact that pedophilia is rife in the church. Your whole post was essentially a strawman.

wrong. there is zero substantial evidence that pedophilia is "rife in the church" (to which ever church you describe, I can only guess). despite that or your claim, mentioning the culture of ancient greece or parts of ancient greece have nothing to do with today's issues as you have never described any connection between the two and I never mentioned your claim on the two's connection.

I presented a culture in which pedophilia a part of everyday life while having no religious causes. that is in no way misrepresents your thoughts, it only disproves your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

False religion IS a scapegoat for both greed AND violence. Jesus' words are not false religion, and his words are clear.

Scapegoating is the practice of singling out any party for unmerited negative treatment or blame as a scapegoat. Scapegoating may be conducted by individuals against individuals, individuals against groups, groups against individuals, and groups against groups. ...

is it not the person's own doing and reasons for doing that they take action, in which another source is not to blame?

my only exception would be that another person/group influenced another individual wrongfully to act ill of heart. however, even that person's reasons for manipulating another is of their own and not any religious group?

If we hadn't had religion, it would have made things much. much harder for those atrocities to be committed, and that's a good enough reason to say religion is dangerous.

I am not sure this is entirely true, humans will always find a way to do what they want to do. If it is not religion its something else.
Religion is an easy way to justify the lower self of humans. If you do things in the name of God you can claim he/she sanctified it and sleep good at nights. When people go to war they are hoping the higher powers will help them although both sides are peddling evil.

Originally Posted by chero

Elderly Kenyans burned alive as 'witches' after refusing to give up desirable coastline land
Above is from your own example.

Sorry what example was that all I did was give you a google list, of which you had the pick of, it's not like I gave you a link, which you refuted my argument with. You still seem to be on a straw man ride

Originally Posted by chero

indicates that there is more to a story than its cover.

Possibility, but there only has to be one amongst that list thats done for religious reasons, and your whole argument is moot.

Originally Posted by chero

In it the man says, "killing is negotiation." This is very true for many cultures. Africa is a unique land in which its own ancient culture is merged with modern habits and goals. There is constant conflict between these two worlds, and one must examine/study a particular areas heritage before bluntly saying that a problem is and only is one thing.

Claiming that Africa is a violent place is irrelevant, this again is a strawman. intellectual dishonesty rears it's head. Try to at least be honest in your replies.

Originally Posted by chero

An excuse is a lie, often to cover a reason, but is not the actual reason itself.

Yet it needs only one instant of religion being the direct cause of a violent act to refute that argument.

Originally Posted by chero

Communism isn't opposed to religion it is religion, it's birthplace was Christianity.
People become violent for numerous reasons, one of them being by inciting them to violence. religion is one of those incitements. and as mentioned before where else is it written, "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" if this wasn't an incitement why did people do it in the past and why do they still do it today. It kind of moots your whole argument.

If a political system defines itself as being absent of another system (political or not) then that original political system is against/opposed to the system it is absent from. Every communist society has declared the exact same thing you are; that religion is the curse of the world. you can not be from that which you deny. otherwise, you yourself are indeed from religion.

Could you explain to me how Government came about? Did it start off as Government from the on set or did one thing lead to another and so over the course of history. Were there any civil wars that had hatred for one side of Government to the other. Or have that always got on. Also can you explain Revolution for me?
Being absent from religion now doesn't mean it never started there, does it.

Originally Posted by chero

...stating facts...Communism is irrational, dogmatic and based on faith rather than science.

What is science?

A sensible way of explaining the universe and our role within it.

Originally Posted by chero

Also, there are several communists that would increasingly deny your claim. why would they be wrong?

Citation needed. There are several religious people who would deny that god doesn't exist. What's your point!

Originally Posted by chero

could you give support to your claim on how soviet union may not have based actions on science?

Not a claim fact: Just like any religion, Communism has its Holy Scripture, namely the writings of Lenin, Mao, Marx etc. Which are all far from scientific. Karl Marx, taught that many human characteristics we now know to be inherited through genetics were caused by environmental factors. When scientists in 1930s Russia pointed this fact out to Stalin his reaction was to throw into a gulag just like the Church imprisoned Galileo. And just like fundamentalist Christians who promote creation science.
Stalin (educated at a Christian seminary) backed a charlatan named Lysenko who came up with a completely false science of genetics a communist version that fit squarely with Communist dogma. Then Stalin banned the teaching of genetics because it contradicted Communist dogma.

Originally Posted by chero

I suggest you read the book of Acts it's communism to the core.

The books from the Bible, along with any theological book is complex and intricate. No one will understand it all in one reading. When one does read it, one must look at several variables besides the words themselves. for instance, the culture in which wrote the words. the era in which the words were written. the purpose to the words.

Even if you are ist grade reader it is not hard to make comparisons, any person reading the communist manifesto. and the book of act could not fail to see the similarities things like this Acts 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. The comparison to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.

Originally Posted by chero

this brings me to something else. as you claim, ""thou shall not suffer a witch to live." supposedly this mutes my argument, however if we take into consideration the information in front of us. Deuteronomy and the "law" you describe is not from God (as the Ten Commandments are described). It is a historical count of the Jewish laws. All that which is written appears to be according to the ideal of protection. Protection of territory, of which I earlier stated, includes mental ideals.

Irrelevant is not the bible "the word" as God is the Lawgiver, and His Word is His Law, then it follows that every Word which proceeds from His mouth is His Law. You cant just brush it aside just because it doesn't suit you.

Originally Posted by chero

Marx clearly obtained his ideas from the bible. I'm glad you understand what the word derived means. and thanks for the definition, it made my point.

I missed the spot in which Marx sources the Bible for his works. I did not miss how he described religion as opium of the masses and the Bible as rubbish. could you clarify how his opinions derive from the Bible despite his dislike towards it? Perhaps it was subconscious? the only way I view "derive" is that a person looks at something, and uses it. is this what you mean?

Well his grandfather was a rabbi and his dad converted to Lutheran protestant Christianity, So he did have access to the Bible and the Torah. He could have very easily derived his ideas from those sources. A lot of people who revert back to atheism often have a dislike for the religion they were indoctrinated into as a child so it's understandable that he didn't like Christianity. The very same thing happened to Stalin.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

How can you not agree that people creating nuisance in the name of religion are just hypocrites is beyond me. We all know the purpose of religion is for humanity to not let go of humanity! Misinterpreting certain verses is just a fault of followers, which should not be blamed on religion.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Incorrect! Show me how it is misinterpreted. and I might just agree with you? Your failing bad at the moment.

The universe is made in seven days. right? supposedly that's what the Bible says?

Or was it made in seven stages in which actual time, as we perceive it, does not compute to being nor meaning the passing of 7 sequenced 24 hours.

People misinterpret/change communicated meanings every day. to say it is not possible for a person to take a meanings and change it for their own use is ignorance.

Every religious person uses his on SPAG. However we are talking about what is literally written not what one person thinks it means. how can you misinterpret " thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" when it's context is a set of laws from god. It's not a sentence in a paragraph written on a page in a book. It is a defined law. A one line statement. it is not open to interpretation.

Originally Posted by chero

lets consider thou shall not kill. does this only include homicide? Teaching includes the "killing" of someone's mental and spiritual well being as well. this includes bullying, verbal abuse, etc.

Citation needed, this is your opinion. Fail!

Originally Posted by pavlos

Sorry what example was that all I did was give you a Google list, of which you had the pick of, it's not like I gave you a link, which you refuted my argument with. You still seem to be on a straw man ride

that is correct. you provided a list of articles of a topic in which I asked you to give examples of. thank you for complying with my question. I then took that which you provided at least one of many to use it as an example to my argument. that is not a straw man argument. I can take any sort of facts or evidence, and point out things within it that may help my argument. no where did I change your argument. please tell me how I changed your argument. you have still been unable to show me how that is done, when it has not.

Possibility, but there only has to be one amongst that list thats done for religious reasons, and your whole argument is moot.

No. my entire argument is that when a person claims religion to justify an evil act, that person is performing what is commonly referred to as a ruse. It is fake. If a person lies and says, I am raising money for a charity (lets say, petsmart charities), but uses that lie in order to steal the money then did petsmart ccharities commit the crime? are they to blame? are they really the reason for the crime? No.

so no we have a self proclaimed humanitarian quoting the Bible to get religious individuals to donate money to petsmart charities. However, instead of giving that money over, this man steals the money. By my understanding of your argument, religion would be reason to blame. how? why? it is the exact same act.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Claiming that Africa is a violent place is irrelevant, this again is a strawman. intellectual dishonesty rears it's head. Try to at least be honest in your replies.

How is it a straw man and how is it irrelevant. if the culture of a people is irrelevant to how they act then their religion is irrelevant as the two are one of the same. there is a Catholic culture just as much as there is a Jewish and Muslim culture so much as there is an English culture and a French culture. all of which are variables to how a person may act...may act - no guarantee.

Yet it (a lie?) needs only one instant of religion being the direct cause of a violent act to refute that argument.

as explained in the example given above. to say that a person must only be religious to change their lie into truth, is fraudulent. Just as fraudulent as the thief using Christianity to fuel his greed.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by chero

Also, there are several communists that would increasingly deny your claim. why would they be wrong?

Citation needed. There are several religious people who would deny that god doesn't exist. What's your point!

