horrors of religion

[Storm]

Yes - just looking for some consistent reasoning in this morass of pseudo-intellectualism!

Oh, good! You had me going for a second there.

 

[Azakel]

And UU. And Jainism. And Baha'i....

Yes, those are good examples too.

 

[Azakel]

Instead of just sticking to the 21st century, which is only a nine year period, how bout we just stick to the past 100 years - seems simple enough.

Well, it my not be 100 year old but Neo-Paganism isn't anything new to the 21st century. I'd say it's been around for a good amount of time. It popped up in at lest the 1950's if not sooner(I say 1950 because that's when Wicca was formed and is a NeoPagan belief).

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

So I guess your saying that if it weren't for religion non of these things would happen? Only those who are involved with a religious organization help people in need? No religious organization, no help for the needy?

Nope that isn't what I'm saying, your putting words in my mouth.
You said: "Religion in fact poisons everything."

I am merely refuting your statement with Religion does not poison everything. When religion is access in a healthy way there is good that comes from it.

Violent, irrational,intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: Organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.

[/quote]

And when religion is accessed in an extreme, unhealthy manner then harm comes from it. In the case of the article, religion was being used in an extreme, unhealthy fashion which brought harm instead of good.

Those who took it to that extreme were most likely misguided at the hands of another misguided sometimes power hungry individual who mistakes his guidance and teaching as his own Power instead of accessing the Power in a healthy way, they become possessed by it.

This can happen and does happen in all organizations from time to time. The one "in charge" becomes possessed by the power loaned to them and they begin to identify with the power, thinking that the power is who they are. As a result the organization and the people within (and sometimes outside) often come to harm.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

One person does not create the poison, just as there may well have been decent people that where part of the Nazi party, but the organization itself was evil. Dr. King was apart of religion, it is the religion that is the poison not the single individual.

It is often the single individual within the organization that is given power that corrupts the organization.

 

[monta]

too annoyed to post calmly

 

[dogsgod]

The father believed it necessary to exercise his faith in God and his daughter became the target and victim of this practice. Acting on religious beliefs is too much of a crap shoot, too much of a risk. Atheists eliminate these kinds of mistakes because they don't believe there are invisible gods which isn't to say they don't make mistakes, just not mistakes based on beliefs in a God and the logical conclusions that follow from there being a God.

 

[Storm]

The father believed it necessary to exercise his faith in God and his daughter became the target and victim of this practice. Acting on religious beliefs is too much of a crap shoot, too much of a risk. Atheists eliminate these kinds of mistakes because they don't believe there are invisible gods which isn't to say they don't make mistakes, just not mistakes based on beliefs in a God and the logical conclusions that follow from there being a God.

And believers don't make mistakes based on disbelief in God. One cannot make mistakes based on a perspective one lacks. So, do you have a point, or were you just belaboring the obvious.

 

[Storm]

too annoyed to post calmly

Aw. I'd really like to hear your perspective.

 

[Storm]

New thread inspired by this one: To the Anti-Religious.

 

[dogsgod]

And believers don't make mistakes based on disbelief in God. One cannot make mistakes based on a perspective one lacks. So, do you have a point, or were you just belaboring the obvious.

The point is that actions based on false beliefs can cause people to make mistakes. This is why we sometimes go to great lengths to make sure we have the facts in before proceeding in a given situation that can have severe consequences if we are wrong. One can avoid an entire category of mistakes by avoiding religious practice, by not sharing in the unsupported beliefs that are common to all religions.

 

[Kathryn]

The point is that actions based on false beliefs can cause people to make mistakes. This is why we sometimes go to great lengths to make sure we have the facts in before proceeding in a given situation that can have severe consequences if we are wrong. One can avoid an entire category of mistakes by avoiding religious practice, by not sharing in the unsupported beliefs that are common to all religions.

This proves nothing, absolutely nothing.

Using this "reasoning," I could say that one could avoid an entire category of genocide, economic disaster, the starvation of millions, forced sterilizations, yada yada yada, by avoiding atheist practices, by not sharing in the abusive beliefs that are common to atheist regimes.

Or I could just do my best to apply my moral standard consistently in my life by treating others as I wish to be treated.

I think I'll stick with the second option. Seems in the best interest of myself and society in general.

 

[Storm]

The point is that actions based on false beliefs can cause people to make mistakes.

Ah, but you can't show religious beliefs to be false, now can you? Which reveals your position to be nothing but bias.

One can avoid an entire category of mistakes by avoiding religious practice, by not sharing in the unsupported beliefs that are common to all religions.

Case in point.

 

[Sunstone]

Atheism has been an enabler of horrible things as well - in fact, more people were killed in the name of atheism in the 20th century alone than were killed in the name of Christianity during the Inquisition, witch trials, and Crusades combined.

Are you absolutely sure you want to go on record as having advocated the pseudo-intellectual notion that people were killed and transgressed against in the name of atheism? I mean, it's quite clear that people during the crusades were killed in the name of god, but do you really want to be put in a position of being asked to dig up the evidence that any of, say, Stalin's minions ever went into battle yelling, "For Atheism"?

 

[Kathryn]

I am absolutely sure that I want to go on record saying that atheist regimes are directly responsible for the deaths of more people IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ALONE than all deaths perpetrated by the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch trials combined.

Stalin and his minions did their deeds in the name of an atheist state devoid of religion. Are you absolutely sure you want to go on record as denying that?

 

[linwood]

Stalin and his minions did their deeds in the name of an atheist state devoid of religion. Are you absolutely sure you want to go on record as denying that?

I will.

Stalin and his ilk did their deeds in the name of religion as well.
They simply had a different dogma than the norm.

This dogma wasn`t based upon atheism it was based upon socialist principles.

Religion requires no gods.

 

[Sunstone]

I am absolutely sure that I want to go on record saying that atheist regimes are directly responsible for the deaths of more people IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ALONE than all deaths perpetrated by the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch trials combined.

Stalin and his minions did their deeds in the name of an atheist state devoid of religion.

It is true that Stalin and others were atheists at some points in their lives. It is not true that atheism encourages people to rape, murder, and otherwise transgress against others. Your belief that it does is unfounded.

Are you absolutely sure you want to go on record as denying that?

Of course, because I'm right.

 

[Kathryn]

Marxist communism is completely atheistic and explicitly anti-religious. Stalin was a Marxist - not a socialist. In fact, he wrote Marxism and the National Question, a work that was praised by Lenin.

May I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with the differences between communism and socialism.

 

[Kathryn]

It is true that Stalin and others were atheists at some points in their lives. It is not true that atheism encourages people to rape, murder, and otherwise transgress against others. Your belief that it does is unfounded.

I wish you would read my posts in context rather than take them out of context. My point was that IF Christians are accused of collective guilt based on the actions of individual Christians, then atheists are collectively guilty based on the actions of individual atheists.

Personally, I believe in individual responsibility for one's actions.

 

[dogsgod]

I am absolutely sure that I want to go on record saying that atheist regimes are directly responsible for the deaths of more people IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ALONE than all deaths perpetrated by the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch trials combined.

Stalin and his minions did their deeds in the name of an atheist state devoid of religion. Are you absolutely sure you want to go on record as denying that?

I would. Communism as practiced in the Soviet Union was a system whereby the state controlled every single aspect of the economy, it controlled all the purse strings including that of the church. It was inherently faulty and attracted power hungry sociopaths to gain leadership who in turn killed or imprisoned anyone that was considered a threat to their supreme authority.