Religion = Evil [RIP Dr. George Tiller]

[S O F I]

Are you part of a religion that caused that genocide?

the religion didn't cause the genocide (just to make sure i'm clear) but I am the same religion as the people who commited the genocide.

now?

And I agree with that assesment. Hitler brainwashed the people of Germany by preying on their weaknesses. Making them believe that Jews were responsible for the problems of the society and therefore making them believe that eradicating them wouldn't be a bad thing.

While many of those people were not Nazi's themselves, they did support the Nazi's whether it was directly or indirectly by not doing them. They believed what they were told, the person telling these things based it off his own interpretations of his religion, and they didn't question it. While Hitler was a political leader and not a religious one, the same rules apply.

what about those who weren't brainwashed and knew what was going on but didn't fight back?

I have a Muslim friend who pro-actively spreads change through spreading of knowledge, awareness, and an insider perspective, that if applied on a larger scale could easily bring down the support of the Taliban and would therefore combat suicide bombings.

Taliban receives support because the West meddles in Mid-East affairs. What kind of knowledge does he spread in regards to that?

Clearly, I don't expect someone to act like Rambo and rip the bombs of someone's chest....but it starts with KNOWLEDGE, and the awareness he spreads prevents would-be suicide bombers in the first place by giving them a different perspective.

How does he spread knowledge to youth shacked up in the hills of Pakistan who have no access to TV, radio, and the Internet? He's not...*gasps* telepathic, is he?

Surely you aren't suggesting that religion doesn't bond people together on a stronger level than nationality.

I was merely saying that we as a people are a part of a plethora of groups and we can't be accountable for every decision that some in our groups make.

because that is your argument...that you are responsible for whatever the %15 in your group do.

then hell fucking yeah I'd fight against those people that claimed to be representing the same thing I was but weren't. I'm talking on the level of serious extremists like Al Quaeda/the Taliban.

So, you'd have no problem with the civilian casualties and the suffering that would come with it to your own innocent people?

if you are Muslim are you feel that the extremists are detrimental to your religion (as MANY Western Muslims rightly do), the right thing to do would be to join forces with the other side that is attempting to quash the extremists, no?

Depends on a lot of things, mainly the intentions of the other side and their way of approach.

By not being a part of the solution you are part of the problem. There's no sitting on the fence in this scenario.

I think it depends on the situation. I don't think it applies in the situations you described at all. I mean, Voltaire said every man is guilty of all the good he did not do...but then who's not guilty?

not every time, but a large chunk of the time. And even when they aren't the root cause, they are a large problem in trying to solve that root cause. They don't help the situation, they hinder it even further.

if you don't attack the root of the problem, you can't solve it.

Also, you said civilian casualties are inevitable in war, and in most situations, yes. Does that make it easier for you to face the reality of killing your own people?

 

[Duke]

I suppose this isn't the right time for a funny cat picture...

 

[ArtsyGirl]

 

[cS bIsHoP]

The fact is Casey Rain; You either see the light or you don't, all else is talk. I'm not saying the light is real. I've seen you use the word logic, almost every post. Now logic is something that should have a table, to define what is logic and vice versa. Logic is loosely statistics, it's probability. So logically, do you think you or any group of people will ever be able to overthrow religion? No. So you should probably give up your non conformity, non holy war. Logically speaking (which is the only speaking you enjoy), do you think even if you could logically change these beliefs, that the way you talk about would be the best way to do it. Ah, sweet, sweet, No. Logically, are you better than a person, because you are smarter than them? Many serial killers have been so called "geniuses". (I'm sure they were Christains, those slimy bastards.) Nope. You sure think you are, though, you "intelligent" revolutionary. So this is why I type this windy message, if I am to use logistics and facts, the only true logic I see in any of your messages is you are a hyper-douchebag. Even in your title there is anti-logic. Religion is evil because, some religous nut killed a doctor. This is ironic and stupid. You are an intelligent man, so you must know, one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not kill"? All of your gripes deal with people, not religion. Also, half of the government officials are surreptitious Atheist, for obvious reasons. To end with more juicy, seductive logic, this world will not change for the better, with or without atheism at dominance and that, is, FACT.

