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

[Kathryn]

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.

Atheist regimes do exactly the same thing. The tragic 20th century proves that beyond a doubt.

 

[johnhanks]

Atheist regimes do exactly the same thing. The tragic 20th century proves that beyond a doubt.

Their ideologies weren't as fit for purpose as religion, and (perhaps as a result) didn't last as long. What was particularly interesting about the regimes I assume you and Jayhawker Soule have in mind was the tendency of their ideologies, though initially and avowedly secular, to take on the trappings of religion (unquestionably authoritative texts, infallible charismatic leaders revered even after their death, and so on).

What I am arguing is that societies since prehistory have engendered religions which fulfill perfectly mundane functions, one of which has been the sanctification of expedient aggression (internal and external). Twentieth century societies (more accurately, ruling elites) that tried to jettison religion quickly found that some substitute was needed if those functions were to continue. As belief in religion's supernatural base becomes increasingly untenable, it will be interesting to see what further substitutes develop in the future.

 

[Kathryn]

Their ideologies weren't as fit for purpose as religion, and (perhaps as a result) didn't last as long. What was particularly interesting about the regimes I assume you and Jayhawker Soule have in mind was the tendency of their ideologies, though initially and avowedly secular, to take on the trappings of religion (unquestionably authoritative texts, infallible charismatic leaders revered even after their death, and so on).

What I am arguing is that societies since prehistory have engendered religions which fulfill perfectly mundane functions, one of which has been the sanctification of expedient aggression (internal and external). Twentieth century societies (more accurately, ruling elites) that tried to jettison religion quickly found that some substitute was needed if those functions were to continue. As belief in religion's supernatural base becomes increasingly untenable, it will be interesting to see what further substitutes develop in the future.

Until the Enlightenment, societies only had religion - they didn't have much science by which to understand the world.

Give non-religion the same length of time to mess things up and I bet you'll see the same results. Non religion is already off to a roaring start.

 

[johnhanks]

Until the Enlightenment, societies only had religion - they didn't have much science by which to understand the world.

No argument from me on that one. But are you really suggesting that science must inevitably displace religion?

Give non-religion the same length of time to mess things up and I bet you'll see the same results. Non religion is already off to a roaring start.

Is it? Overtly atheistic states hardly dominate the world stage at the moment. Religion is very strong in China, whatever the official party line might be, and Putin has the Orthodox Church on his side. North Korea, anyone?

 

[predavlad]

Give non-religion the same length of time to mess things up and I bet you'll see the same results. Non religion is already off to a roaring start.

Lets ignore religion for a moment. Let us take a child that believes in Santa Claus. What happens on Christmas? The child will expect presents.

What happens to a child who doesn't believe in Santa Claus - and furthermore - never heard of either Christmas or Santa Claus? The child will not expect anything on the 25th of December.

I hope you now understand how non religion cannot mess things up (because of the lack of belief in a god). It definitely can screw things up - but because of other reasons that are available and in use today. But at least the religious ways to screw things up will not be there

The only way that non religion could screw things up more than religion would be if the ONLY way you can get morals is from religious texts. And that's an abherant assumption.

 

[JustWondering]

Bigoted rubbish.

Nice counter arguement, very thought provoking.

 

[ChristineES]

Lets ignore religion for a moment. Let us take a child that believes in Santa Claus. What happens on Christmas? The child will expect presents.

What happens to a child who doesn't believe in Santa Claus - and furthermore - never heard of either Christmas or Santa Claus? The child will not expect anything on the 25th of December.

I hope you now understand how non religion cannot mess things up (because of the lack of belief in a god). It definitely can screw things up - but because of other reasons that are available and in use today. But at least the religious ways to screw things up will not be there

The only way that non religion could screw things up more than religion would be if the ONLY way you can get morals is from religious texts. And that's an abherant assumption.

Even without Christmas and Santa Claus, kids still expect their parents to give them things. I find it silly that people think religion is "root of all evil", the way I see it, it is being made a scapegoat for all evils. Humans are cause of evil- no matter if they follow religion or not.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

That was a truly stupid statement. :biglaugh:

I know, at least its true....

 

[Kathryn]

]Lets ignore religion for a moment. Let us take a child that believes in Santa Claus. What happens on Christmas? The child will expect presents.

If the parents teach them to expect presents they will, regardless of the presence of Santa Claus or not in the equation.

What happens to a child who doesn't believe in Santa Claus - and furthermore - never heard of either Christmas or Santa Claus? The child will not expect anything on the 25th of December.

All you're talking about is learned behavior and expectations. We all have those, whether religion plays into it or not.

