religion

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stalin, Mao, pol pot, the Young Turks, Hitler (probably an occultist so not sure he belongs)

All secular / atheist. All are the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century.

I'd love to see the Mormon homicide / violent crime rate compared to other groups in the US.

Yeah Hitler was definitely an occultist. But then again so was Darwin, so it really doesn't conflict with his scientistic position. Most people view the rise of secularism as the end of superstition, when actually as secularism increases in an area, so does occultism. Hard to ignore that correlation.

[Aviann]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These things happen because of ideas. The idea of vicarious redemption through Christ is extremely immoral. Modern day Christianity is literally a cult predicated on human sacrifice which assures its followers they can do away with every wrongdoing of their past by simply accepting Christ as their lord and savior. Solipsistic worldviews are hugely, unequivocally immoral. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. Vicarious redemption is inherent in Christianity. This is not in any way a good thing. It teaches that if you simply give yourself over to Christ you can rid yourself of every sin you've ever committed or ever will commit. And it doesn't end there - in doing so, you'll not only survive your own death, but you can take pleasure in the condemnation of the unworthy - those who've blasphemed - who will, rest assured, spend an eternity in hellfire for their sins. This is absolute poison. Here's an idea, how about you take responsibility for your actions in this life, in this world.


Once again trying to make it look like religion has a monopoly or some sort of hidden access to kindness and charity, but no one's buying it. There are just as many secular, non-religious charitable organizations as there are of the religious, except the non-religious charities don't attempt to proselytize and win converts to a sadistic cult. Non-religious groups don't carry out charity in hopes for good karma to carry them into the next life - they do it for the betterment of this life, for the betterment of this world. Culture, charity, and yes, even kindness will be perfectly fine without religion, I can assure you. Neither spirituality nor art requires bullshit superstitious immoral beliefs, and humanity as a whole will be much better off without them as well. Good riddance.

Yes, yes, and YES!

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure this has already been discussed at great length in the previous pages but, in short, it's not a problem for me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter. The world is a very big place, and humanity as a whole has better things to do than concern itself with any one person's petty grievances over another's beliefs. I don't care what anyone believes - I don't care if you believe in one god or twenty gods; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However, when beliefs become indoctrinated into scripture and methodically and mandatorily doled out as education, it then becomes not only my problem but everyone else's as well. Fortunately, here in the States we now live in a post-secularist society and these kind of teachings are no longer mandatory. Religious studies are still very much a required part of many European societies, and I hope I don't need to point out the horrific state of affairs in many of the middle-eastern and Asian countries that have to put up with violent, militarized groups that take literal interpretations of religious scripture to the extreme.

These things happen because of ideas. The idea of vicarious redemption through Christ is extremely immoral. Modern day Christianity is literally a cult predicated on human sacrifice which assures its followers they can do away with every wrongdoing of their past by simply accepting Christ as their lord and savior. Solipsistic worldviews are hugely, unequivocally immoral. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. Vicarious redemption is inherent in Christianity. This is not in any way a good thing. It teaches that if you simply give yourself over to Christ you can rid yourself of every sin you've ever committed or ever will commit. And it doesn't end there - in doing so, you'll not only survive your own death, but you can take pleasure in the condemnation of the unworthy - those who've blasphemed - who will, rest assured, spend an eternity in hellfire for their sins. This is absolute poison. Here's an idea, how about you take responsibility for your actions in this life, in this world.



Once again trying to make it look like religion has a monopoly or some sort of hidden access to kindness and charity, but no one's buying it. There are just as many secular, non-religious charitable organizations as there are of the religious, except the non-religious charities don't attempt to proselytize and win converts to a sadistic cult. Non-religious groups don't carry out charity in hopes for good karma to carry them into the next life - they do it for the betterment of this life, for the betterment of this world. Culture, charity, and yes, even kindness will be perfectly fine without religion, I can assure you. Neither spirituality nor art requires bullshit superstitious immoral beliefs, and humanity as a whole will be much better off without them as well. Good riddance.

You do realize that China and North Korea are atheist states? Dude, evil isn't religion. It isn't wconomic. It isn't social. It comes from people who believe that they have the right to tell others how they should live. You're absolutely right... Religious extremism is a HUGE problem. But so is the Chinese one party state. Any form of political/governmental extremism is a bad thing.

