Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[Satyamavejayanti]

Jayhawker Soule;2923939]There is no good - or even coherent - answer to the question: its sole redeeming quality is that it's more honest than many.
Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

Because their religions started in a hostile environment, where survival of the clan was more important then that of humanity itself.

 

[beerisit]

Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil? There is no good - or even coherent - answer to the question: its sole redeeming quality is that it's more honest than many.

What? Than me? I'll have you know that when it comes to disgustingly stupid I have more trophies than you've had hot dinners.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not believing in unicorns has ever motivated you to do something?

No. Neither has adolescent comparisons and childish sophistry. But the absence of motivation is not necessarily without social consequences.

We have more than enough experience with societies that militantly reject religion and the result is not pretty. To pretend that state sponsored atheism is the sole cause for this ugliness would be absurd, but to paint it as no more than a curious coincidence would be remarkably stupid and/or dishonest.

We are a provisionally civilized species and religion, despite its human origins, limitations, and abuses, has long served to mitigate barbarism. Those who denigrate religion and all who are inspired by it while pretentiously insulate themselves from criticism with the childish mantra that atheism is no more than the absence of belief know nothing about history and even less about anthropology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because their religions started in a hostile environment, where survival of the clan was more important then that of humanity itself.

That was a truly stupid statement. :biglaugh:

 

[johnhanks]

We have more than enough experience with societies that militantly reject religion and the result is not pretty.

The world has far more experience of societies that have used religion as ultimate justification for aggression and genocide. None of those results have been pretty either.

We are a provisionally civilized species and religion, despite its human origins, limitations, and abuses, has long served to mitigate barbarism...

... and, sadly, to sanctify it.

Those who denigrate religion and all who are inspired by it while pretentiously insulate themselves from criticism with the childish mantra that atheism is no more than the absence of belief know nothing about history and even less about anthropology.

Some of us, JS, know a bit of both. And whether you like it or not, atheism is no more than the absence of belief: it does not have to come packaged with any compensating alternative ideology. I would be interested to know which specific "societies that militantly reject religion" you have in mind, but suspect they are societies that merely replaced it with another all-embracing belief system whose ends were held to justify any means.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The world has far more experience of societies that have used religion as ultimate justification for aggression and genocide.

Leaving aside the fact that tu quoque is a rather pathetic fallacy, why not share with us your top three "societies that have used religion as ultimate justification for ... genocide."

 

[beerisit]

I'm sorry Jay, I didn't realize you were serious with the OP, in that case I agree.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I see both your wry humor & your legitimate point that believers are subject to many insulting thread themes.
Some have missed your sarcasm.

Sarcasm is wasted on the stupid, barbaric and evil. They are drawn to it like a moth to a flame never knowing what they are dealing with. :candle:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We have more than enough experience with societies that militantly reject religion and the result is not pretty. To pretend that state sponsored atheism is the sole cause for this ugliness would be absurd, but to paint it as no more than a curious coincidence would be remarkably stupid and/or dishonest.

So, what exactly are you suggesting? Are you saying that "state-sponsored atheism" was in some way to blame for the results of regimes of that of Stalin and Mao? How did atheism contribute to such atrocities?

 

[johnhanks]

Leaving aside the fact that tu quoque is a rather pathetic fallacy, why not share with us your top three "societies that have used religion as ultimate justification for ... genocide."

Hey, I asked you for yours first!

But if you insist, the Old Testament has to be the classic horse's mouth source; elsewhere the Aztecs and the crusaders come fairly readily to mind.

Bear in mind that a tu quoque response seeks to justify a position by saying "well you're just as bad"; I'm not trying to justify either side in this case.

So, which "societies that militantly reject religion" did you have in mind?

 

[predavlad]

Those who denigrate religion and all who are inspired by it while pretentiously insulate themselves from criticism with the childish mantra that atheism is no more than the absence of belief know nothing about history and even less about anthropology.

Most atheists don't denigrate religion, they criticize it. But certain religious people don't react well to the criticism of their own religion, because they feel that criticism is directed to them. I can assure you it is not.

I will try to give you an example. The atheist billboard that was erected in a couple of places in America had a quote from the bible: "Slaves, obey your masters" Colossians 3:22 - that is not taken out of context. If I actually believed that the Bible is inspired by god - I would have rejoiced. But christians got extremely mad, and even destroyed some of these billboards.

