Non Biased: Religion is Lame - Thread

[Funkmasterr]

Was the Civil War religion based?
Was the Mongol destruction of everything religion based?
Korea?
WWI?
Vietnam?
Russian Civil War?

Are you trying to say that all of those were atheist and/or agnostic conflicts?

I'm pretty damn sure the individuals involved in those conflicts were overwhelmingly religious.

Was kind of my point.

For example.. Civil War. What was the main reason for the war? What did most of the idiotic rednecks have in common besides wanting to keep their slaves? Yeah.. Nothing to do with religion at all..

That is an insane level of absurdity to take this to.
The Civil War had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with half a country not wanting slavery anymore and the other half not wanting to lose their free labor.

If you want to get that absurd you can say some people in the army are religious so technically every war in forever was religious.

That's absurdity to try and make your point which ends up making your point look silly.

Right, claiming that a bunch of highly religious rednecks that clearly felt that god put them niggers here so that they could put em in the field to plant and pick their cotton, and probably would have told you something along those lines had you asked them, is totally far-fetched and silly.

The point isn't that religion was the 100% direct cause, but that organized religion breeds this dangerous fucked up thinking, and it spills over into all aspects of life. Of course if you look in the bible their ridiculous shit wouldn't be supported anywhere in many situations, but like several of you said, that doesn't mean the church can't twist it to mean anything they want and get people to buy into it.

[Sabek]

That sure sounds like a Christian.

I was waiting for someone to quote Hitler's Secret Conversations.


I think these comments are far more telling of his religious beliefs.

- Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord

- For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will

This all comes back to what Fair said earlier. He could say he believes, but not really believe. That would probably be a more accurate description of what Hitler was doing.
Honestly it's no different than the republicans playing the God card, which I don't like either.

[Sabek]

Was the Civil War religion based?
Was the Mongol destruction of everything religion based?
Korea?
WWI?
Vietnam?
Russian Civil War?

Are you trying to say that all of those were atheist and/or agnostic conflicts?

I'm pretty damn sure the individuals involved in those conflicts were overwhelmingly religious.

Was kind of my point.

For example.. Civil War. What was the main reason for the war? What did most of the idiotic rednecks have in common besides wanting to keep their slaves? Yeah.. Nothing to do with religion at all..

That is an insane level of absurdity to take this to.
The Civil War had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with half a country not wanting slavery anymore and the other half not wanting to lose their free labor.

If you want to get that absurd you can say some people in the army are religious so technically every war in forever was religious.

That's absurdity to try and make your point which ends up making your point look silly.

Right, claiming that a bunch of highly religious rednecks that clearly felt that god put them niggers here so that they could put em in the field to plant and pick their cotton, and probably would have told you something along those lines had you asked them, is totally far-fetched and silly.

I guess I spoke too quickly when I said earlier that this had been a civil thread, and had enjoyed the lively and adult conversations we were having on such a touchy subject. Well now the thread has been Funked up.

Oh well should have seen it coming.

[Funkmasterr]

That sure sounds like a Christian.

I was waiting for someone to quote Hitler's Secret Conversations.


I think these comments are far more telling of his religious beliefs.

- Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord

- For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will

This all comes back to what Fair said earlier. He could say he believes, but not really believe. That would probably be a more accurate description of what Hitler was doing.
Honestly it's no different than the republicans playing the God card, which I don't like either.

I think the difference here that you aren't acknowledging is that it doesn't matter whether he truly believed god felt that way or that was his real reason for doing what he did, it only matters that's what he said and told his followers and they believed it.

[Funkmasterr]

I guess I spoke too quickly when I said earlier that this had been a civil thread, and had enjoyed the lively and adult conversations we were having on such a touchy subject. Well now the thread has been Funked up.

Oh well should have seen it coming.

right, I messed it up. I responded to you implying that the point I made was silly by telling you exactly why it isn't and rolled my eyes.. Grow a pair ffs.

