Printable View
Same thing. A projection of the worst, of the darkness lurking in the soul of man. Nothing relating to the affairs of humanity operates independently of human nature, not politics, not religion. Severing religion from its origins in human nature is like separating a tree from its roots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey
I'm sorry, but there are religions that do not have their roots in human nature...oh, but you don't believe that's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Watch "Tree of Life".
I believe that people who are in positions of power are driven by greed and the desire to control resources, but the average suicide bomber? He's being controlled by religion. If religion wasn't so societal and it wasn't taken so seriously, I think that people in positions of power would have a much more difficult time convincing people to kill each other and themselves.
Nah, it turns out people manage to kill each other just fine without religious reasons for doing so. Also, in those societies that had government-endorsed atheism (Communist Russia, the First French Republic during the reign of terror) that didn't stem killing by any means.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
A weird mixture of Kubrick's Space Odyssey and a story of oedipal struggle in a stereotypical southern family, with a LOT of discovery channel high-speed cam stock footage. Even though I usually enjoy symbolism and ambiguousity in films, this one didn't win me over. Might get better with multiple viewings, although I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I'm not talking about people killing each other, I'm talking about fanatics killing innocent people for absolutely no reason (that they know of - "so that people from my own country can gain maintain control of monetary gain via oil" is technically a reason, but if someone tried to sell them suicide bombing with that line I doubt they'd be too enthusiastic about the idea). Killing someone in a war because you are trying to protect the citizens or sovereignty of your nation is one thing - killing someone because your god is real and theirs is obviously isn't real (and I don't think I have to say, although I will anyway, that ALL gods are equally valid) which means that you can't tolerate their existance and have to blow them up, children and all, is something different entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Basically what I'm saying is that fighting people is sometimes necessary, but your resoning behind it and your main motivating factor should never be religion, that's just nuts. I've seen enough of it to make my stomach churn and to turn me off of organized religion for good. In today's world, religion is taken way too seriously by way too many loud, angry, horrible people.
Also, I'm not talking about communist Russia or the First French Republic, I'm talking about now, because that's what's pertinent. The global situation today, and the viewpoints and motivations of people today, are much different than half a century ago, or in 1800. Could people kill each other purely to force atheism? Sure, I could picture it, people could do anything. Do they? Not right now, no. Right now they're killing each other to force their religion, so that's what I'm going to worry about.
Oh, was that the main motivating factor?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Also since you refined your position from:
I'm assuming you've accepted this claim is wrong given the historical examples provided demonstrates people in positions of power can easily convince people to kill each other and themselves without religion (including innocents).Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Oh I fully acknowledge the possibility that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the cult of Dionysius, Mormonism, Bahai, Rastafarianism, Mithraism, Sikhism, Jainism and Scientology may be divinely inspired. Its impossible to know which if any though, the evidence for each being equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
But, Darcy, competing religious claims are sometimes contraries and sometimes contradictories, how then can the evidence for each be equal? You're not a dialetheist are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
There occurs no evidence for any of them. So the evidence is all equal, i.e., nil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
Um, no. The key phrase in the part of my post that you quoted was "more difficult." If people IN THIS SITUATION weren't convinced that they would be treated like gods in the afterlife do you really think they would have been as eager to bomb school children and kill themselves in the process? I doubt it. Also, you used an example from 1795 which no one cares about except for in an historical context. I'm talking about TODAY. Religious fanaticism is providing a lot of fuel for this mess, and if you don't believe that then you should probably watch the news more often. I could give you a stat that I came across the other day which states how many Christians have been murdered in Egypt since the 80's, but I have to find it. It was quite high. It's not just the taliban either, there are a lot of people who are causing problems in the middle east because they hold their religious organization way too close. We get them on litnet sometimes, "if you deny that Muhammad is the true prophet, blah blah blah." You must have come across a few, it's creepy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I also assert that if people didn't thump their bible so hard, they might actually think about other people before condemning homosexuals to hell and denying them their legal human rights on the grounds of "it's what God wants."