Citation: my life. that's my citation. I am quoting that which I remember from my experience.

my point? for you to address the question. why would a communist, who would deny their ideals derive from Christianity, be wrong? how would you tell them they are wrong?

Originally Posted by pavlos

Not a claim fact: Just like any religion, Communism has its Holy Scripture, namely the writings of Lenin, Mao, Marx etc. Which are all far from scientific. Karl Marx, taught that many human characteristics we now know to be inherited through genetics were caused by environmental factors. When scientists in 1930s Russia pointed this fact out to Stalin his reaction was to throw into a gulag just like the Church imprisoned Galileo. And just like fundamentalist Christians who promote creation science.
Stalin (educated at a Christian seminary) backed a charlatan named Lysenko who came up with a completely false science of genetics a communist version that fit squarely with Communist dogma. Then Stalin banned the teaching of genetics because it contradicted Communist dogma.

Originally Posted by [B

claim [/B]definition]noun

noun: claim; plural noun: claims
1.
an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

http://valenciacollege.edu/wp/cssc/d...entOutline.pdf

A claim is a claim regardless to opinion or fact. even if I am to say oranges are orange, it is still a claim in an argumentative/persuasive conversation/speech.
I don't think your response answers my question.

I am having troubles reading your sentence in red. could you elaborate?

The Church never imprisoned Galileo. He was asked to remain in his house.

What does your sentence in blue refer to? to whom or what are fundamentalist Christians who promote creation science like?

Congratulations, Stalin was raised Christian. So was Al Capone. Neither man was religious - neither followed a religion. How? because they murdered thousands of people. how can someone say they follow "thou shall not kill" and then kill someone? oh, by telling/living a lie.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Even if you are 1st grade reader it is not hard to make comparisons, any person reading the communist manifesto. and the book of act could not fail to see the similarities

um..some 1st graders can't read and I doubt they fully comprehend Acts, much less the entire Bible. Majority have never heard of communist manifesto.

lActs 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

The comparison to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.

Is that all there is? Acts is a big book, that details things that happened in order to help explain some principle or thought. It would take several days in order to clearly read both Acts and Marx's principle, part of which you contributed, which in itself is some principle or thought.

based on what you presented, only, I do not think that something done is reason for considering it as a law or something that should be done.

Still, I think there is an issue of logically saying that Marx, an atheist, used religion in order to develop his thoughts. He thought religions was the opium of the masses. could someone who hated group A really use information from group A in which he declared as 100% false and useless? Seems strange to me. Correlation does not mean causation.

is not the bible "the word" as God is the Lawgiver, and His Word is His Law, then it follows that every Word which proceeds from His mouth is His Law. You cant just brush it aside just because it doesn't suit you.

No, it is not irrelevant. How can you deny even the possibility of the people's teaching on how their own works were written?

Follow what you just said, "You cant just brush it aside just because it doesn't suit you."

Deuteronomy is in different "Holy Books" of different religions. Each may present their own view on what is meant, however, we must consider the original source in order to understand how it was written. The Jews may not consider every word of the Torah to be strictly inspired and equally the Lord's word. For your question, one must ask someone more knowledgeable about the Jewish religion and/or where to ask. I have not covered that part of their religion.

I did find this however
If the deuterocanonical books don't claim divine inspiration, how can they be included in the Bible? | Catholic Answers
What is the difference between the Torah and the Old Testament in the Catholic Bible? | Catholic Answers
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth | Catholic Answers

Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

From my understanding, I still need to study. ha ha! however, not everything in the Bible describes itself as being Law, in which all must follow - as you have said. There are areas that explain certain aspects or give historical accounts to some event. must these be Law? I do not believe so, but I may be wrong. you will have to further your own study. it is on going, but do not let that deter you.

This goes to prove that things are easily not as they may primarily seem.

Every religious person uses his on SPAG. However we are talking about what is literally written not what one person thinks it means. how can you misinterpret " thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" when it's context is a set of laws from god. It's not a sentence in a paragraph written on a page in a book. It is a defined law. A one line statement. it is not open to interpretation.

I don't know what SPAG is. yes we are talking about what one person thinks the Bible means, because most religions teach what their holy books mean. How a person understands or perceives that which they interact may generate a positive or negative conceptual thought.

I misread "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", but regardless to this - one must consider the Bible in whole if they wish to understand it. if read in pieces, how could it be understood? this is not just one line to which is one law. it is a person's entire life. it is all equally important. it must all be understood. otherwise the bible may seem to contradict itself.

People have different perspectives. that must be taken into account.

Citation needed, this is your opinion. Fail!

Citation is my life. that is what I was taught. ergo, it is a teaching.

Originally Posted by chero

I think it to be important to clarify this.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by pavlos

Strawman! Nobody said otherwise. . . . . Again
strawman! Disingenuous Your remark has no relevance . . . Again never said they were, are you made of straw . . . Yes you are definitely made of straw!

"Strawman." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you misrepresent anything said by me in my posts, making it appear like you actually answered it and also try to divert what said to mean something else then that is a Straw Man.

Logical Fallacies» Straw Man Fallacy

From you link A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real
position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.[/quote]Note the bolded and note the underscored.

Originally Posted by chero

if someone is arguing what you say and defends their statement (counter claim) by using support that is not the same as yours, it is not strawman.

Ah but it is. Note the bolded.

Originally Posted by chero

is a person tries to explain how they see something, it is not a strawman.

If the argument is a gross, mispresentation or divert the reader and to make it appear weaker. Note the bolded.

Originally Posted by chero

just because you think a statement has no relevance (or simply argues your point) does not make it a strawman arguement.

If it follows (note the bolded) criteria then yes it is irrelevant. as the person doing it it trying to make the original argument weak. thus committing. Note the underscored.

Originally Posted by chero

just because someone mentions something opposite to you, does not make it strawman

If it follows (note the bolded) criteria then it does.

Originally Posted by chero

if someone so chooses to take what you mention and argue that you used it wrong is not a strawman

If it follows (note the bolded) criteria then it does.

Originally Posted by chero

I stated in my post " Nobody denies that other things cause atrocities, but religion being the
most prominent, must be held accountable, and the majority of ways people have been killed is also a direct result of religion.

And my claim is that religion (except, perhaps, for "idolizing" sin existence) is not a cause.

And around we go again, with that logic we can say any ideology, or any would be despot that incites anybody to kill or harm, isn't the cause. Or is it (LOL) only religion.

Originally Posted by chero

Religions hands are extremely dirty in this regard, to say that most killings would have been
done anyway is quite honestly disingenuous.

I follow a religion, ergo I am religion. how is my hand dirty for what
someone else did?

See above. Also it appears you don't believe in original sin.
And one other thing you personally may have very clean hands, I could not say I would have to take your word for it. but your
brethren, oh your brethren. And given that I must put you under the same banner, because you have the same dogmatic ideology as they do, so are potentially has dangerous.

Originally Posted by chero

Four fifths of the world is controlled by religion now, it used to be all the world.

that is what you said. i never denied that nor tried to change your statement.

Red herring, not really relevant.

Originally Posted by chero

Religion cannot wash away it's guilt simply by saying it could have happened anyway, take away that incitement to violence and the evil isn't committed.

except some religions you describe as having said guilt are morally against the things you describe. how might a group of people be blamed for that which they did not do nor believe in as being morally right?

If god/jesus appeared to you and asked you to kill fred bloggs next door who was the son of Satan, you would do it, because you would not want to suffer the wrath of god. This is why you are potentially dangerous. even though you may be morally against it. You would kill for what you consider a righteous reason. Just you would fight in what you considered was a "Just" war.

Originally Posted by chero

You went on to misrepresents my post. With Things like this "after ww1 circumcision was made mandatory for all male babies because soldiers (who were not circumcised) were contracting diseases in their lower region... the above is completely non-religious reason for circumcision."

That does not misrepresent your post as I did not describe your post. i presented evidence as to why it was wrong! that is not misrepresenting anything!

Wrong you made it out to be solely about male circumcision and then made it appear that it had nothing to do with religion, (Note the Bolded)

Originally Posted by chero

this was done to adults not children

wrong! it was manditory for hospitals to circumcise male babies. that was the law. I am describing the law as it was written (or as I have read it), which is in no way is me retelling your post.

Well you're correct in this instant as I never brought up WW1 you did.

Originally Posted by chero

You completely ignored female genital mutilation. That is a strawman.

wrong! I do not even remember reading that part in your post.

that because you made an assumption that I was only referring to males we do have another gender in our species.

Originally Posted by chero

either way not mentioning or addressing what someone else says, is not a straw man argument !!! you stated that all circumcisions were conducted based on religious practice. that is how I read your post describing how the absence of religion would rid of such actions/mutilations.

You missed the point, if religion hadn't started the practice of mutilating the genitalia, would we have ever got to even thinking of hacking bits off for health reasons, yes we hack things off if they are septic or gangrenous, but usually that was a last resort. We tried our best to fix the problem. the fact that they were first carried out because of religion is key. ( Note the bolded) if the doctors hadn't known that hacking bits off was appeared healthier from a religious point of view would they have even considered it. Now days they know it isn't healther and that it kills the sensation. so they don't do it, do they.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

Without religion, would anybody saw at the genitals of their children?

so to answer the above question, I said yes. then gave my reason for saying yes. there is logical reasons for circumcision or at
least for male circumcision. that was enough (or so I thought) to present that there is a possibility of things to occur w/o
religion as a source or reason.

See above reply.