[miir]

As many has haven't been started in the name of greed and lust for power.

The Church has been the most powerful institution in the history of man... and the best way for those in power to gain the support of and control the unwashed masses.

[Funkmasterr]

As many has haven't been started in the name of greed and lust for power.

The Church has been the most powerful institution in the history of man... and the best way for those in power to gain the support of and control the unwashed masses.

Right. I don't get why people are getting hung up on the intentions of the people at the center of these things. The point is the negative way they use their power and the faith people have in the church, their intentions don't mean shit.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

As many has haven't been started in the name of greed and lust for power.

The Church has been the most powerful institution in the history of man... and the best way for those in power to gain the support of and control the unwashed masses.

Right. I don't get why people are getting hung up on the intentions of the people [\b]at the center of these things. The point is the negative way they use their power and the faith people have in the church, their intentions don't mean shit.

you just said it....and I went ahead and bolded it for you. It is the PEOPLE in control of it and not the religion that causes the problems. It is the people interpreting the Bible for their own intents and purposes and using it to control others that bothers me. My personal feeling is that most religions are worshiping the same God in different manners and customs all based off of writings that PEOPLE wrote down. It is the interpretations that make the religions different...and with some sects dangerous.

Take away all of the good religious people and watch what becomes of this world...although I think many of you will see that firsthand at some point in your life.

[miir]

The bible has got to be the most ambiguous book ever written.

How something that is so open to (mis)interpretation has become the most influential scripture in the history of man is just mind boggling.

[Jice Virago]

Religion has always been a tool for the clever or charismatic to control the weak minded. Like any form of power, it corrupts anyone who has it for long enough. Given that its built on the ignorance of the average human being, it has been around a long long time, and will probably be around a lot longer. While there have been atheist mass genocidals (Stalin), by the sheer virtue of how few atheists there are it is just mathematical fact that there have been more religeous nut jobs who engage in atrocities. This is all academic and not central to the core problem with religious belief.

The problem is not that people believe this ridiculous stuff. The first issue is that they use it to justify a variety of social predjudices and then act on that justification. This ranges from Hitler using stamping out atheists as a mechanism to ridding his country of intellectuals who could challenge his authority, to benign shit like fish being acceptable to eat on fridays because the vatican wanted to help the fishing industry, plus everything in between. The second issue is that it reinforces ignorance to a level where certain classes of people cannot escape from it growing up. Kids are litterally brainwashed into accepting whatever boogyman story their parents had punded into them growing up and are conditioned to forcibly reject rational ideas with a mountain of empyrical evidence, like the earth not being the center of the universe, evolution, and even the existance of dinosaurs.

Its really the second issue that pisses me off and should make the pro USA crowd pissed, too. How far behind the curve did we fall in medical science because of the stem cell debate and how much time did we waste on the Terry Schaivo bullshit? How far behind the rest of the world is our educational system slipping because te Jesus freaks insist on rewriting history and injecting crackpot creationism into the classroom? The killing of people would happen no matter what, its just human nature. Its the complete social and mental retardation and stagnation that religion causes that makes me despise any belif system not firmly rooted in the rational.

[Winnow]

I worship Jice's perfect paragraph structure!

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

So many things to comment on and not enough time...sigh!

Bubba, what you're talking about is what's called Pascal's Wager. It's a false dichotomy, there's no either/or in this situation. There are practically an infinite amount of religions to choose from, so from your point of view, the smart thing would be to do a lot of research and choose to believe in the God/Pantheon who has the worst punishment for infidels and the best reward for the faithful. Oh, and make sure to pick a gullible God at that, one who doesn't notice you paying lip service.
Richard Dawkins said in reply to being asked a "what if?" about his stand on Pascal's Wager, "What if you are wrong about the great Jubjub at the bottom of the sea?". A more poignant quote which has been attributed to Bertrand Russell is this:
"But what if God does not reward belief, but critical thinking? Then He will send you to Hell for gullibly believing, and me to Heaven for thinking clearly and not believing in Him without sufficient evidence."