Also, if the Catholic church wasn't literally handed so much power and cash, do you think that there would be as many people currently dying of AIDS in Africa? Do you think that when it was exposed in 2005 that the current pope knowingly advocated the coverup of sexual abuse scandals in Texas he would have still been able to obtain immunity from prosecution on the grounds that he's head of state of the Holy See? People still throw their money and support at the catholic church, even though it's been irrefutably proven that the leaders knowlingly hid evidence of child molestation. Seriously, the fact that they STILL have followers is a testiment to the fact that people hold their religious organization too closely. If the heads of the organization are corrupt, change organizations. There's nothing sacred about a group that would come face to face with someone raping kids and then saying "we'd better not let this get out, it might hurt our image." I understand the value of spirituality, and I'll admit, I have some doubts about materialism. The organization itself though? They're not holy, they're just normal people who have too much power.
My favorite solution to decreasing the ferver with which people defend their religious organization is that we should make fun of it, and we should be allowed to make fun of it. This latter point is mostly regarding Islam since we're already allowed to mock Christianity (which is good), although the catholic church did once press for an Itallian comedian to be thrown in prison for five years for insulting the pope. You can't find a network that would so much as show an image of Muhammad, let alone allow their writers to make fun of him, because they're (understandably) afraid that they'll be bombed. I think that we should push for the ability to make light of Muhammad, and I guess we could start by doing so on the internet (because you can't bomb the internet). I've always thought that comedy has power in society, you can trace the affects of various comedic trends. *shrug* I was still reading cartoon strips from the French Revolution in highschool. Comedy affects public opinion, and it really plays a role in preventing people from taking something too much to heart, which is what I'm saying is a big problem right now in regards to people's relationship with their church.
You clearly are not understanding why I brought up the French Revolution and Communism. :banghead: The point is from what evidence we can look at from history it doesn't seem people would have any difficulty whatsoever finding other reasons to kill and oppress each other without religion as a pretext. So I'm talking about today too. If there was no religion today, people would still do awful crap to each other, plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
So belaboring the same points about the evils of religion seems to be you having a desire to strain you're typing fingers. It doesn't disprove anything I said.
Yes, religion can motivate some bad behavior, but given history and what I've seen of human behavior today, it isn't hard to imagine people finding other ways to justify these actions or simply performing other horrible actions.
Er, no. I got it. I addressed that point several posts ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
You seem to be saying "meh, if there were no religious fanatics everything would still be the same":Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Yeah, they'd still be doing all of the awful crap that they're already doing to each other that isn't religiously motivated, but they wouldn't do the religiously motivated stuff, which adds up to a lot. It would be worth the effort to subtract the religiously-motivated hate crimes. Unless you're saying that they'd still do the same stuff, except they'd find other reasons to do it, in which case I disagree. They'd still war over oil (they'd have less suicide bombers though, and less people randomly killing innocent people, people who are of their own nationality, while they're just minding their own business at school or church or something), but if there were no catholic church, would someone feel the need to step up in a secular way and attempt to convince Africans not to use condoms in the middle of an AIDS outbreak? What would motivate them to do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I think we'd have pretty much the same amount of violence and horrible behavior without religion. Humanity doesn't need much of an excuse to be horrible.
But that doesn't make sense, the suffering caused with religion as the main or primary motivating factor are numerically significant. How could reducing the motivation not decrease the behaviour? That would mean that if the Catholic church wasn't getting away with hiding child molestation for fifty years, someone else would. That doesn't reflect reality.
Religion isn't the cause. The cause is inside the people who commit the acts. Religion is their excuse. To use your example above, without the Catholic Church, the molesters who were covered for by the church would still be predators, and the people currently doing the covering up would be covering something else up wherever they were working. It's not about protecting child molesters in their mind; it's about protecting the church, which they see as bigger and more important. Were they working in government or the corporate world, they'd do the same, because that's their philosophy.
Drkshadow03 and Mutatis are correct IMO. People are the same, regardless of religion, political party, or what have you. The good people will be good, and the bad ones will be bad.
Well, I would say the prime factor is writting. The majority of big wars had to do with people writting "i will make a war with you" and the other said writting back "fine, saturday after the football"Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Very few of the wars are among illiterate leaders. I think you should consider it.