 

[yak pac fatal]

believe in what u wanna believe but dont judge

this message is approved by chuck

 

[Euphanasia]

Sofi, i would like to say that both you and masta, despite our massive disagreement on this subject, are two of my favorite people on this board.

Religion is the explicit cause of the conflicts mentioned. If the quarrel is over land, it has to do with whatever God said about who gets what.

 

[ill-matic]

Just because Faith has been used by Man as a justification for conflict, how does that make the Faith itself a bad thing?

If I came with a message, and someone read that message wrong, and thus used it to committ a bad act, then who is at fault? Is it my message that was bad, or is it the fault of the person who misread my message?

My point is, religion, and faith itself is not the bad thing here. The bad thing is people. People who fail to understand what the message is; people who use this message for their own agendas; people who purposely manipulate the message to do something for themselves.

 

[ill-matic]

The New Testament, if read properly, can co-exist with science. The themes and the ideas expressed in the New Testament are very relevant in contemporary society, just as it was thousands of years ago. Why is this? It is because it provides a philosophy on the human condition - which, although our surroundings have changed significantly - remains essentially unchanged. We have deceit, adultery, envy, greed, desire, temptations; all of which existed thousands of years ago. "Salvation", an idea preached by Jesus, is referring to stepping outside of all that bullshit, and seeing what life should really be about. The fact that we have theories on evolution, physical and factual evidence to support hypothesis does not in ANY way discredit the value of Jesus' words, becuase those ideas offered by him are universal and timeless, and are to do with the HUMAN CONDITION which has not really changed.

 

[ill-matic]

Jesus was NOT a "miracle worker". Jesus was an ordinary man who preached the message of God. The point is to show that an ordinary man, like you and i, is capable of turning away from the bullshit of our world and to embrace something a lot more deeper. The point is to show that anyone is capable of resisting temptations, and living a life that is not riddled with bullshit, but something more "spiritual".

Did Jesus heal a blind man?

For so many people they read this story and just took it at face value. They claim he physically made a blind man see again by just touching his face. But it's not meant to be read like that. The fact is, Jesus was preaching a particular message.. a certain philosophy. He was trying to make people SEE how they could live differently. Healing a "blind" man is symbolic of him opening someone's eyes to a different way of life.

Feeding the 4000 with a loaf of bread and one fish

At face value, again, it appears Jesus was able to feed 4000 people with scraps. Everyone gapes their mouths in awe and amazement. But no, again this is a story with symbolic undertones. The point this story was trying to deliver was that you can do SO much, and have such a BIG effect on people even when doing something so little. By lending someone a shoulder to cry on... by listening to someone when they're upset. Such small things can have a profound effect on people. This ties in with the parable of the mustard seed, which begins so small yet grows into something so large. That story is implying the exact same idea.

My point is, people have read too much of this at face value, and have failed to grasp the true essence of the stories and the ideas. People have a shallow understanding of what it's all about. Their understanding is limited to some superficial shit. But is that the fault of the text itself, or is that the fault of the people who misread it?

 

[Sebastian]

Just because Faith has been used by Man as a justification for conflict, how does that make the Faith itself a bad thing?

We explained it in this thread.

If I came with a message, and someone read that message wrong, and thus used it to committ a bad act, then who is at fault? Is it my message that was bad, or is it the fault of the person who misread my message?

If your message is a clear one, existing of one sentence like "Do not kill!" and some guy steps out of the door and shoots someone else, clearly the message is not the problem and cant held to be accountable for this action.

You do realise though (i hope) that its way different with some holy scriptures for example, dont you? You cant just say the message was misinterpreted because there is no clear message behind it. Or sometimes it even leans heavily towards the bad side ("Kill those who..." bla bla).

And adressing your last post:

Do you think the part of Jesus rising from the dead is just another kind of allegory? Or do you think it really happened?

Also, your argument is very similar to how people said that bystanders in Nazi Germany were just as responsible for the Holocaust as those who committed such atrocities.

I wonder if Sebastian would thank your post there..