Originally Posted by chero

and this is a gross misrepresentation of my post. "are you saying if someone had armies under their control, it would be okay for them to rape little kids? well if so, yuk.

nope. I took your words literally.

No you didn't you brought in the yuk factor as that is the way you saw it, anybody would have had the good sense to know that when armies did battle in the holy books they raped, pillaged and vanquish there alleged enemies, knowing that some of them must of had homosexual or paedophile tendencies. I'm sure they didn't care what happened to there victims they were going to kill them anyway.

Without religion, would any group of men get a free pass on child rape, especially when they have no armies under their control?

When I read this, I took that you meant there was an exception as to when armies are present. I then asked for you to clarify your question, in which you did not. so I'll ask again. what do you mean by such a statement? would men raping kids be possible and even hidden only because those men have armies under them...is that what you mean?

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by me

ancient greece is known to accept pedophilia, which had nothing to do w/ religion. still, the action itself has nothing to do with religion, but lust - sin - the abuse of sex."

An extreme strawman ignoring the fact that pedophilia is rife in the church. Your whole post was essentially a strawman.

wrong. there is zero substantial evidence that pedophilia is "rife in the church" (to which ever church you describe, I
can only guess).

I don't ascribe to any church, just what is seen and heard as fact. Are you trying to say that there are no paedophie priests.

To be continued next post

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

False religion IS a scapegoat for both greed AND violence. Jesus' words are not false religion, and his words are clear.

"False religion" is an interesting notion. How does one establish truth or falsity in the case of religion, would you say?

Continued

Originally Posted by chero

despite that or your claim, mentioning the culture of ancient greece or parts of ancient greece have
nothing to do with today's issues as you have never described any connection between the two and I never mentioned your
claim on the two's connection. I presented a culture in which pedophilia a part of everyday life while having no religious causes.
that is in no way misrepresents your thoughts, it only disproves your thoughts.

And I never said it wasn't, what I said
was "Without religion, would any group of men get a free pass on child rape, especially when they have no armies under their
control?" Where in that sentence did I say there wasn't other reason behind paedophilia.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

Sorry what example was that all I did was give you a Google list, of which you had the pick of, it's not like I gave you a link, which you refuted my argument with. You still seem to be on a straw man ride

that is correct. you provided a list of articles of a topic in which I asked you to give examples of. thank you for complying with my question. I then took that which you provided at least one of many to use it as an example to my argument. that is not a straw man argument. I can take any sort of facts or evidence, and point out things within it that may help my argument. no where did I change your argument. please tell me how I changed your argument. you have still been unable to show me how that is done, when it has not.

You misrepresented me by implying that I gave something to refute. Of which I did not. (note the bolded)

Originally Posted by chero

Possibility, but there only has to be one amongst that list thats done for religious reasons, and your whole argument is moot.

No. my entire argument is that when a person claims religion to justify an evil act, that person is performing what is commonly referred to as a ruse.

Then we can say with this logic that when a person claims (a country/political party/team/group, etc.) to justify an evil act, like an execution/war etc that person is performing what is commonly referred to as a ruse. Ok!

Originally Posted by chero

It is fake. If a person lies and says, I am raising money for a charity (lets say, petsmart charities), but
uses that lie in order to steal the money then did petsmart ccharities commit the crime? are they to blame? are they really the
reason for the crime? No.

How would they be they were the victims in this analogy.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

Claiming that Africa is a violent place is irrelevant, this again is a strawman. intellectual dishonesty rears it's head. Try to at least be honest in your replies.

How is it a straw man and how is it irrelevant.

Because you are trying to divert the argument to make it appear that you refuted it. Because Africa is violent anyway!(note the bolded)

Originally Posted by chero

Yet it (a lie?) needs only one instant of religion being the direct cause of a violent act to refute that argument.

as explained in the example given above. to say that a person must only be religious to change their lie into truth, is fraudulent. Just as fraudulent as the thief using Christianity to fuel his greed.

You say you are not making strawmen and you blatently post up my words with an addition, which give it the appearence that, that is what I said, Grossly misrepresenting my statement, here is the true statement "Yet it needs only one instant of religion being the direct cause of a violent act to refute that argument. Where in that statement does it even imply that it was referring to a lie.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by chero

Also, there are several communists that would increasingly deny your claim. why would they be wrong?

Citation needed. There are several religious people who would deny that god doesn't exist. What's your point!

Citation: my life. that's my citation. I am quoting that which I remember from my
experience.

So you have nothing but your opinion. then don''t use qualifing words like "there are several" Or at least
make an honest statement and say "I think" X.

Originally Posted by chero

why would a communist, who would deny their ideals derive from Christianity, be wrong? how would you tell them they are wrong?

It does matter now that a communist may believe his doctirnes and tenets Have nothing to do with christianity, the fact that they did is key. you don''t seem to get that.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

Not a claim fact: Just like any religion, Communism has its Holy Scripture, namely the writings of Lenin, Mao, Marx etc. Which are all far from scientific. Karl Marx, taught that many human characteristics we now know to be inherited through genetics were caused by environmental factors. When scientists in 1930s Russia pointed this fact out to Stalin his reaction was to throw into a gulag just like the Church imprisoned Galileo. And just like fundamentalist
Christians who promote creation science. Stalin (educated at a Christian seminary) backed a charlatan named Lysenko who came up with a completely false science of genetics a communist version that fit squarely with Communist dogma. Then Stalin banned the teaching of genetics because it contradicted Communist dogma.

Originally Posted by [B

claim [/B]definition]noun
noun: claim; plural noun: claims
1.
an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

http://valenciacollege.edu/wp/cssc/d...entOutline.pdf
A claim is a claim regardless to opinion or fact. even if I am to say oranges are orange, it is still a claim in an argumentative/persuasive conversation/speech. I don't think your response answers my question.

The Oxford English Dictionary has "Claim" meaning state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof: I'll go with the OED thanks. As I'm stating facts (things that are known or proven to be true) I'm not making a claim end of story.

Originally Posted by chero

I am having troubles reading your sentence in red. could you elaborate?

Well there'd Marx's hypothesis on alienation. his hypothesis on criminology He got his ideas for the former from this book The Essence of Christianity (1841), by Ludwig Feuerbach.

Originally Posted by chero

The Church never imprisoned Galileo. He was asked to remain in his house.

Irrelevant! He was under house arrest!

Originally Posted by chero

What does your sentence in blue refer to? to whom or what are fundamentalist Christians who promote creation science like?

W L Graig, is one of the main proponents at the moment there are quite a few. Creation science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

Even if you are 1st grade reader it is not hard to make comparisons, any person reading the communist manifesto. and the book of act could not fail to see the similarities

um..some 1st graders can't read and I doubt they fully comprehend Acts, much less the entire Bible. Majority have never heard of communist manifesto.

Yet my point is made.

To be continued next post

Continued

Originally Posted by chero

lActs 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
The comparison to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.

Is that all there is? Acts is a big book, that details things that happened in order to help explain some principle or
thought. It would take several days in order to clearly read both Acts and Marx's principle, part of which you contributed, which
in itself is some principle or thought.

Well get back to me when you read a least half of each.

Originally Posted by chero

I think there is an issue of logically saying that Marx, an atheist, used religion in order to develop his thoughts. He thought religions was the opium of the masses. could someone who hated group A really use information from group A in which he declared as 100% false and useless?

Yes. How did democracy start, by trial and error, not everybody wanted it. Yet they all knew of it. If an idea is good (I'm not saying communism is good here, just talking about ideas in general) no matter who said it, or how evil they may have been, should we disgard it?

Originally Posted by chero

Deuteronomy is in different "Holy Books" of different religions. Each may present their own view on what is meant, however, we must consider the original source in order to understand how it was written. The Jews may not consider every word of the Torah to be strictly inspired and equally the Lord's word. For your question, one must ask someone more knowledgeable about the Jewish religion and/or where to ask. I have not covered that part of their religion.
I did find this however If the deuterocanonical books don't claim divine inspiration, how can they be included in the Bible? | Catholic Answers What is the difference between the Torah and the Old Testament in the Catholic Bible? | Catholic Answers
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth | Catholic Answers

Why do you keep bringing up deuteronomy. the quotes I gave are from Exodus 22, and leviticus 20. I don't know what deuteronomy has to do with those.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by me

Originally Posted by chero

This brings me to something else. as you claim, ""thou shall not suffer a witch to live." supposedly this mutes my argument, however if we take into consideration the information in front of us. Deuteronomy and the "law" you describe is not from God (as the Ten Commandments are described). It is a historical count of the Jewish laws. All that which is written appears to be according to the ideal of protection. Protection of territory, of which I earlier stated, includes mental ideals.

Irrelevant! Is not the bible "the word" as God is the Lawgiver, and His Word is His Law, then it follows that every Word which proceeds from His mouth is His Law. You cant just brush it aside just because it doesn't suit you.

No, it is not irrelevant. How can you deny even the possibility of the people's teaching on how their own works were written?

It's irrelevant as you keep bring up deuteronomy, why is that relevant to exodus and leviticus, the two scriptures I post from list of teachings/laws/rules/ that as you said below are the truth and gods laws as they cannot be in error.

Originally Posted by chero

Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.

Well there you go then. kind of makes my point for me.

Originally Posted by chero

From my understanding, I still need to study. ha ha! however, not everything in the Bible describes itself as being Law, in which all must follow - as you have said. There are areas that explain certain aspects or give historical accounts to some event.