The Civil War had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with half a country not wanting slavery anymore and the other half not wanting to lose their free labor.

Minor point, and not all that pertinent to the discussion but I still need to make it: I'd say that it had everything to do with half a country not wanting the unfair competition of the other half having free labor. Altruism came a far second to economic interests.

Religion has always been a tool for the clever or charismatic to control the weak minded. Like any form of power, it corrupts anyone who has it for long enough. Given that its built on the ignorance of the average human being, it has been around a long long time, and will probably be around a lot longer. While there have been atheist mass genocidals (Stalin), by the sheer virtue of how few atheists there are it is just mathematical fact that there have been more religeous nut jobs who engage in atrocities. This is all academic and not central to the core problem with religious belief.

It would not be a stretch to argue that what Stalin did was take the aspects of religious adoration and worship and twist them to point at Mother Russia and himself, substituting religion for nationalism. Kim-Il Sung and little Kim after him have raised this to a whole other level, on par with the God-kings of Egypt and the Aztecs.


And finally, because I can, another quote from Bertrand Russell, whom a lot of you could do to study a bit:

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed."

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I'm always amused how the same folks who say you cannot lump all muslims into the same evil basket because of a "few" extremists, have no hesitation in lumping all Christians into the same basket when something bad happens.

[Xouqoa]

As to more refuting of that stupid quote....part of why society is having such problems today is the rise of atheism and agnosticism. When people throughout history have had religion, they have a fear of breaking the moral codes because of the retribution that will happen in the afterlife. With that fear gone, there is absolutely nothing to keep them from committing atrocities on society. Hell, it is fashionable these days to be anti-christian.

Maybe I'm just an enlightened human being, but I don't need the threat of hell, or any particular religion to follow a moral code that would most likely get me into any sort of blissful afterlife anyway.

"Don't be a dick." That pretty much sums it up right there. If there is a god, and it wants to send me to hell because I didn't believe in Jesus or whatever, then fine. I have lived my life in a manner I think Jesus would have been proud of. If that isn't good enough, oh well.

Personally, I don't believe in souls either. I think once you die, the lights go out, and that's that. No afterlife, no reincarnation, nothing. You get one life to live, better make it count.

I don't have anything against people who need to believe as long as they:

1) follow the tenants of their faith, and aren't a hypocite
2) don't try to push it on me to "save me"

[miir]

I'm always amused how the same folks who say you cannot lump all muslims into the same evil basket because of a "few" extremists, have no hesitation in lumping all Christians into the same basket when something bad happens.

I don't see anyone doing that in this thread.

[Jice Virago]

I'm always amused how the same folks who say you cannot lump all muslims into the same evil basket because of a "few" extremists, have no hesitation in lumping all Christians into the same basket when something bad happens.

I don't see anyone doing that in this thread.

Yeah, I am lumping all people who believe in invisible boogymen into one catagory, it just so happens that the dead jew on a stick worshiping variety are the most prevalent (and influental) in the USA. To reiterate, all religion pisses me off because of its embracement of ignorance that is stagnating the advancement of society, either directly or indirectly when used as a rhetorical justification by someone with a socially conservative agenda.

What is actually funny is seeing people who follow one fictional supreme being with a ridiculously implausable storybook bagging on another groups beliefs as being ridiculous. It is quite literally the pot calling the kettle black. I mean, every crispy I know loves to crack jokes at the mormons for their magical underwear and scientologists for their xenu crap, because to them that stuff is evidently way less ridiculous than all human life comming from two people and a jew taking his marching orders for leading all of his people from a flaming piece of shrubbery. An objective outside observer sees both ideas as inherrantly ridiculous.

So, don't assume I (or others) are singling out Christians, because I assure you it only seems that way because our personal annecdotes of dealing with religeon are drawn from personal experience, which in this country is mostly christian.