I think the discussion drifted a bit too far away from the main point but anyway, let me give my opinion to this part of the discussion:

Those mentioned bystanders in Nazi Germany could never be as responsible for the things that happened as the people who actually committed the crimes. Even from a logical point of view its not justified to say that.

It takes one step more to actually kill someone, than "only" standing by and watching someone else doing it.

If everyone would have been a "bystander" then we would have had no dead people because there would have been no murderers. - Thats just theoretical speaking but i hope you get the point.

However, bystanders are not always free from guilt. Example: If you see two guys beating up another guy somewhere on the street, its not acceptable for you to just pass by and do nothing to help the victim. You are in some way responsible because you might have had the opportunity to change the result of this beating/situation. - So again, bystanders are not as responsible as the actual participants.

 

[ArtsyGirl]

Except when those bystanders are the ones that told the gestapo where Jews were hiding etc.

 

[Bobby Sands]

Your religion is a load of fucking shite to me, and all religions are. I think we're past this point now. I have many valid points in this debate but all you are able to say in your defence consists of the following:


"That's shite"
AND
"You're crazed".


You almost sound as if you are trying to convince yourself.....and not me.




Then why is the news full of stories like this?

Irish priests beat, raped children in decades of abuse: Report | WORLD News



This kind of thing is widespread, not just, as in this example, in YOUR religion, but in ALL religions.

How is it that these religious authority figures have been able to get away with this behaviour for so long? Because they use their closed religious communities to spread brainwashing. They claim to their worshippers that they are sinners and are going to hell (fucking load of shite, there is no hell) and scare them into believing every word they say. They rule via scare tactics and it's despicable, and everybody does it, all the way from your local preacher who will endlessly recite bullshit bible dogma to "scare" you into having morals while they are corrupt fuckers themselves, to the pope who does the same thing on a larger level.

I've met a few Catholic priests in my time and one of them in particular was probably the most evil, sordid person you could ever meet.




No. If all the churches were destroyed, people didn't congregate or discuss their joined religion, people were not able to get into positions of religious power over other people (isn't your god supposed to love everyone equally anyway??), and people who did believe just kept it to their damn selves and didn't let it have any influence over their decisions in a social or working context, that would be progress.

Unfortunately, it's not like that. You've got morons like George W Bush, who controlled an entire nation for 8 years, believing he was "God's chosen servant" or some fucking horseshit like that, and that gave him the power to do what he wanted to do. Hitler was the same way. Many kings and political leaders have been.

And even now the people in states like California who are denying other people human rights (like the gay marriage issue) are doing it BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, when their beliefs shouldnt have a single bit of influence over the decisions they make as social representatives.

First of all, what you said in your earlier post was a load of tripe. There is no logic to it.

I said that it never happened in my community as far as i am aware. Yes it did happen in other parts of the country. I never denied this so why are you making out that i did. Ireland is a totally different country now to what was back then. I agree with some of the points made there though. What happened was disgusting and Ireland back in those days was a horrible dark place where religion dominated people's lives. Do you actually think i live in accordance with or agree with everything the catholic church tells me? No and neither do the majority. I interpret things my way and form my own opinions.

You met one priest and he wasnt very nice. And your point is?. A priest played on our hurling team a few years ago and was one of the nicest guys you could meet. On the other hand i have met priests whom i havent liked very much. In all walks of life, you will get assholes. Its just a fact of life. Why should priests be any different? they are human after all.

Young men have the choice to become a priest if they want. I could join the priesthood tomorrow if i wanted to and after years may become a canon or a bishop and so on. Its not very appealing to someone like me though. I cant get married or sleep with women. fuck that. you see part of the problem is this nonsense that priest's can't met married. Perhaps there wouldn't be half these child abuse cases if the priests were getting some of their wives. On the other hand Pedophiles see the priesthood as an opportunity. Then there is this shit that women cant be priests which is just crazy imo.

 

[ill-matic]

From what I'm reading from the anti-religious folk, your arguments are pretty superficial.