I never said that again with the dishonesty

Originally Posted by chero

must these be Law? I do not believe so, but I may be wrong.

Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.You said it so adhere to it.

Originally Posted by chero

Every religious person uses his on SPAG. However we are talking about what is literally written not what one person thinks it means. how can you misinterpret " thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" when it's context is a set of laws from god. It's not a sentence in a paragraph written on a page in a book. It is a defined law. A one line statement. it is not open to interpretation.

I don't know what SPAG is. yes we are talking about what one person thinks the Bible means, because most religions teach what their holy books mean. How a person understands or perceives that which they interact may generate a positive or negative conceptual thought.
I misread "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", but regardless to this - one must consider the Bible in whole if they wish to
understand it. if read in pieces, how could it be understood?

Yet a list of laws/teaching/rule cannot be read in any other way but as a list of laws/teachings/rules. No matter how many ways you try to spin it. It is not rocket science.

Originally Posted by chero

Citation needed, this is your opinion. Fail!

Citation is my life. that is what I was taught. ergo, it is a teaching.

I'll let it go as merely your opinion. But do try to be honest.

Originally Posted by chero

The universe is made in seven days. right? supposedly that's what the Bible says?

Or was it made in seven stages in which actual time, as we perceive it, does not compute to being nor meaning the passing of 7 sequenced 24 hours.

I personally do not believe the Seven Days mentioned here has anything to do with seven earthly days. As we know sunrise and sunset (which is caused by the rotation of earth) is the cause of the earthy days to occur, and Seven Days mentioned here are even before the earth and the sun were created, so days here are obviously referring to something other than earthly days. I do not want to interrupt and derail your thread, so i'll not go into details of what I believe in this particular matter.

Originally Posted by billvon

Really? We wouldn't have had the US Revolutionary War? The Civil War? World War 1? World War 2? The Korean War? The Mongol conquests? We certainly wouldn't have had the Crusades, and the Troubles would have been far less violent and limited. But when you look at mankind's deadliest wars, religion was a pretty small part of the impetus overall.

During the "middle ages" (era of Crusades), Jerusalem and much of Israel was the trading hub of the world. It was at least one location in which east met west. Many people in Europe (some very influential) were making money on their adventures/trades in Jerusalem.

The Crusades occurred to gain access to Jerusalem, a territory that Christians and Muslims clammed to be their own (through conquest or other). Territory must be protected, however. Even though there were religious aspects that were very evident, I must say that the pure reasons to the conflict were indeed greed and pride. these things are present in every war in mankind's history.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by chero

The universe is made in seven days. right? supposedly that's what the Bible says?

Or was it made in seven stages in which actual time, as we perceive it, does not compute to being nor meaning the passing of 7 sequenced 24 hours.

I personally do not believe the Seven Days mentioned here has anything to do with seven earthly days. As we know sunrise and sunset (which is caused by the rotation of earth) is the cause of the earthy days to occur, and Seven Days mentioned here are even before the earth and the sun were created, so days here are obviously referring to something other than earthly days. I do not want to interrupt and derail your thread, so i'll not go into details of what I believe in this particular matter.

Oh please do. it will go into the importance of individuality. that is part of what the o.p. states. it is not just how religion does or doesn't influence us, but how much of sociology may influence an individual's decision and how we may or may not look at individual actions.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by billvon

Really? We wouldn't have had the US Revolutionary War? The Civil War? World War 1? World War 2? The Korean War? The Mongol conquests? We certainly wouldn't have had the Crusades, and the Troubles would have been far less violent and limited. But when you look at mankind's deadliest wars, religion was a pretty small part of the impetus overall.

During the "middle ages" (era of Crusades), Jerusalem and much of Israel was the trading hub of the world. It was at least one location in which east met west. Many people in Europe (some very influential) were making money on their adventures/trades in Jerusalem.

The Crusades occurred to gain access to Jerusalem, a territory that Christians and Muslims clammed to be their own (through conquest or other). Territory must be protected, however. Even though there were religious aspects that were very evident, I must say that the pure reasons to the conflict were indeed greed and pride. these things are present in every war in mankind's history.

War is always about money, never about religion. Religion is merely used to excite the masses and create an enemy. That is why the state licenses religions and 'religious' persons .. to repeat the mantra .. 'God is on our side.'

Originally Posted by chero

I must say that the pure reasons to the conflict were indeed greed and pride. these things are present in every war in mankind's history.

So we know what the reasons were for the church and the kings, but what spurred the rest of the crusaders on, even the lowly surf? As clearly according to you it had nothing to do with god, their faith nor their religion

Originally Posted by pavlos

Didn't Ancient Greece, have gods they worshiped?

some yes, some no. Some areas practiced pedophilia, others did not - like Sparta. All worshiped the same gods, yet their societies were incredibly different. Not every city state in Greece accepted the spartan tradition of judging whether or not a baby is fit enough to survive or be apart of spartan tradition. the same is true for all of the world.

The point is that believers kill! And for the most inane of reasons.

Yes, your point is that all believers kill, that is basic logical examination of your sentence. However, I am a believer. Jesus was a believer. All the saints are believers. Gandhi is a believer. Martin Luther King is a believer. there are many people in this world who are believers, and never taken another human life.

So if you can have a religion and not be as you claim, then religion is not the reason/cause. something else is.

My gods better than your god

You also have, "my nation is better than your nation, my culture is better than your culture." the list goes on and one. that was the whole point of the Cold War. communism is better, no capitalism is better...no your all idiots for putting the world in jeopardy...what is, religion had nothing to do with it?

what does that sum to? Pride! present in most conflicts.

And if you can have such things without religion, then religion is not the causing factor. as you have stated, other things may be to blame. other things cause atrocities. if those things may stand alone, then religion is not the cause. it is a cover. covers/lies do not create the situation.

There can't be tolerance between the religions, by definition, each religion claims to have the answers to everything, and that worship of anything other than their version is fundamentally deserving of eternal torture. They are incompatible, each in their moronic way.

link that suggests all is not what you assume.
Does the Catholic Church approve of forced conversions? | Catholic Answers

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

War is always about money, never about religion.

Weird. I thought there was some big conflict in the middle east over a strip that held some religious significance.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by chero

I must say that the pure reasons to the conflict were indeed greed and pride. these things are present in every war in mankind's history.

So we know what the reasons were for the church and the kings, but what spurred the rest of the crusaders on, even the lowly surf? As clearly according to you it had nothing to do with god, their faith nor their religion

I said religion is not the cause. I never went into how it influences people nor do I disagree that religion is an influential variable. However, none of this means that religion is a cause. Much like a lie, it is often used as a cover. I do not recall all crusades, but some were not outright called out by the pope. The pope was asked to call a crusade to "save the Holy land."

Still, as explained earlier, the thought of preventing a person from moving onto my territory and protecting what is mine develops a sense of pride. this is mine. not yours, you can not have it. If pride or greed were not in the hearts and minds during an event, things would be different. because they may be different, they are the cause.

Lets consider a scenario:

Two men arrive at conflict. choose for what ever reason, does no matter. Both are at a store. The men yell at each other. one or the other does not want to be wrong. they are in the right. they want the other to back down - a battle of "alpha's" in some sense. Anger brews and one acts out. he pulls a gun and shoots the other dead. what caused the situation? Pride and wrath.

at either moment both men could have walked away. they could have shut up and moved on. However, both wanted to "dominate" the other (wrath) and neither wanted to walk away or appear weak (pride). ergo, the cause. However, what if either one of these two men showed humility? How bout patience and kindness? I am 100% positive that a gun would not have been pulled and one of those men would have been alive today.

oh, yes. This actually happened. 2 or 3 years back at a local grocery store. saw it on the news.

I have experience many of the similar and fight to control such urges. it is difficult.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

War is always about money, never about religion. Religion is merely used to excite the masses and create an enemy. That is why the state licenses religions and 'religious' persons .. to repeat the mantra .. 'God is on our side.'

could you elaborate "never about religion"? could religion have some some influence on war other than "God is on our side." ???

Originally Posted by chero

Even though there were religious aspects that were very evident, I must say that the pure reasons to the conflict were indeed greed and pride. these things are present in every war in mankind's history.

Definitely. Religion was just a convenient excuse.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by chero

The universe is made in seven days. right? supposedly that's what the Bible says?

Or was it made in seven stages in which actual time, as we perceive it, does not compute to being nor meaning the passing of 7 sequenced 24 hours.

I personally do not believe the Seven Days mentioned here has anything to do with seven earthly days. As we know sunrise and sunset (which is caused by the rotation of earth) is the cause of the earthy days to occur, and Seven Days mentioned here are even before the earth and the sun were created, so days here are obviously referring to something other than earthly days. I do not want to interrupt and derail your thread, so i'll not go into details of what I believe in this particular matter.

Oh please do. it will go into the importance of individuality. that is part of what the o.p. states. it is not just how religion does or doesn't influence us, but how much of sociology may influence an individual's decision and how we may or may not look at individual actions.

Since you asked.

" But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day". (Bible).

".....Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning." (Quran)

Above are the Verses from Two of the scriptures which tells us a day does not necessarily means a literal earthly day. I am not saying that the World was created in 7000 years, but what what I am saying is the whole Verse of Creation of the World in Seven Days could be metaphorical.