Calidore, while I agree with the overall tenor of your post I must take issue with the part in bold. There are such a high number of pedophile priests because the church forbids them from having sex or marrying. Their natual sex instinct is suppressed and thereby perverted. You do hear of coaches and other persons molesting children but not nearly as often as you hear of priests. The reason behind their not being allowed to marry is really quite sinister. I heard a historian explain that the vatican instituted this ban so that their priests would be left without heirs and their property thus turned over to the church. Much of the church's staggering fortune and land holdings have come about due to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
This makes sense. I'm wary of blaming religion for all the world's ills as some militant atheists are prone to do, but it is culpable for many atrocities that have happened or are happening. How many muslim youth could be persuaded to blow themelves and others up were it not for their faith rendering them pawns? Would there be any other reason for condom use to be deemed evil in aids-stricken Africa? I think not. If religion were to vanish the sum total of human suffering may meaningfully lessen. It would not dissapear however. For every evil done in the name of religion I could name several done for the sake of greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I disagree. My guess is that many pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood because they know they are sexually attracted to children, and they WANT to abstain from sex (because they know sex with children is both evil and socially unacceptable). Unfortunately, they are unable to abstain (and, no doubt, the Church is to blame because they have not rooted out a culture of sex abuse).Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I'd guess a high percentage of priests in the past were gay, for the same reason.
A Catholic with profound spiritual yearnings, feeling himself called upon to serve God, is going to enter the priesthood, regardless of sexuality. I'm sure there is an element of what you say, but its not enough to account for the high percentage of pedophiles in the priesthood. Its a silly rule and ought to be abolished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
My guess is just a guess. However, based on what we know about human sexuality it doesn't seem like people would suddenly become attracted to children just because they were not allowed to have sex. Priests could just as easily have elicit sex with adults, if that was their sexual proclivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I agree it's a silly rule, though.
I'm primarily talking about violence--murder, death, etc. I don't disagree that there is a clear link between Catholic priests and molestation, but I also wonder if these pedophiles need religion to commit these acts--it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still turned out to be pedophiles without becoming priests. It's not that someone else would, just that the same people would for a different reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Make sense or not, it's what I believe. I think religion is often more of an excuse than a reason for people to commit violence. A lot of the suicide bombers and the like come from very poor socio-economic situations, and are ripe from brain-washing. It's how most terrorists are recruited. They have nothing to live for, and once they are given something to live for, they latch on to it, even if it means committing suicide. If they didn't do it for religion, maybe their reasons would be completely political (which has already been the case).
All I'm saying is that violence will find a way. It doesn't need religion. I'm not defending religion here, I'm just saying that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else.
I agree with Mutis here, religion, comunism, fascism, liberty, freedom, patriotism, civilization - all of these ahave been used as flags to motivate the masses into behaving as wanted by the elite. Religion per se is not the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Besides, I am not religious, but what is not being accounted for in this discussion is the relief that religion has provided to millions of people. I mean we all know life is tough, especialy for those is the non western world, and we all have those dark moments. For many relligion offers them some hope, some relief from that pain. I do not care if it is an illusion or not, what the people feel is real and to want to take that away from them for the sake of "truth" or "progress" seems machinelike and soulless.
Well, that's not overweening at all, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Still, waiting to hear your response, Darcy. Or do you agree with Cafolini?Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.
That's also true, Darcy. We might be able to give Scientology some points for Dianetics. Problem confrontatiion made some scientific contributions to pshycology. But overall it is a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
That's also true, Darcy. We might be able to give Scientology some points for Dianetics. Problem confrontatiion made some scientific contributions to psychology. But overall it is a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Well I don't mean that I want all spirituallity to completely vanish and for everyone to become atheists, that would mean that people would be terrified and depressed when they and their loved ones are facing death and suffering. I've always believed that many people need to imagine that they're being taken care of. What I keep stressing is that people take their organization too seriously (that's really the key point), and they equate the organization with their god, when in reality there are several organizations offering spiritual guidance based on the same god. General public opinion should be altered (which is what happens when there is freedom of speech and expression) so that people will be persuaded by their societal norms to think for themselves and to be okay with questioning their religious authority figures. That way, if their organization is corrupt on the highest levels of it's operation or if their leaders seem to be going against the relatively peaceful teachings of their holy book by trying to convince their followers to hurt people, then everyone can feel free to change to a different organization. That takes power away from the corrupt, violent leaders. I think that it's worth my time and effort to work towards a time in which one's religious organization isn't taken too much to heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Of course child molesters would still be child molesters, but I think that there's a very good chance that their crimes would have come to light decades earlier (plus several molested children earlier) if they weren't actively hidden by the church. I also agree with Ecurb's point that paedophiles are attracted to the church often because they're able to work with kids in an environment to which everyone turns a blind eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I also disagree with people who claim that the catholic church turns people into paedophiles because of their no-sex law. If a normal person was told that they weren't allowed to have sex, and they got really, really horny, why would they suddenly decide to have sex with children? Why wouldn't they just bang the butcher's slutty wife who keeps giving them the eye?