Someone taking advantage of something in order to make somebody do something is not exclusive to religion. This manipulative behaviour exists in many environments - get rich quick schemes, the marketing of products in order to get people to buy them. It is, unfortunately, a common pattern in human behaviour. Many people have ulterior motives, and they use something which appeals to someone else's happiness in order to exploit them and get something from them. In all these instances, if you break it down to its core, it is all about promising to fulfill someone's desires for happiness;

* Religion - some people use this to make people do things in the belief that if that particular person does it, they will feel more spiritually fulfilled.

* Products - buy this and you will feel better about yourselves. people will like you more; you will be more attractive etc etc. It feeds off the persons desire for something which they believe will make them happy.

* Getting Rich - give me $xx money and you will be sitting on millions by the end of the year. some people believe that extravagant wealth will make them happy, so they are manipulated into thinking that by doing something they will be a step closer to attaining that "happiness".

So my point is, is that this shit is not restricted to religion. It exists in every area of our life, and religion should not be lambasted because of it. You can't discredit the merits of religion, and use such a superficial example as an indication of how horrible it is. Ultimately, the problem is people, not religion.

 

[Sebastian]

It would be much easier if you would pick up my answer to your post and go on from this point instead of starting somewhere totally different and leave the first argument unreplied. I will address your post anyway...

From what I'm reading from the anti-religious folk, your arguments are pretty superficial.

Just, no, they are not. I dont even know how you could come up with that kind of accusation.

So my point is, is that this shit is not restricted to religion.

Nobody (of us non-believers) would disagree here.

It exists in every area of our life, and religion should not be lambasted because of it

Capitalism gets lambasted for different things every single day and so do many many other things. Most of them rightfully so, because there are things wrong with some ideologies/ideas/concepts. Religion should be treated the same way. More or less.

You can't discredit the merits of religion, and use such a superficial example as an indication of how horrible it is

You cant deny the suffering caused by religion and use the rest (positive side) as an indication of how good it is.

 

[masta247]

Sofi, i would like to say that both you and masta, despite our massive disagreement on this subject, are two of my favorite people on this board.

Hey, I don't take anything from here personally so it doesn't change a thing for me neighter.
I also like Casey though his opinion on this matter seems to differ the most.

You do realise though (i hope) that its way different with some holy scriptures for example, dont you? You cant just say the message was misinterpreted because there is no clear message behind it. Or sometimes it even leans heavily towards the bad side ("Kill those who..." bla bla).

You are using this argument over and over again. Can you quote which lines exactly do you mean?

 

[ill-matic]

If your message is a clear one, existing of one sentence like "Do not kill!" and some guy steps out of the door and shoots someone else, clearly the message is not the problem and cant held to be accountable for this action.

You do realise though (i hope) that its way different with some holy scriptures for example, dont you? You cant just say the message was misinterpreted because there is no clear message behind it. Or sometimes it even leans heavily towards the bad side ("Kill those who..." bla bla).

In the example above, I can, in fact, cite misinterpretation. People forget that as well as being a holy book, it is also a historical book. It is thousands of years old, written in a different time. The context of some elements are different. As an example, Muslims were allowed to be polygamists because in those times, many men were involved in war, and thus due to the shortage, polygamy was allowed in order to repopulate. Another example, Muslims having to wash themselves 5 times a day. This is purely for hygienic reasons, and makes sense when you apply it to a biblical context, as they had no sanitation back then.

Keep context in mind, and thus the text becomes more understandable. Reading it at face value prompts people to think it's OK to kill or whatever. They don't read between the lines and take these things into consideration, so ultimately it becomes twisted.

And addressing your last post:

Do you think the part of Jesus rising from the dead is just another kind of allegory? Or do you think it really happened?

Yes i do, because in later chapters of the bible it makes reference to people like you and i, crucifying the "flesh" - which is symbolic of what is bad in this world - and being resurrected "spiritually", which is in reference to adopting a more fulfilling life that turns away from all that bullshit.

 

[Sebastian]

Ok, i will give you just one example and i hope this quoting thing doesnt get out of hand.

Exodus 31:15 - regarding the sabbath and the ten commandments

'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

 

[ill-matic]

Mark 2: 24 - 28

The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath."

 

[Sebastian]

....so?

 

[ill-matic]

Point: don't get bogged down in traditions, because that's not the point of faith and spirituality.