Any theist can quote from "God is not great" by Cristopher Hitchens or "The god delusion" by R. Dawkins, or even "Dune" by Frank Herbert, and all the other books I enjoy (not out of context of course) and I will not be mad.


And by the way - you confuse atheism (lack of belief in a deity) with hate for religion. They are not equivalent, and not even remotely similar.

Hate for religion is not all the time rational. It can be taken to the extreme, but it is caused most of the time by past experience with religion, and the people or actions who represent it - not by their lack of belief in a god.

And this hate for religion taken to the extreme is one of the underlying causes of atrocities caused by atheists against religion. Also, I would argue that it is similar (to a certain extent) to the hate one religious group has for another (just trying to make the point that it's not something only atheists have).

Cheers

PS: I actually did my best to not be offensive. If I failed - I do not apologize, because I don't require your permission to express my thoughts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sarcasm is wasted on the stupid, barbaric and evil.

Apparently. :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... elsewhere the Aztecs and the crusaders come fairly readily to mind.

That says much about your mind. Perhaps you could start a post on how the crusaders used religion to justify the Aztec genocide. You'll discover that the magnitude of your ignorance is, while predictable, more than a little remarkable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most atheists don't denigrate religion, they criticize it.

The OP is not addressing 'most atheists,' simple the adolescent bigots.

 

[beerisit]

The OP is not addressing 'most atheists,' simple the adolescent bigots.

It must be good to know that there are none of those who espouse to religious beliefs.

 

[johnhanks]

That says much about your mind. Perhaps you could start a post on how the crusaders used religion to justify the Aztec genocide.

No, the two are separate examples. The Aztec waged systematic war on their neighbours which they justified by the need to propitiate their gods; the European crusades were justified wholly by appeal to religion.

You'll discover that the magnitude of your ignorance is, while predictable, more than a little remarkable.

Your eagerness to insult anyone who disagrees with you does credit neither to you nor to your cause.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There is no good - or even coherent - answer to the question: its sole redeeming quality is that it's more honest than many.

I offer my own perspectives:

1) Every culture and society has determined their own set of social and moral purity laws. These are laws that include not only how to keep the individuals and the tribe/society safe, but also how to handle/control/cope with food, sex, trade, and death. What will seem arbitrary to some will seem absolute and immutable to others. I might shake my head at one culture's strict gender roles, but they might shake their heads at my strict food choices (local, organic, fair trade, etc).

2) Attending a performance of the ballet Giselle followed by a post production meet and greet of the cast offers a person a remarkable opportunity to transcend all that is stupid, barbaric, and evil.

3) Mu

 

[Kathryn]

No. Neither has adolescent comparisons and childish sophistry. But the absence of motivation is not necessarily without social consequences.

We have more than enough experience with societies that militantly reject religion and the result is not pretty. To pretend that state sponsored atheism is the sole cause for this ugliness would be absurd, but to paint it as no more than a curious coincidence would be remarkably stupid and/or dishonest.

We are a provisionally civilized species and religion, despite its human origins, limitations, and abuses, has long served to mitigate barbarism. Those who denigrate religion and all who are inspired by it while pretentiously insulate themselves from criticism with the childish mantra that atheism is no more than the absence of belief know nothing about history and even less about anthropology.

Right on - just as it would be stupid or dishonest to pretend that religion alone is the sole cause of other abuses done in the name of religion.

 

[Kathryn]

I would be interested to know which specific "societies that militantly reject religion" you have in mind, but suspect they are societies that merely replaced it with another all-embracing belief system whose ends were held to justify any means.

As you (perhaps unknowingly) point out so eloquently, evil can be done under the guise of just about any belief system or regime - religious or otherwise.

 

[johnhanks]

As you (perhaps unknowingly) point out so eloquently...

I don't know about the eloquently, but it certainly wasn't unknowingly.

... evil can be done under the guise of just about any belief system or regime - religious or otherwise.

Yes indeed, and historically one of religion's major functions in pretty well all cultures has been to provide just that guise. As religion acts as the arbiter of what is and is not moral, it (almost uniquely) can sanitise any act, however atrocious.