[Winnow]

In the case of the priest scandal, boys were the victims of sexual misconduct much more often than girls, by a factor of about four to one, says Margaret Leland Smith of John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But what has gotten scant attention is the fact that the female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, including Smith, shows that even though there were many more boy victims than girls overall, the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that experienced by boys the same age. Specifically, between 1950 and 2002, there were 246 girls younger than 8 who were sexually abused by priests (representing 14 percent of all girl victims), compared with 236 boys (3 percent of all boy victims). However, the most likely age of victims—for girls and boys—was between 11 and 14.

The John Jay study, commissioned and financed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops after the uproar in 2002 over the priest-sex-abuse scandal, also indicates that the girl victims were more likely than boys to be the sole victims of their abuser. Priests who targeted one girl or one boy were more likely to focus on someone older than 14 than those with multiple victims. (Overall, 27 percent of the girls and 34 percent of the boys were between 15 and 17 years old.) The duration of abuse involving a sole victim was more likely to last a year or less. Priests who preyed on multiple children were more likely to continue the abuse for five years or longer. In the case of both boys and girls, most of the abuse occurred between 1960 and 1980, and fell sharply after that, but most of the charges were not reported to authorities until after 1992. Smith says that as the Catholic Church continues to turn over any newly made charges of abuse to the John Jay team, the researchers continue to see the same trends in terms of gender, age, and dates when the abuse occurred...

...Barbara Blaine, 53, the founder and president of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), a national support group, was one of several girls who were abused by Chet Warren, a Toledo priest who was defrocked. in the mid-'80s after she and others filed complaints. She said Warren would take girls out of class at the Catholic school she attended and rape them in his bedroom off the rectory. The first time it happened, she said she was in seventh grade. The abuse continued until she was a senior in high school, when she says she was finally able to break free of Warren's psychological hold on her and realize that her feelings of shame and guilt were misplaced. It was almost another decade before she told her parents, and even then, she says her father's initial response was that she should just confide in the local bishop. Her experiences have led her to conclude that there is "far more urgency when the victim is a male."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236489

Can't believe anyone would claim to be Catholic these days. Sick bastards!

[Fairweather Pure]

I'm not saying this to be an asshole, but it's really weird hearing about a priest molesting girls.

[Winnow]

This article cracks me up. Organized religious people flipping out over some people choosing to be spiritual without the corrupt organized cults getting paid for their spirituality.

"Are there dangers in being Spiritual but not religious?" lol, yes. The danger is the extinction of corrupt organized religion when they are fighting to control the masses.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal ... tml?hpt=C1

Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'?

By John Blake, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* In survey, more "millennials" identify themselves as spiritual rather than religious
* Jesuit author says spirituality without structure can "lead to self-centeredness"
* Spiritual blogger argues organized religion inevitably leads to tussles over power
* Being a spiritual Lone Ranger fits the tenor of our times, a philosophy professor says

(CNN) -- "I'm spiritual but not religious."

It's a trendy phrase people often use to describe their belief that they don't need organized religion to live a life of faith.

But for Jesuit priest James Martin, the phrase also hints at something else: egotism.

"Being spiritual but not religious can lead to complacency and self-centeredness," says Martin, an editor at America, a national Catholic magazine based in New York City. "If it's just you and God in your room, and a religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?"

Religious debates erupt over everything from doctrine to fashion. Martin has jumped into a running debate over the "I'm spiritual but not religious" phrase.

The "I'm spiritual but not religious" community is growing so much that one pastor compared it to a movement. In a 2009 survey by the research firm LifeWay Christian Resources, 72 percent of millennials (18- to 29-year-olds) said they're "more spiritual than religious." The phrase is now so commonplace that it's spawned its own acronym ("I'm SBNR") and Facebook page: SBNR.org.

But what exactly does being "spiritual but not religious" mean, and could there be hidden dangers in living such a life?