My point is twofold: religion is a sociological and historical development. It is inseparably tied to our advancement.
The other point is that you saying "we're better off without it" is identical to a Muslim extremist saying that we're better off without Yazidis. Just because you see a group as detrimental to humanity doesn't make them so, and it certainly doesn't elevate you to a position to have the decision over what religions, philosophies, and cultures are acceptable.

[Patriam1066]

Better off without it....

http://www.the-american-interest.com...kong-protests/

Damn those Christians, fighting for democracy.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure this has already been discussed at great length in the previous pages but, in short, it's not a problem for me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter. The world is a very big place, and humanity as a whole has better things to do than concern itself with any one person's petty grievances over another's beliefs. I don't care what anyone believes - I don't care if you believe in one god or twenty gods; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However, when beliefs become indoctrinated into scripture and methodically and mandatorily doled out as education, it then becomes not only my problem but everyone else's as well. Fortunately, here in the States we now live in a post-secularist society and these kind of teachings are no longer mandatory. Religious studies are still very much a required part of many European societies, and I hope I don't need to point out the horrific state of affairs in many of the middle-eastern and Asian countries that have to put up with violent, militarized groups that take literal interpretations of religious scripture to the extreme.

These things happen because of ideas. The idea of vicarious redemption through Christ is extremely immoral. Modern day Christianity is literally a cult predicated on human sacrifice which assures its followers they can do away with every wrongdoing of their past by simply accepting Christ as their lord and savior. Solipsistic worldviews are hugely, unequivocally immoral. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. Vicarious redemption is inherent in Christianity. This is not in any way a good thing. It teaches that if you simply give yourself over to Christ you can rid yourself of every sin you've ever committed or ever will commit. And it doesn't end there - in doing so, you'll not only survive your own death, but you can take pleasure in the condemnation of the unworthy - those who've blasphemed - who will, rest assured, spend an eternity in hellfire for their sins. This is absolute poison. Here's an idea, how about you take responsibility for your actions in this life, in this world.



Once again trying to make it look like religion has a monopoly or some sort of hidden access to kindness and charity, but no one's buying it. There are just as many secular, non-religious charitable organizations as there are of the religious, except the non-religious charities don't attempt to proselytize and win converts to a sadistic cult. Non-religious groups don't carry out charity in hopes for good karma to carry them into the next life - they do it for the betterment of this life, for the betterment of this world. Culture, charity, and yes, even kindness will be perfectly fine without religion, I can assure you. Neither spirituality nor art requires bullshit superstitious immoral beliefs, and humanity as a whole will be much better off without them as well. Good riddance.

Once again you are conflating what people say the bible says with what it actually says. The bible does not say that you have an immortal soul, that is an extra-biblical doctrine with Babylonian origins. The bible does not say that you have an immortal soul, again that is an extra-biblical doctrine with Babylonian origins. What the bible actually teaches about death can be summed up in two verses.
Eccl. 9:5,6 "5 For the living know* that they will die,+ but the dead know nothing at all,+ nor do they have any more reward,* because all memory of them is forgotten.+ 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun."

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You do realize that China and North Korea are atheist states?

In Orwell's 1984 it's also assumed there's no more religion - there's no church in 1984, not even a tame state church. No one mentions the idea of faith except in big brother, so it's as if it's an entirely secular dictatorship. In North Korea, you might think this is also the case since it has an officially communistic ideology, but it's not - it's the most religious state you can possibly imagine.

Although Kim Jong-un has inexplicably gone missing, and North Korea is currently being run by a sort of de facto "supreme leader" - his sister Kim Yo-jong - he isn't actually the president of North Korea. That title was given to his grandfather, the late Kim Il-sung, who at the time of his death in 1994 was given the title. He is still designated in the North Korean constitution as the country's "Eternal President". In a theocracy people are required to worship the same god as their leaders, but North Korea takes it a step further - their citizens are made to worship their dear leader as if he were a god himself.

If you think North Korea is entirely atheistic in nature, I suggest you read some testimonies from some of those who've defected and were fortunate enough to make it out alive. As Christopher Hitchens said, North Korea isn't a secular state; it's a necrocracy, or a thanatocracy, or a mausolocracy. It's theocracy taken to the highest extreme you can possibly take it to.

[paulgiamatti]

And w/r/t China, I mean look, I'm not saying Christians cannot or do not fight for just causes or perform moral actions. I'm simply saying that faith is not a requirement to do so, and it doesn't need to be taught to children in schools. Upholding a moral society is everyone's responsibility, not just religion's.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And w/r/t China, I mean look, I'm not saying Christians cannot or do not fight for just causes or perform moral actions. I'm simply saying that faith is not a requirement to do so, and it doesn't need to be taught to children in schools. Upholding a moral society is everyone's responsibility, not just religion's.