"

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by chero

The universe is made in seven days. right? supposedly that's what the Bible says?

Or was it made in seven stages in which actual time, as we perceive it, does not compute to being nor meaning the passing of 7 sequenced 24 hours.

I personally do not believe the Seven Days mentioned here has anything to do with seven earthly days. As we know sunrise and sunset (which is caused by the rotation of earth) is the cause of the earthy days to occur, and Seven Days mentioned here are even before the earth and the sun were created, so days here are obviously referring to something other than earthly days. I do not want to interrupt and derail your thread, so i'll not go into details of what I believe in this particular matter.

Oh please do. it will go into the importance of individuality. that is part of what the o.p. states. it is not just how religion does or doesn't influence us, but how much of sociology may influence an individual's decision and how we may or may not look at individual actions.

Since you asked.

" But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day". (Bible).

".....Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning." (Quran)

Above are the Verses from Two of the scriptures which tells us a day does not necessarily means a literal earthly day. I am not saying that the World was created in 7000 years, but what what I am saying is the whole Verse of Creation of the World in Seven Days could be metaphorical.





"

Welcome to the ranks of educated Christendom!

Originally Posted by pavlos

nope. I took your words literally.

No you didn't you brought in the yuk factor as that is the way you saw it, anybody would have had the good sense to know that when armies did battle in the holy books they raped, pillaged and vanquish there alleged enemies, knowing that some of them must of had homosexual or paedophile tendencies. I'm sure they didn't care what happened to there victims they were going to kill them anyway.

do you know what I think or how I read something? no. there is no possible way for you to know how I think. you can not logically tell me how I think. I read your words literally.

Every war during that era involved the same thing. even wars/battles in the 19th, 20th, 21st century have the exact same crap. it is war. sin leads to sin. read a rumor of war. it will help grab a grasp of war. Why should wars mentioned in the Bible be anything different than the wars that occurred elsewhere in the same area or any area of the world?

We are dealing with humans. factors may change, but causes do not. if things can happen w/o religion, religion is not the cause.

I don't ascribe to any church, just what is seen and heard as fact. Are you trying to say that there are no paedophie priests.

the word church means body (of). when you just say, "the church" you can imply hundreds of churches, including those of which are not Christian. so how am I supposed to know what you mean? I only know what you think by your words, if those don't make sense to me. . . they don't.

what I am saying is that the condition of pedophilia is not "rife" in any church. regardless to location of the assault or who dun it. Religion is not the cause.

Also it appears you don't believe in original sin.
And one other thing you personally may have very clean hands, I could not say I would have to take your word for it. but your
brethren, oh your brethren. And given that I must put you under the same banner, because you have the same dogmatic ideology as they do, so are potentially has dangerous.

really? so I can blame you for the things your own family has done, but you have not?
same dogmatic ideology as who? do you even know what that ideology is?


also, do not assume what I believe in, for I have not stated such.

If god/jesus appeared to you and asked you to kill fred bloggs next door who was the son of Satan, you would do it, because you would not want to suffer the wrath of god.

Except serial killers who have claimed as such, have been diagnosed as insane/mentally ill. I would not do it, either. One only needs logic to understand what God may want them to do.

This is why you are potentially dangerous. even though you may be morally against it. You would kill for what you consider a righteous reason. Just you would fight in what you considered was a "Just" war.

so what? self defense is a just war. this is true across the globe regardless of religion. You would kill for what you consider righteous, as all humans would. so what do you consider righteous?

Well you're correct in this instant as I never brought up WW1 you did.

Yea, I already knew that. so if there is one instance in which religion is not the cause, then it is possible for certain things to exist w/o religion.

if religion hadn't started the practice of mutilating the genitalia,

you have no proof that religion did. there is little to no documentation of the world prior to writing, in which it is unclear what habits or conditions may have occurred. many killers have mutilated bodies for their own pleasures, and maintained zero religion. if the world existed and humanity existed before religion, then the violence we come to existed before religion.

Most of this thread seems to be directed at arguing whether religion should be blamed for inciting wars or other acts of violance. I would like to point out that religion has more to answer for than simply inciting violence. It seems clear to me that the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have been repeatedly used throughout their histories as tools used by repressive regimes to encourage the submission of commoners to the regime's will. When fire, sword, the hangman's noose, and the torturer's rack are insufficient incentive, one can up the stakes by threatening the status of a potential rebel's immortal soul. Perhaps the same can be said for other religions, but since I am not really familiar with those non-abrahamic religions that have survived to the present day, I will not make such a claim.

One of the most repressive periods in human history was the millennium or so when the Catholic church dominated Europe. Rulers were appointed kings by "divine right", and peasants were told "the meek shall inherit the Earth". Dissenters, if individuals, were kept in line by threat of being burned alive at the stake. Dissenters, if rulers, faced the threat of the church fomenting revolution among their subjects by excommunication. The church eventually came to own more land than any single country or empire. The power of the Church was only broken when the printing press broke the Church's monopoly on the distribution of the written word (the incredibly courageous actions of Martin Luther in defying the church helped a lot). This led directly to the flowering of art and science we call the Renaissance.

The insidious fatal flaw of religion, the facet that gives it so much power and allows it to do so much damage, is the notion of "divinely" inspired, irrefutable, faith based truth. MY creed is correct, YOURS is wrong, not because my creed makes more sense, but because God has told me so. Or, more often, because some priest claims God has told him so, but I don't dare defy the priest. Don't bother trying to explain how wrong-headed I am, God is by definition never wrong, and even implying otherwise is not only sinful in the eyes of God, but more significantly, heretical in the eyes of the church. God may not see fit to punish you, but a human religious authority is likely to be far less forgiving.

I strongly feel society is much better off when individuals are encouraged to think for themselves, to question authority, and to discuss their unconventional ideas with others. To me this is how progress occurs. Encouraging the notion that some authority, religious or otherwise, has all the answers, and that questioning that authority is in itself evil, leads to stagnation and repression.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

Most of this thread seems to be directed at arguing whether religion should be blamed for inciting wars or other acts of violance. I would like to point out that religion has more to answer for than simply inciting violence. It seems clear to me that the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have been repeatedly used throughout their histories as tools used by repressive regimes to encourage the submission of commoners to the regime's will. When fire, sword, the hangman's noose, and the torturer's rack are insufficient incentive, one can up the stakes by threatening the status of a potential rebel's immortal soul. Perhaps the same can be said for other religions, but since I am not really familiar with those non-abrahamic religions that have survived to the present day, I will not make such a claim.

One of the most repressive periods in human history was the millennium or so when the Catholic church dominated Europe. Rulers were appointed kings by "divine right", and peasants were told "the meek shall inherit the Earth". Dissenters, if individuals, were kept in line by threat of being burned alive at the stake. Dissenters, if rulers, faced the threat of the church fomenting revolution among their subjects by excommunication. The church eventually came to own more land than any single country or empire. The power of the Church was only broken when the printing press broke the Church's monopoly on the distribution of the written word (the incredibly courageous actions of Martin Luther in defying the church helped a lot). This led directly to the flowering of art and science we call the Renaissance.

The insidious fatal flaw of religion, the facet that gives it so much power and allows it to do so much damage, is the notion of "divinely" inspired, irrefutable, faith based truth. MY creed is correct, YOURS is wrong, not because my creed makes more sense, but because God has told me so. Or, more often, because some priest claims God has told him so, but I don't dare defy the priest. Don't bother trying to explain how wrong-headed I am, God is by definition never wrong, and even implying otherwise is not only sinful in the eyes of God, but more significantly, heretical in the eyes of the church. God may not see fit to punish you, but a human religious authority is likely to be far less forgiving.

I strongly feel society is much better off when individuals are encouraged to think for themselves, to question authority, and to discuss their unconventional ideas with others. To me this is how progress occurs. Encouraging the notion that some authority, religious or otherwise, has all the answers, and that questioning that authority is in itself evil, leads to stagnation and repression.

I know of an incident where a college professor brainwashed some female students and had physical relations with them. Students initially trusted him because of his status as professor, and then eventually he brainwashed them and took advantage of their trust. We all know its is ridiculous to blame the college for the acts of this professor, even though he did use his post as a professor of the college to win the trust of his students. Then how do you justify to blame the religion for acts of some "religious authority"? Why not point the blame directly at these people (so called "religious authority") who are actually just hippocrates and not actually religious themselves?

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by danhanegan

Most of this thread seems to be directed at arguing whether religion should be blamed for inciting wars or other acts of violance. I would like to point out that religion has more to answer for than simply inciting violence. It seems clear to me that the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have been repeatedly used throughout their histories as tools used by repressive regimes to encourage the submission of commoners to the regime's will. When fire, sword, the hangman's noose, and the torturer's rack are insufficient incentive, one can up the stakes by threatening the status of a potential rebel's immortal soul. Perhaps the same can be said for other religions, but since I am not really familiar with those non-abrahamic religions that have survived to the present day, I will not make such a claim.

One of the most repressive periods in human history was the millennium or so when the Catholic church dominated Europe. Rulers were appointed kings by "divine right", and peasants were told "the meek shall inherit the Earth". Dissenters, if individuals, were kept in line by threat of being burned alive at the stake. Dissenters, if rulers, faced the threat of the church fomenting revolution among their subjects by excommunication. The church eventually came to own more land than any single country or empire. The power of the Church was only broken when the printing press broke the Church's monopoly on the distribution of the written word (the incredibly courageous actions of Martin Luther in defying the church helped a lot). This led directly to the flowering of art and science we call the Renaissance.