I hope you now understand how non religion cannot mess things up (because of the lack of belief in a god). It definitely can screw things up - but because of other reasons that are available and in use today. But at least the religious ways to screw things up will not be there

The only way that non religion could screw things up more than religion would be if the ONLY way you can get morals is from religious texts. And that's an abherant assumption.

I'm sorry - I don't see how this has anything to do with the price of milk. All you seem to be saying is that both religious and non religious ideas can influence bad behavior - which is what I've been saying.

I've added, however, that ultimately we are each responsible for our actions regardless of what we've been taught.

 

[JustWondering]

All you seem to be saying is that both religious and non religious ideas can influence bad behavior - which is what I've been saying.

I've added, however, that ultimately we are each responsible for our actions regardless of what we've been taught.

From an atheist's perspective religion is unnecessary. If religion were to disappear there would still be crime, war, and @$$holes in the world. However, the atheists belief is that without religion people would be more reasonable, life would be more valuable, and con artist leeches would have one less tool to use to bamboozle people with. From an atheists perspective things like heavens gate, 911, and people not getting their children proper medical treatment for treatable ailments because its against their religion would never have happened. Science would have never been impeded by god fearing people who preffered dogma over rational thought. There would also be one less (non) issue to divide people. Regardless of what you think a persons religion is going to influence their world view and actions. Since religion is founded not on reason and evidence but emotion and faith, it is inevitable that it will lead to irrational thoughts and actions, imo.

 

[johnhanks]

... I find it silly that people think religion is "root of all evil"...

Do many people really think that? Have you actually met anyone who's told you that religion is, literally, the "root of all evil"?

... the way I see it, it is being made a scapegoat for all evils. Humans are cause of evil- no matter if they follow religion or not.

But humans also need a source of legitimation for their actions, especially when those actions transgress day-to-day moral strictures. This is one of the functions religion has always fulfilled.

To blame religion for fulfilling this role is futile: it's a tool, being used for its purpose. Whether people and societies would treat each other better if the tool weren't available is a moot point.

 

[ChristineES]

From an atheist's perspective religion is unnecessary. If religion were to disappear there would still be crime, war, and @$$holes in the world. However, the atheists belief is that without religion people would be more reasonable, life would be more valuable, and con artist leeches would have one less tool to use to bamboozle people with. From an atheists perspective things like heavens gate, 911, and people not getting their children proper medical treatment for treatable ailments because its against their religion would never have happened. Science would have never been impeded by god fearing people who preffered dogma over rational thought. There would also be one less (non) issue to divide people. Regardless of what you think a persons religion is going to influence their world view and actions. Since religion is founded not on reason and evidence but emotion and faith, it is inevitable that it will lead to irrational thoughts and actions, imo.

You seem to be working under the notion that religious people do not have reason. Only a small percentage of folks did the things that you mentioned: People refusing medical care, 9/11, etc. You are also working under the assumption that atheists, since they have no religious beliefs are immune to such things. I totally disagree. Atheists have no religious beliefs, but they can have other agendas that have absolutely nothing to do with God and/or spirits- and they can be just as deadly (I know that not all atheists have any agendas, I meant they CAN have them).
On top of that, what gives you the idea that people of religion have no reason? Sure some theists have no reason, but some atheists have no reason, either. What makes you think that we of religious faith have no logic? Sure, some theists have no logic and some atheists have no logic, either.
All this destruction and such is the result of human failings and not religion or not religion alone.

 

[ChristineES]

Do many people really think that? Have you actually met anyone who's told you that religion is, literally, the "root of all evil"?
But humans also need a source of legitimation for their actions, especially when those actions transgress day-to-day moral strictures. This is one of the functions religion has always fulfilled.

To blame religion for fulfilling this role is futile: it's a tool, being used for its purpose. Whether people and societies would treat each other better if the tool weren't available is a moot point.

I was just being a little sarcastic when I said people believe that religion is the "root of all evil". Of course, most people don't believe that. That said, religion isn't the ONLY excuse people will use for acts of evil- there are plenty more they can use.

 

[1robin]

From an atheist's perspective religion is unnecessary. If religion were to disappear there would still be crime, war, and @$$holes in the world. However, the atheists belief is that without religion people would be more reasonable, life would be more valuable, and con artist leeches would have one less tool to use to bamboozle people with. From an atheists perspective things like heavens gate, 911, and people not getting their children proper medical treatment for treatable ailments because its against their religion would never have happened. Science would have never been impeded by god fearing people who preffered dogma over rational thought. There would also be one less (non) issue to divide people. Regardless of what you think a persons religion is going to influence their world view and actions. Since religion is founded not on reason and evidence but emotion and faith, it is inevitable that it will lead to irrational thoughts and actions, imo.