I'm not sure why we're arguing then. I don't disagree with this. I'm just telling you that when you say "we're better off without religion," that you couldn't possibly be more wrong. There are so many assumptions there, like 1) religion hasn't helped us
2) religion doesn't continue to help us
3) that good / bad are solely the domain of people's religious convictions.

There is so much going on in the world that happens completely independent of religion, and if it were abolished, would continue to happen.

If you were to ask me though, from my limited travelings on this planet, I would say that Christians are without a doubt the most moral group. I would say Buddhists are a close second. That's just my opinion. I don't think attacking them accomplishes anything except demonstrate the ignorance of those vilifying people they don't understand.

I said this earlier in this thread. There is a reason that Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, NZ, Australia, Canada, UK, US, Finland, Estonia . . . .etc, are all overwhelmingly successful. Even if these places are post-Christian, you cannot separate their common Protestant heritage from why they are successful today.

Religion isn't pointless. It never has been. It's responsible for things that you probably take for granted. The Enlightenment, the secular movement that probably had more to do with Europe's current culture than anything other than the World Wars, doesn't happen without the Protestant Reformation.

Also, the first universities on this planet were Islamic. I could google Islamic polymaths and tell you what they did, but I'll let you do that yourself.

Religion is timeless. It has always been important. It will always remain important. And even if Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are eliminated, rest assured, people will follow something different. It's my profound hope, that if these things are replaced, they are replaced with something better. I honestly don't think that they would be. Good luck finding better teachers than Jesus or Buddha.

Saadi Shirazi, a devout Persian Sunni:


Adam's sons are body limbs, to say;
For they're created of the same clay.
Should one organ be troubled by pain,
Others would suffer severe strain.
Thou, careless of people's suffering,
Deserve not the name, "human being".

Much better in Persian

http://vimeo.com/53253260

go to 33:00 minutes in and listen to about 37:00

[Patriam1066]

I am not saying that one is only moral if they believe in God. I don't think being an atheist precludes you from having a sense of morality, or even from getting into heaven if there is one. I also think that being religious doesn't preclude you from being intelligent, thoughtful, and a contributing member of society.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure why we're arguing then. I don't disagree with this. I'm just telling you that when you say "we're better off without religion," that you couldn't possibly be more wrong. There are so many assumptions there, like 1) religion hasn't helped us
2) religion doesn't continue to help us
3) that good / bad are solely the domain of people's religious convictions.

There is so much going on in the world that happens completely independent of religion, and if it were abolished, would continue to happen.

If you were to ask me though, from my limited travelings on this planet, I would say that Christians are without a doubt the most moral group. I would say Buddhists are a close second. That's just my opinion. I don't think attacking them accomplishes anything except demonstrate the ignorance of those vilifying people they don't understand.

I said this earlier in this thread. There is a reason that Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, NZ, Australia, Canada, UK, US, Finland, Estonia . . . .etc, are all overwhelmingly successful. Even if these places are post-Christian, you cannot separate their common Protestant heritage from why they are successful today.

Religion isn't pointless. It never has been. It's responsible for things that you probably take for granted. The Enlightenment, the secular movement that probably had more to do with Europe's current culture than anything other than the World Wars, doesn't happen without the Protestant Reformation.

Also, the first universities on this planet were Islamic. I could google Islamic polymaths and tell you what they did, but I'll let you do that yourself.

Religion is timeless. It has always been important. It will always remain important. And even if Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are eliminated, rest assured, people will follow something different. It's my profound hope, that if these things are replaced, they are replaced with something better. I honestly don't think that they would be. Good luck finding better teachers than Jesus or Buddha.

Saadi Shirazi, a devout Persian Sunni:


Adam's sons are body limbs, to say;
For they're created of the same clay.
Should one organ be troubled by pain,
Others would suffer severe strain.
Thou, careless of people's suffering,
Deserve not the name, "human being".

Much better in Persian

http://vimeo.com/53253260

go to 33:00 minutes in and listen to about 37:00

I'm pretty sure it just comes down to people like PaulG not wanting anyone anywhere telling them what is or isn't moral. All the while not realizing that he is doi g the exact same thing.
You're absolutely right though, the removal of organized religion would hardly mean the end of religion itself. And if you think that religion based on centuries old holy books is immoral, you'll be very disappointed in the replacement.