The insidious fatal flaw of religion, the facet that gives it so much power and allows it to do so much damage, is the notion of "divinely" inspired, irrefutable, faith based truth. MY creed is correct, YOURS is wrong, not because my creed makes more sense, but because God has told me so. Or, more often, because some priest claims God has told him so, but I don't dare defy the priest. Don't bother trying to explain how wrong-headed I am, God is by definition never wrong, and even implying otherwise is not only sinful in the eyes of God, but more significantly, heretical in the eyes of the church. God may not see fit to punish you, but a human religious authority is likely to be far less forgiving.

I strongly feel society is much better off when individuals are encouraged to think for themselves, to question authority, and to discuss their unconventional ideas with others. To me this is how progress occurs. Encouraging the notion that some authority, religious or otherwise, has all the answers, and that questioning that authority is in itself evil, leads to stagnation and repression.

I know of an incident where a college professor brainwashed some female students and had physical relations with them. Students initially trusted him because of his status as professor, and then eventually he brainwashed them and took advantage of their trust. We all know its is ridiculous to blame the college for the acts of this professor, even though he did use his post as a professor of the college to win the trust of his students. Then how do you justify to blame the religion for acts of some "religious authority"? Why not point the blame directly at these people (so called "religious authority") who are actually just hippocrates and not actually religious themselves?

I am not sure I can refute your point, but perhaps I can shed light by clarifying my point of view. I am an atheist. To me, it seems perfectly clear that God did not create man, but rather man created God. Or more accurately, Gods, plural. I do not understand there to be a distinction between religion and religious authority. Were it not for the hordes of men trying to gain advantage by claiming to have an exclusive hotline to the divine, I feel religious ideas would have had very little effect on history.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by danhanegan

Most of this thread seems to be directed at arguing whether religion should be blamed for inciting wars or other acts of violance. I would like to point out that religion has more to answer for than simply inciting violence. It seems clear to me that the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have been repeatedly used throughout their histories as tools used by repressive regimes to encourage the submission of commoners to the regime's will. When fire, sword, the hangman's noose, and the torturer's rack are insufficient incentive, one can up the stakes by threatening the status of a potential rebel's immortal soul. Perhaps the same can be said for other religions, but since I am not really familiar with those non-abrahamic religions that have survived to the present day, I will not make such a claim.One of the most repressive periods in human history was the millennium or so when the Catholic church dominated Europe. Rulers were appointed kings by "divine right", and peasants were told "the meek shall inherit the Earth". Dissenters, if individuals, were kept in line by threat of being burned alive at the stake. Dissenters, if rulers, faced the threat of the church fomenting revolution among their subjects by excommunication. The church eventually came to own more land than any single country or empire. The power of the Church was only broken when the printing press broke the yChurch's monopoly on the distribution of the written word (the incredibly courageous actions of Martin Luther in defying the church helped a lot). This led directly to the flowering of art and science we call the Renaissance.The insidious fatal flaw of religion, the facet that gives it so much power and allows it to do so much damage, is the notion of "divinely" inspired, irrefutable, faith based truth. MY creed is correct, YOURS is wrong, not because my creed makes more sense, but because God has told me so. Or, more often, because some priest claims God has told him so, but I don't dare defy the priest. Don't bother trying to explain how wrong-headed I am, God is by definition never wrong, and even implying otherwise is not only sinful in the eyes of God, but more significantly, heretical in the eyes of the church. God may not see fit to punish you, but a human religious authority is likely to be far less forgiving.I strongly feel society is much better off when individuals are encouraged to think for themselves, to question authority, and to discuss their unconventional ideas with others. To me this is how progress occurs. Encouraging the notion that some authority, religious or otherwise, has all the answers, and that questioning that authority is in itself evil, leads to stagnation and repression.

I know of an incident where a college professor brainwashed some female students and had physical relations with them. Students initially trusted him because of his status as professor, and then eventually he brainwashed them and took advantage of their trust. We all know its is ridiculous to blame the college for the acts of this professor, even though he did use his post as a professor of the college to win the trust of his students. Then how do you justify to blame the religion for acts of some "religious authority"? Why not point the blame directly at these people (so called "religious authority") who are actually just hippocrates and not actually religious themselves?

Well, unless the college "protects" the professor, then it is also to blame. As is true with the Catholic Church for example. If you followed the priest pedophile stories that hit the news a few years ago, many in leadership roles knew about the allegations but never called the police. The priests in question were often relocated to another parish, where they were left to abuse more kids. The Catholic Church protected these men because they didn't want to lose credibility as a religion. Sure, we can say that these were a small number of individuals who caused all this damage, but the Catholic Church was seen as protecting these abusers. Had this been a secular institution, these men would have been arrested.

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I know of an incident where a college professor brainwashed some female students and had physical relations with them. Students initially trusted him because of his status as professor, and then eventually he brainwashed them and took advantage of their trust. We all know its is ridiculous to blame the college for the acts of this professor, even though he did use his post as a professor of the college to win the trust of his students. Then how do you justify to blame the religion for acts of some "religious authority"? Why not point the blame directly at these people (so called "religious authority") who are actually just hippocrates and not actually religious themselves?

Well, unless the college "protects" the professor, then it is also to blame. As is true with the Catholic Church for example. If you followed the priest pedophile stories that hit the news a few years ago, many in leadership roles knew about the allegations but never called the police. The priests in question were often relocated to another parish, where they were left to abuse more kids. The Catholic Church protected these men because they didn't want to lose credibility as a religion. Sure, we can say that these were a small number of individuals who caused all this damage, but the Catholic Church was seen as protecting these abusers. Had this been a secular institution, these men would have been arrested.

I do not know of any such religious law which exempts "religious authorities" and allows them any kind of wrong doings. If people did not take action against him, its not because their religion withheld them from doing so, but quite the opposite, they went against their own religious teaching which demands justice for oppressed.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I do not know of any such religious law which exempts "religious authorities" and allows them any kind of wrong doings.

When I lived in New York, my parish was one of the parishes they "hid" pedophile priests to get them out of the spotlight. Two of them left the priesthood and now live nearby; their parties became pretty infamous, with lots of younger men there.

If people did not take action against him, its not because their religion withheld them from doing so, but quite the opposite, they went against their own religious teaching which demands justice for oppressed.

People did not take action against them because the Catholic Church HID THEM.

The conclusion of an Irish police probe into the matter:

"the Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State."

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I do not know of any such religious law which exempts "religious authorities" and allows them any kind of wrong doings.

When I lived in New York, my parish was one of the parishes they "hid" pedophile priests to get them out of the spotlight. Two of them left the priesthood and now live nearby; their parties became pretty infamous, with lots of younger men there.

If people did not take action against him, its not because their religion withheld them from doing so, but quite the opposite, they went against their own religious teaching which demands justice for oppressed.

People did not take action against them because the Catholic Church HID THEM.

The conclusion of an Irish police probe into the matter:

"the Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State."

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that whatever the church did to protect the culprit or whatever it did not do what it was suppose to do, is not because that particular church was instructed by religious rules and it simply acted upon it. You have to understand that a religious place is not the religion itself, but it is an entity which is suppose follow the religion. If one religious place, be it of any religion, or a even a few of them goes against the religion, it does not mean the religion itself is corrupted, just like a few bad schools does not mean the whole education system is corrupted.

Originally Posted by wegs

Well, unless the college "protects" the professor, then it is also to blame. As is true with the Catholic Church for example. If you followed the priest pedophile stories that hit the news a few years ago, many in leadership roles knew about the allegations but never called the police. The priests in question were often relocated to another parish, where they were left to abuse more kids. The Catholic Church protected these men because they didn't want to lose credibility as a religion. Sure, we can say that these were a small number of individuals who caused all this damage, but the Catholic Church was seen as protecting these abusers. Had this been a secular institution, these men would have been arrested.

What about Penn state? other coaches tried to protect one another by allowing another coach harm kids in showers. by your standards, penn state is to blame. but how can you control the actions of individuals? how can you know every single thing they think of or do? not everyone knew about the incidents of penn state. likewise, not everyone knew what was going on at the thousands of public schools that have dealt with the same issue, nor the Catholic Church.

neither penn state nor the Catholic church has been charged for crimes, as they did not commit illegal actions. only individuals.

The purpose and reason for liability claims is the same as law suits towards any company for lack of affirmative action. the same may occur for sexual harassment charges in companies. it does not matter who is involved or what is done. the company will be in civil court. Part of the explanation into why is that a company or institute is in charge of setting/creating an environment. Yet, the concept of mass or any church is not always as such. many people just think to come and go.

It is truly sad that these things occur, but done so by the failures of individuals. Similar to the history of private/corporate institutions involved in markets, non-profit institutions must adapt to threats. Lessons must be learned and people will need to work together. However, to simply say one group of people are to blame and must be exterminated is illogical and unhelpful. these things will still occur, much like the lack of diversity in some companies despite affirmative action. despite the presence of sexual harassment regardless of legal and in-house, corporate policies.

and so if these things occur regardless, we must look at the causes. what are the causes?