So you don't think that it's being used in a huge way as a tool for control, or that it's the most dangerous tool for control since it's impossible to argue against (being a religion, there are no counter-arguments that will work) and also because while people all over the world are open to criticisms of political instiutions (everyone complains about the "damn government, no matter who's in charge), many people won't tolerate criticism for their religious institution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Well that sort of just seems like lazy thinking. If you honestly want to help things get better than they are right now, you've really got to take each situation one at a time and then try to figure out which stance might help things improve (and I believe that they can improve). It's too easy to just say "meh, people suck."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Human/inhuman violence has always been the result of demagogues, despots and nepotists using religion as a means to instigate war and conquest, OR mentally balanced freedom fighters defending rights and peace. All governments are ultimately based on faith. Ultimately what matters is what's the faith. Is it posed in freedom of religion, evolution and expansion of choices, or is it based on slavery to some religion, some culture and involution? That's a better question than the well-known and superficial one of 2br02b.
I agree. Do not think I'm defending the Catholic church in any way. The Catholic church simply sickens me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Yes, I think it's being used as a tool for control, just as many other things are.Quote:
So you don't think that it's being used in a huge way as a tool for control, or that it's the most dangerous tool for control since it's impossible to argue against (being a religion, there are no counter-arguments that will work) and also because while people all over the world are open to criticisms of political instiutions (everyone complains about the "damn government, no matter who's in charge), many people won't tolerate criticism for their religious institution?
Well, they do.Quote:
Well that sort of just seems like lazy thinking. If you honestly want to help things get better than they are right now, you've really got to take each situation one at a time and then try to figure out which stance might help things improve (and I believe that they can improve). It's too easy to just say "meh, people suck."
I believe a person can improve. I'm not sold on the idea that people can.
My question is: Do you think that if the clergy followed the law it would stop them from molesting children who just turned 18? Or you think that a child just stops being a child the day of his 18th birthday?
And a corollary quuestion: What does all of this have to do with celibacy? And please, please, please, do not come to me and tell me that the practice of celibacy was founded on the idea that a celibate priest would have more time to dedicate himself to his job.
Haha, I'm the exact opposite. I don't think that people often change, but I believe that their children can be better people than their parents were if they're raised in a more lighthearted world with wide-reaching social variation and connection (say, for example, one with the internet).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
The interesting thing is that there are more passages in the Bible condemning a celibacy requirement, than there are that would support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
So, the bible wants holy types to get it on? I never heard that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Be Fruitful and Multiply!Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I've heard that Buddhist monks are expected to be celibate. So celibacy is not something peculiar to Catholicism if I've got my facts straight.
Although I can sort of see a motivation for celibacy in putting all one's energy into worship or meditation or whatever one practices, having a family offers many more challenges that may even be more useful spiritually. When I see a couple fighting, and they claim to be of a particular religion, I assume that their religion is not very useful or they aren't effectively practicing it.
The same would go for atheists who fight within their family which brings this back to the OP which was about atheism and not religion. Do atheists offer any better practice to make their family lives better?
Dialeltheists think that some propositions are both true and false. But not in the sense that subjectivists do - that is, true for me and false you. Dialeltheists think that they are both true and false objectively. They reject the principle of non-contradiction, what Aristotle called "the most certain of all principles." Why would they do that? Well, certain paradoxical propositions do seem to be both true and false. Take the following proposition: "This proposition is false." Now, if it's true, then it's false. And if it's false, then it's true. The trouble is that this paradoxicalness only occurs with self-referential propositions. And I think it's merely an articulative problem - that is, not a logical problem, but a problem with certain man-made logics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
And you don't mean this hyperbolically? But to draw this conclusion, you need to canvass the religions for truth-claims, quantify them, assign truth values to them, and do the math. Surely you're not saying that you've done something like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88