There has been too much violence in the name of religion but when compared to Atheistic regimes like Stalin, Mao, Pol pot or leaders that used evolution to justify their actions like Hitler's Germany it pales in comparison. Stalin alone a devout anti-religious nut killed 15 million. Hitler another 10 directly and 50 indirectly. The rest while in the hundreds of thousands aren't worth mentioning in the same place as those giants. The kicker is that they were acting consistently with Atheism and non-theistic evolution while at least the Crusaders and inquisitors were acting contrary to the religion. Atheism or non-theistic evolution provide no basis for the sanctity of life or objective morals. Even right and wrong cannot be justified objectively from a Godless position.

As Dostoevsky said "If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted".

"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral; everything would be lawful, even cannibalism."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

 

[Sunstone]

There has been too much violence in the name of religion but when compared to Atheistic regimes like Stalin, Mao, Pol pot or leaders that used evolution to justify their actions like Hitler's Germany it pales in comparison. Stalin alone a devout anti-religious nut killed 15 million. Hitler another 10 directly and 50 indirectly. The rest while in the hundreds of thousands aren't worth mentioning. The kicker is that they were acting consistently with Atheism and non-theistic evolution while at least the Crusaders and inquisitors were acting contrary to the religion. Atheism or non-theistic evolution provide no basis for the sanctity of life or objective morals. Even right and wrong cannot be justified objectively from a Godless position.

As Dostoevsky said "If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted".

"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral; everything would be lawful, even cannibalism."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Hogwash. There is nothing in atheism or non-theistic evolution that logically mandates you must be a barbarian. Or do you have some rationale that you haven't yet shared with us?

 

[Kathryn]

You seem to be working under the notion that religious people do not have reason. Only a small percentage of folks did the things that you mentioned: People refusing medical care, 9/11, etc. You are also working under the assumption that atheists, since they have no religious beliefs are immune to such things. I totally disagree. Atheists have no religious beliefs, but they can have other agendas that have absolutely nothing to do with God and/or spirits- and they can be just as deadly (I know that not all atheists have any agendas, I meant they CAN have them).
On top of that, what gives you the idea that people of religion have no reason? Sure some theists have no reason, but some atheists have no reason, either. What makes you think that we of religious faith have no logic? Sure, some theists have no logic and some atheists have no logic, either.
All this destruction and such is the result of human failings and not religion or not religion alone.

You're cookin' with real butter now, sister!

 

[1robin]

Hogwash. There is nothing in atheism or non-theistic evolution that logically mandates you must be a barbarian. Or do you have some rationale that you haven't yet shared with us?

I did not claim that Atheism forces you to be a barbarian. Atheists can be moral but they can not justify their morality with their Atheism. There is no objective basis to appeal to, to call Cannibals evil and Mother Theresa good. Anyones subjective morals are just as valid as any others. Moral absolutes are meaningless in Atheism.

 

[Me Myself]

As much as knowiing the chart of the elements is meaningless in learning how to dance.

they are simply unrelated subjects.

 

[ChristineES]

You're cookin' with real butter now, sister!

Thanks! (I tried to frubal you, but...)

 

[gnomon]

There has been too much violence in the name of religion but when compared to Atheistic regimes like Stalin, Mao, Pol pot or leaders that used evolution to justify their actions like Hitler's Germany it pales in comparison. Stalin alone a devout anti-religious nut killed 15 million. Hitler another 10 directly and 50 indirectly. The rest while in the hundreds of thousands aren't worth mentioning in the same place as those giants. The kicker is that they were acting consistently with Atheism and non-theistic evolution while at least the Crusaders and inquisitors were acting contrary to the religion. Atheism or non-theistic evolution provide no basis for the sanctity of life or objective morals. Even right and wrong cannot be justified objectively from a Godless position.

As Dostoevsky said "If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted".

"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral; everything would be lawful, even cannibalism."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

On what evidence of history do you base this claim. Are you merely stating that since Stalin was an atheist and x number of people were killed by the State it is logical to conclude that atheism killed x number of people.

And which religion provides a foundation of objective morality, how does it provide for objective morality and what is the answer for those other religions that stand in contradiction to that religion which provides a foundation for objective morality? While you ponder that I'll go look at the Episcopalian Churches consecrating homosexual bishops while radical Protestants in Africa are trying to legislate physical punishment against homosexuals.

edit: Just saw what thread this was in. Way off topic now. If you would rather ignore that and give me a killer recipe for fudge brownies I'd be cool with that.

edit, again: Crap. I wasn't going to get in this thread in any serious way.

FORMALDEHYDE*TETRA*METHYL*AMIDO*FLUORIMUM