Originally Posted by billvon

the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church

pride

I understand where you're coming from, but it is foolish to think that religion is incapable of breeding deception. It is a man made construct, designed by men to control people into thinking a particular way. If God exists, you don't need religion to "find" him. I'm not an atheist, I hold an agnostic view. I was once a "faithful" Christian and I once defended religion. But, I see it for what it is, now...and it breeds bigotry, sexism and violence. Or should I say, condones it? At least this can be said of the Abrahamic faiths.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

Most of this thread seems to be directed at arguing whether religion should be blamed for inciting wars or other acts of violance.

despite appearances, thread is looking towards causes. sure, if you want to go into inciting/encouraging acts of violence, so be it. these two things are not the same. cause is why a person is doing something. even if you are encouraged, you may not commit an act.

So, I must ask..if you were encouraged into committing a crime, would you still be at fault? how much would other parties be involved?

One of the most repressive periods in human history was the millennium or so when the Catholic church dominated Europe.

I thought we were in the millennium?

Rulers were appointed kings by "divine right", and peasants were told "the meek shall inherit the Earth".


Dissenters, if individuals, were kept in line by threat of being burned alive at the stake. Dissenters, if rulers, faced the threat of the church fomenting revolution among their subjects by excommunication. The church eventually came to own more land than any single country or empire.
The power of the Church was only broken when the printing press broke the Church's monopoly on the distribution of the written word (the incredibly courageous actions of Martin Luther in defying the church helped a lot). This led directly to the flowering of art and science we call the Renaissance.

The insidious fatal flaw of religion, the facet that gives it so much power and allows it to do so much damage, is the notion of "divinely" inspired, irrefutable, faith based truth. MY creed is correct, YOURS is wrong, not because my creed makes more sense, but because God has told me so. Or, more often, because some priest claims God has told him so, but I don't dare defy the priest. Don't bother trying to explain how wrong-headed I am, God is by definition never wrong, and even implying otherwise is not only sinful in the eyes of God, but more significantly, heretical in the eyes of the church. God may not see fit to punish you, but a human religious authority is likely to be far less forgiving.

I strongly feel society is much better off when individuals are encouraged to think for themselves, to question authority, and to discuss their unconventional ideas with others. To me this is how progress occurs. Encouraging the notion that some authority, religious or otherwise, has all the answers, and that questioning that authority is in itself evil, leads to stagnation and repression.

Where do you get your information? the printing press existed centuries before the Renaissance began. neither it nor any religious reform sparked the Renaissance that began in Italy, the hub of Catholicism during the era.

Johannes Gutenberg - Printing Press

Many of the great works from the Renaissance were from religious individuals committed to religious settings. like, the Last Supper.

The church did not control written word. there was no monopoly. written word was extremely expensive and the majority could not read anyway. so what would be the point of giving an illiterate a few hundred pounds worth of a book made from sheep/deer skin (or some other fabric), delicate ink, and melted gold (as some books were made)? All Bibles were easily accessible at all churches anyways. Those who did have written word easily accessible were rich, noble, scholars, etc. All these people had what it took to write, none of it provided by the Church.

Renaissance Art &mdash; History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

Originally Posted by wegs

I understand where you're coming from, but it is foolish to think that religion is incapable of breeding deception. It is a man made construct, designed by men to control people into thinking a particular way. I'm not an atheist, I hold an agnostic view. I was once a "faithful" Christian and I once defended religion. But, I see it for what it is, now...and it breeds bigotry, sexism and violence. Or should I say, condones it? At least this can be said of the Abrahamic faiths.

if it is man made, then it is man who breeds deception.

many religions developed before written history was created. even the 3 corner stoned faiths (huh - 3) have a singular ... sorry I am distracted. this needs to be a different thread. I do not think I should get into how religion developed.

If God exists, you don't need religion to "find" him

How can anyone find God if we have troubles finding ourselves? Finding God effeminately is a process, however. Similar to the education system, some things need to be worked out with others. Also, what is the point of forcing ourselves to recreate the wheel and have everyone start from scratch? that would be pointless for any education system.

Religion is about group worship anyways. this makes it easier to live with those who share the same goals and religious view point. even Atheists have grouped themselves together. what is the point of that?

how does religion breed bigotry?

helpful link for all
Why do you insist on imposing your religion on people--can't you just live and let live? | Catholic Answers

I once defended religion

perhaps one should not defend it, for it needs not be defended. instead, defend oneself by understanding what is believed. and why.

And to the points about Penn State and the Catholic Church...leadership in both "institutions" were well aware of the child abuse that was occurring on their watches. Both institutions sought to protect their image, than do the right thing by children. When you work for a particular company, your actions represent it. I could see if the leadership didn't know, but it did.You can dub it as pride or whatever you like...the truth is...many lay people were upset with the way the priests were being portrayed, even defending them. Not believing the stories of the adults who came forward to share their horrid tales of being abused by priests. Why is that? Because religion has a way of brainwashing and deceiving people into defending it at all costs.Sure, there is much in the way of tragedy in this world that has nothing to do with religion, but much if it does have everything to do with religion. To think otherwise means you no longer see the world objectively but rather you have filtered it through the lens of religion.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

I know of an incident where a college professor brainwashed some female students and had physical relations with them. Students initially trusted him because of his status as professor, and then eventually he brainwashed them and took advantage of their trust. We all know its is ridiculous to blame the college for the acts of this professor, even though he did use his post as a professor of the college to win the trust of his students. Then how do you justify to blame the religion for acts of some "religious authority"? Why not point the blame directly at these people (so called "religious authority") who are actually just hippocrates and not actually religious themselves?

I am not sure I can refute your point, but perhaps I can shed light by clarifying my point of view. I am an atheist. To me, it seems perfectly clear that God did not create man, but rather man created God. Or more accurately, Gods, plural. I do not understand there to be a distinction between religion and religious authority. Were it not for the hordes of men trying to gain advantage by claiming to have an exclusive hotline to the divine, I feel religious ideas would have had very little effect on history.

As a theist, I submit that true religious authorities appointed by God are the ones who introduced the religion to people in general, so in a way it is proper to say that religious authorities are inseparable from religion.

The point that I was trying to make is that The Personality such as Jesus and others not only preached the religion, but also they themselves followed what they preached. Today's religious scholars are only suppose to teach what those Great Personalities already taught and They Themselves followed. If this is not the way we see it happening today, then we cannot blame the religion for it, but the actual cause is that the true teachings of religion is not being followed for reasons such as personal greed, pride and people's hunger for worldly power.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

You have to understand that a religious place is not the religion itself, but it is an entity which is suppose follow the religion. If one religious place, be it of any religion, or a even a few of them goes against the religion, it does not mean the religion itself is corrupted, just like a few bad schools does not mean the whole education system is corrupted.

Agreed.

But when over 10,000 allegations of sexual assault against children occur within a church - when over 4000 priests are accused of doing the assaulting - when hundreds of church leaders, from bishops to the Pope, get involved in covering it up - when that church spends over $3 billion on settlements to keep things quiet - it's hard to argue that "it's just a few bad apples."

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

You have to understand that a religious place is not the religion itself, but it is an entity which is suppose follow the religion. If one religious place, be it of any religion, or a even a few of them goes against the religion, it does not mean the religion itself is corrupted, just like a few bad schools does not mean the whole education system is corrupted.

Agreed.

But when over 10,000 allegations of sexual assault against children occur within a church - when over 4000 priests are accused of doing the assaulting - when hundreds of church leaders, from bishops to the Pope, get involved in covering it up - when that church spends over $3 billion on settlements to keep things quiet - it's hard to argue that "it's just a few bad apples."

True! I really wish those things does not happen, especially in religious places. But we have to face the reality and understand that world has never been a perfect place for the fact that we humans are not perfect. If everything was perfect as it is then why were such great sacrifices made by so many Great Personalities to introduce the religion. It is up to us now to follow what was taught by Them which is virtues such as love, humility, mercy, gratitude and justice. We should not blame the religion for the fact that exact opposite is being done even in some religious places or where ever it may be.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

But we have to face the reality and understand that world has never been a perfect place for the fact that we humans are not perfect.

Then why do you believe religious text? Everybody probably knows my stance on religion but sometimes it bears repeating.... In order to believe in whatever it is your religion preaches, you must first believe in the human beings that brought it to you. Since you have just said humans and the world are not perfect then I must ask, why do you believe them? Yes people kill in the name of religion. Yes people kill for other reasons too. I'm all in favor of eliminating those reasons, why aren't you?

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

You have to understand that a religious place is not the religion itself, but it is an entity which is suppose follow the religion. If one religious place, be it of any religion, or a even a few of them goes against the religion, it does not mean the religion itself is corrupted, just like a few bad schools does not mean the whole education system is corrupted.

Agreed.

But when over 10,000 allegations of sexual assault against children occur within a church - when over 4000 priests are accused of doing the assaulting - when hundreds of church leaders, from bishops to the Pope, get involved in covering it up - when that church spends over $3 billion on settlements to keep things quiet - it's hard to argue that "it's just a few bad apples."

True! I really wish those things does not happen, especially in religious places. But we have to face the reality and understand that world has never been a perfect place for the fact that we humans are not perfect. If everything was perfect as it is then why were such great sacrifices made by so many Great Personalities to introduce the religion. It is up to us now to follow what was taught by Them which is virtues such as love, humility, mercy, gratitude and justice. We should not blame the religion for the fact that exact opposite is being done even in some religious places or where ever it may be.

We can follow and live by love, humility, mercy, gratitude and justice without needing to follow those teachings specifically.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by chero

I must say that the pure reasons to the conflict were indeed greed and pride. these things are present in every war in mankind's history.

