If We All Became Atheists?

[PureX]

It is not. How can you simply dismiss the influences and conflicts that religions have had over the time since they originated?

I am not dismissing them. I am simply pointing out that they are very rare compared to the conflicts arising from our greed, egotism, willful ignorance, and blind bloodlust.

In the UK alone we have had enough in our history as to Protestants and Catholics killing each other, besides being involved in religious conflicts outside of the UK. And it's not so different elsewhere. The point is that if the religions hadn't existed then these conflicts would neither have existed, even if there are, and possibly always will be, other reasons for conflicts to occur. But perhaps these other conflicts are more amenable to reasonable conflict resolution - whereas the religious ones might not be.

Those battles were not about anyone's religious beliefs. They were about territorial and tribal control. Religion was just the flag they used to identify "us" from "them". Fights over actual religious ideology are very rare, as almost no one cares so much about it to fight over it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am not dismissing them. I am simply pointing out that they are very rare compared to the conflicts arising from our greed, egotism, willful ignorance, and blind bloodlust.

Well when you can point a time when there was hardly any religious conflict going on please do so - especially where it was an option not to have the dominant one wherever.

Those battles were not about anyone's religious beliefs. They were about territorial and tribal control. Religion was just the flag they used to identify "us" from "them". Fights over actual religious ideology are very rare, as almost no one cares so much about it to fight over it.

Even if religions are just used as an excuse, or tagged to the main reason, they are still there to be used as such. If they were absent, one less reason.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Yes, we're all familiar with the dishonest practice of selecting a handful of verses out of context, in order to discredit an entire religion. It's calculated to mislead, and it's intellectually lazy.

And I would assert that you are either being naive or disingenuous when you said: "Killing in the name of religion generally requires men to ignore the dogma and doctrines, since love, mercy, compassion and justice are core values in most of the world’s religions."

I'm not a religious scholar, but from what exposure I have had, I would say that with the Abrahamic religions specifically, there is ample opportunity to be found within their dogma and doctrines to be unloving, unmerciful, and dispasssionate to those outside their sect defined definition of the faithful.

And of course, whether they choose to be merciful or unmerciful, it will always be justified.

 

[PureX]

And I would assert that you are either being naive or disingenuous when you said: "Killing in the name of religion generally requires men to ignore the dogma and doctrines, since love, mercy, compassion and justice are core values in most of the world’s religions."

I'm not a religious scholar, but from what exposure I have had, I would say that with the Abrahamic religions specifically, there is ample opportunity to be found within their dogma and doctrines to be unloving, unmerciful, and dispasssionate to those outside their sect defined definition of the faithful.

And of course, whether they choose to be merciful or unmerciful, it will always be justified.

That last statement should tell you that this this is not being caused by religion.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

That last statement should tell you that this this is not being caused by religion.

Ah, like "guns don't kill people, people do", it is "religion doesn't kill, dienfranchise, repress, etc. people, people do."

It's a catch-22 then, as religion is being held up as the antidote to human bad behavior.

 

[PureX]

Ah, like "guns don't kill people, people do", it is "religion doesn't kill, dienfranchise, repress, etc. people, people do."

It's a catch-22 then, as religion is being held up as the antidote to human bad behavior.

Religions are just one of the excuses people use to justify expressing their destructive desires. There are many, many others. And people will do so without justification or excuses if none are handy. So it should be clear that the justifications and excuses are not to blame. People are.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Religions are just one of the excuses people use to justify expressing their destructive desires. There are many, many others. And people will do so without justification or excuses if none are handy. So it should be clear that the justifications and excuses are not to blame. People are.

Then let's stop touting religion as the antidote and set it aside, then continue the work of improving and refining the social contract.

 

[PureX]

Then let's stop touting religion as the antidote and set it aside, then continue the work of improving and refining the social contract.

But a great many people will attest to their participation in religion helping them to be better people when that is what they want. And in fact, that is mainly what religions are for: helping people to want to be better people, and then helping them to achieve this. I am not religious, or affiliated with any religion, but even I know people that do use their religion in this way. It is commonplace. Why would you deny them this just because some people use religion as an excuse to behave destructively? Especially when those people will simply use some other excuse if twisting their religion were not available to them.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

But a great many people will attest to their participation in religion helping them to be better people when that is what they want. And in fact, that is mainly what religions are for: helping people to want to be better people, and then helping them to achieve this. I am not religious, or affiliated with any religion, but even I know people that do use their religion in this way. It is commonplace. Why would you deny them this just because some people use religion as an excuse to behave destructively? Especially when those people will simply use some other excuse if twisting their religion were not available to them.

I am saying we no long look to religion to address our social issues. Religion as a resource for personal growth and improvement, great! But just as you can anecdotally point to people who find help in being a better person, there are equally anecdotally those who pay lip service to their religion with a distinct disconect with what is taught at the pulpit and how they conduct themselves day to day.

There are lots of different flavors of religion, each stressing or emphasizing different things, but within a country, every citizen is a member of that one institution. If the goal is to improve society, it is a more realistic expectation that the goal will be achieved by working through that unified institution as opposed to a myriad of religious sects and denomenations.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ah, like "guns don't kill people, people do", it is "religion doesn't kill, dienfranchise, repress, etc. people, people do."

It's a catch-22 then, as religion is being held up as the antidote to human bad behavior.

Obviously as an antidote to destructive behaviour, religion has frequently been far from effective. No argument from me there.

My point was that the fundamental values on which most religions are founded, albeit values from which their adherents frequently stray, are generally benign.

Religious institutions are as prone to corruption and abuse, as are all human institutions. That doesn’t mean that religious principles, when based on a genuine love of God and one’s fellows, are of no positive value to mankind.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Religious institutions are as prone to corruption and abuse, as are all human institutions. That doesn’t mean that religious principles, when based on a genuine love of God and one’s fellows, are of no positive value to mankind.

Why bring an external entity into the equation? Why not simply promote the love of one's fellows?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why bring an external entity into the equation? Why not simply promote the love of one's fellows?

Because without God’s help loving others, especially those who have harmed or threatened to harm us, may prove too difficult.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Because without God’s help loving others, especially those who have harmed or threatened to harm us, may prove too difficult.

Simply saying that doesn't make it so. With the United States supposedly being 70% Christian including the President at the time, why could not the county turn the other cheek in the wake of the 9/11 attack and instead engage in two wars of retribution that has killed a purported 900,000 people of which the vast majority of those had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11?

I see your platitude as having had little to no impact when it really matters, since the beginning of Christianity.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Simply saying that doesn't make it so. With the United States supposedly being 70% Christian including the President at the time, why could not the county turn the other cheek in the wake of the 9/11 attack and instead engage in two wars of retribution that has killed a purported 900,000 people of which the vast majority of those had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11?

I see your platitude as having had little to no impact when it really matters, since the beginning of Christianity.

What do you expect from a nation founded by religious zealots and imperialist adventurers?

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

What do you expect from a nation founded by religious zealots and imperialist adventurers?

I'm not getting how this supports your earlier comment, "Because without God’s help loving others, especially those who have harmed or threatened to harm us, may prove too difficult."

Cheers.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not getting how this supports your earlier comment, "Because without God’s help loving others, especially those who have harmed or threatened to harm us, may prove too difficult."

Cheers.

Well your response to my comment was a mini polemic about US foreign policy. So I responded directly to that.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Well your response to my comment was a mini polemic about US foreign policy. So I responded directly to that.

I guess we can leave it here then. Ta.