Did you choose "Burger King Spirituality"?

Heather Cariou, a New York City-based author who calls herself spiritual instead of religious, doesn't think so. She's adopted a spirituality that blends Buddhism, Judaism and other beliefs.

"I don't need to define myself to any community by putting myself in a box labeled Baptist, or Catholic, or Muslim," she says. "When I die, I believe all my accounting will be done to God, and that when I enter the eternal realm, I will not walk though a door with a label on it."

BJ Gallagher, a Huffington Post blogger who writes about spirituality, says she's SBNR because organized religion inevitably degenerates into tussles over power, ego and money.

Gallagher tells a parable to illustrate her point:

"God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand.

"Ah, Truth," he said.

"Here, give it to me," the devil said. "I'll organize it."

Gallagher says there's nothing wrong with people blending insights from different faith traditions to create what she calls a "Burger King Spirituality -- have it your way."

She disputes the notion that spiritual people shun being accountable to a community.

"Twelve-step people have a brilliant spiritual community that avoids all the pitfalls of organized religion," says Gallagher, author of "The Best Way Out is Always Through."

"Each recovering addict has a 'god of our own understanding,' and there are no priests or intermediaries between you and your god. It's a spiritual community that works.''

Nazli Ekim, who works in public relations in New York City, says calling herself spiritual instead of religious is her way of taking responsibility for herself.

Ekim was born in a Muslim family and raised in Istanbul, Turkey. She prayed to Allah every night, until she was 13 and had to take religion classes in high school.Then one day, she says she had to take charge of her own beliefs.

"I had this revelation that I bow to no one, and I've been spiritually a much happier person," says Ekim, who describers herself now as a Taoist, a religious practice from ancient China that emphasizes the unity of humanity and the universe.

"I make my own mistakes and take responsibility for them. I've lied, cheated, hurt people -- sometimes on purpose. Did I ever think I will burn in hell for all eternity? I didn't. Did I feel bad and made up for my mistakes? I certainly did, but not out of fear of God."

Going on a spiritual walkabout

The debate over being spiritual rather than religious is not just about semantics. It's about survival.

Numerous surveys show the number of Americans who do not identify themselves as religious has been increasing and likely will continue to grow.

A 2008 survey conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, dubbed these Americans who don't identify with any religion as "Nones."

Seminaries, churches, mosques and other institutions will struggle for survival if they don't somehow convince future generations that being religious isn't so bad after all, religion scholars warn.

Jennifer Walters, dean of religious life at Smith College in Massachusetts, says there's a lot of good in old-time religion.

Religious communities excel at caring for members in difficult times, encouraging members to serve others and teaching religious practices that have been tested and wrestled with for centuries, Walters says.

"Hymn-singing, forms of prayer and worship, teachings about social justice and forgiveness -- all these things are valuable elements of religious wisdom," Walters says. "Piecing it together by yourself can be done, but with great difficulty."

Being a spiritual Lone Ranger fits the tenor of our times, says June-Ann Greeley, a theology and philosophy professor.

"Religion demands that we accord to human existence some absolutes and eternal truths, and in a post-modern culture, that becomes all but impossible," says Greeley, who teaches at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut.

It's much easier for "spiritual" people to go on "spiritual walkabouts," Greeley says.

"People seem not to have the time nor the energy or interest to delve deeply into any one faith or religious tradition," Greeley says. "So they move through, collecting ideas and practices and tenets that most appeal to the self, but making no connections to groups or communities."

Being spiritual instead of religious may sound sophisticated, but the choice may ultimately come down to pettiness, says Martin, the Jesuit priest, who writes about the phrase in his book, "The Jesuit Guide to (Almost Everything)."

"Religion is hard," he says. "Sometimes it's just too much work. People don't feel like it. I have better things to do with my time. It's plain old laziness.

[Nick]

Well this one certainly separates the wheat from the chaff.