So we know what the reasons were for the church and the kings, but what spurred the rest of the crusaders on, even the lowly surf? As clearly according to you it had nothing to do with god, their faith nor their religion

Pavlos, assuming anyone wishes to entertain this absurd statement... How would explain complicity with the Holocaust? At what point are you willing to admit that powerful leaders, with dangerous and powerful rhetoric and personal motivations are the source of the throes and woes of humanity? Why argue "Well the footman believed in the cause of the crusades, otherwise he wouldn't have gone along with" unless you're also willing to submit that "German civilians, and regular German infantry did not intervene en masse, so they too must have believed in the Nazis"?

It is not Religion. It is INSTITUTION and those that control it that are to blame. Those with the control use the control to influence the masses. Does this mean that there is no such thing Religious Violence? Of course not, most certainly there is... But you're deluding yourself if you think that Religion has ever truly been at the core of major conflicts. What we always find at the core are the same things: Money, Power, and Control.

I still don't buy this "It isn't religion" thing. Do not some religions preach intolerance? Christianity itself preaches against homosexuals among others. Isn't there a chance that philosophy leads to a distrust or dislike of another group?

It's hard to deny that a government or other unified body is behind much of the "major" conflict. In order for a war to begin, we need some kind of solidarity for each side. This requires mustering an army and equipping them, something churches cannot do. But does this ignore the idea that the driving force behind that war was a religious leader who, due to his beliefs, provoked the conflict? Can we really presume what their mindset was?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I still don't buy this "It isn't religion" thing. Do not some religions preach intolerance? Christianity itself preaches against homosexuals among others. Isn't there a chance that philosophy leads to a distrust or dislike of another group?It's hard to deny that a government or other unified body is behind much of the "major" conflict. In order for a war to begin, we need some kind of solidarity for each side. This requires mustering an army and equipping them, something churches cannot do. But does this ignore the idea that the driving force behind that war was a religious leader who, due to his beliefs, provoked the conflict? Can we really presume what their mindset was?

It's a good point to make. But I have a hard time believing that religion is going to be the reason, instead of simply being the tool. Like the Hammitic Hypothesis... Indeed, it was religious justification for the "rightness" of the Atlantic Slave Trade. If I recall, the Pope cited it to give his blessing to the Portuguese to initiate the systematic enslavement of Africans... But this was only after, again if I recall, after the Pope had been prompted by the Portuguese for its amiability. It would seem the Portuguese had already decided that "racially inferior," however genetically suited for tropical farming, were a viable and lucrative solution to their economic/trade ambitions. I think that no matter how far back you trace the motivations, at this national/global level, it's always going to be about staying on top, or ascending rank.

I will admit that you've got me thinking that it could easily be just as delusional to think that Religion has never ever, not even once, been at the heart of major conflict... It's just that I look at the worldly "religious conflicts" and see the same old institutional motivations at work. Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict about Religion? And as for Al-Qaeda? Is religion the tool for institutionalization? Or is it actually a part of what's at heart of their mission?I think at the surface, it's always going to look like it's about religion.

Even with the intolerance toward homosexuality - is it about the religion? Or is it about maintaining the Americanized judeo-christian heritage/cultural influence? I'll give you WBC... They're clearly in it for hating the Homosexuals. But what about the fundamental everychristian? Is it about fuelling a waning clutch on influence? Or is it that they truly give a damn? These are the questions I'm considering when I look at the issue, and here at the socio-cultural level, I genuinely don't know which way I lean... But methinks that when it comes to war and major institutional decisions, chances are it isn't about religion at all.

On the surface, it seems like an easy question to answer, but breaking down the human mindset and determining motive is outside my skill set.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

So we know what the reasons were for the church and the kings, but what spurred the rest of the crusaders on, even the lowly surf? As clearly according to you it had nothing to do with god, their faith nor their religion

I said religion is not the cause. I never went into how it influences people nor do I disagree that religion is an influential variable.

Thanks for the concession. If it has an influence then by default it is a cause.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by pavlos

nope. I took your words literally.

No you didn't you brought in the yuck factor as that is the way you saw it, anybody would have had the good sense to know that when armies did battle in the holy books they raped, pillaged and vanquish there alleged enemies, knowing that some of them must of had homosexual or paedophile tendencies. I'm sure they didn't care what happened to there victims they were going to kill them anyway.

Every war during that era involved the same thing. even wars/battles in the 19th, 20th, 21st century have the exact same crap. it is war. sin leads to sin. read a rumor of war. it will help grab a grasp of war. Why should wars mentioned in the Bible be anything different than the wars that occurred elsewhere in the same area or any area of the world?

You know this, and yet you brought the yuck factor in, was it a delberate strawman, or just ignorance.

Originally Posted by chero

We are dealing with humans. factors may change, but causes do not. if things can happen w/o religion, religion is not the cause.

No one has said it is the only cause. "The" cause, as you say. But it is "A" cause. Even you admit it has influenced things like murder and war, etc. By default it is "A" cause.

Originally Posted by chero

Also it appears you don't believe in original sin.
And one other thing you personally may have very clean hands, I could not say I would have to take your word for it. but your
brethren, oh your brethren. And given that I must put you under the same banner, because you have the same dogmatic ideology as they do, so are potentially has dangerous.

really? so I can blame you for the things your own family has done, but you have not?

No because I don't have a belief in any god/gods. Nor any holy books.

Originally Posted by chero

same dogmatic ideology as who?

You are religious are you not. you follow set of religious principles do you not.

Originally Posted by chero

do you even know what that ideology is?

a set of religious ideals. You have aready said you are religous, am I wrong in thinking that you follow religious ideals and principles?

Originally Posted by chero

also, do not assume what I believe in, for I have not stated such.

I've not assumed anything, you actually stated you followed a religion in post# 16. if I were wrong then I apologise.

Originally Posted by chero

If god/jesus appeared to you and asked you to kill fred bloggs next door who was the son of Satan, you would do it, because you would not want to suffer the wrath of god.

Except serial killers who have claimed as such, have been diagnosed as insane/mentally ill. I would not do it, either. One only needs logic to understand what God may want them to do.

Lol! From where does a religious person obtain logic, to believe in a thing without proof is far from logical.

Originally Posted by chero

This is why you are potentially dangerous. even though you may be morally against it. You would kill for what you consider a righteous reason. you would fight in what you considered was a "Just" war.

so what?

Wow! just wow!

Originally Posted by chero

so what do you consider righteous?

Not killing not harming. Killing would be the very very last resort, it would never be considered Just, I think you will find that the majority of non-believers think like that, we know how finite life is, so as such are not willing to take a life.

Originally Posted by chero

if religion hadn't started the practice of mutilating the genitalia,

you have no proof that religion did. there is little to no documentation of the world prior to writing, in which it is unclear what habits or conditions may have occurred. many killers have mutilated bodies for their own pleasures, and maintained zero religion. if the world existed and humanity existed before religion, then the violence we come to existed before religion.

Ok, I'll conceed that I have no real knowledge of when it started, however we can be sure that mutilating the body has been done for religious reasons from the begin of religion, as we know it. Prior to that I would have to say I don't know.

Originally Posted by chero

One only needs logic to understand what God may want them to do.

Gotta admit, this is a really weird thing to say. Logic would dictate that there is no God. One would need a pretty good imagination to understand what God may want them to do.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Originally Posted by pavlos

So we know what the reasons were for the church and the kings, but what spurred the rest of the crusaders on, even the lowly surf? As clearly according to you it had nothing to do with god, their faith nor their religion

Pavlos, assuming anyone wishes to entertain this absurd statement... How would explain complicity with the Holocaust?

Idol worship.

Originally Posted by stander-j

At what point are you willing to admit that powerful leaders, with dangerous and powerful rhetoric and personal motivations are the source of the throes and woes of humanity?

What like the catholic nutjob that was Hitler. Who had the authority of the church to do what he did.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Why argue "Well the footman believed in the cause of the crusades, otherwise he wouldn't have gone along with" unless you're also willing to submit that "German civilians, and regular German infantry did not intervene en masse, so they too must have believed in the Nazis"?

At the beginning of the war they were behind Hitler, but towards the end that's when their allegiances changed. So yes the footman crusade did it for his god, just like the Germans did it for their idol.
Different gods same result.

Originally Posted by stander-j

It is not Religion. It is INSTITUTION and those that control it that are to blame.

An institution doesn't have to be only a physical place or building. Religion is a social institution, as well as physical. And I do consider it as a institution.

1) Idol Worship? Great so you admit that powerful men with powerful rhetoric can influence the judgements of the masses - and that religion aside, it is the dialogue, power, and the control that elicits complicity.

2) Hitler was baptized, but he was not a practicing Christian. In fact, he disliked Christianity and his ideology was secular. It is believed he planned to eventually do away with Christianity in Germany entirely. It's disingenuous of you to claim Hitler's rhetoric was in anyway religious - unless of course you actually just don't know what you're talking about.

3) See "1"

4) Institution is the means of control which would suggest it is a tool. You are correct, however, Religion is a caste of Institution - but it is Institution, not Religion specifically that is the source of major conflicts. So why blame Religion instead Institution as a whole? It's about the idea of control, not the tool used. At its core, it's not the beliefs and ideology associated with the tool - it's about the control that it can elicit when manipulated.