Religion is the great evil of mankind.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller

true that religion was "BAD" in the 1700's and such. But i'm talking about religion today. Many good people go to church..they are good people. In jail houses prision mates get cured by joining a religious group and reading the bible. religion is not evil today, but it could have been in the past. But from my experience, as a christian for 10 years..religion is not evil at all. it's absurd to say that religion is all evil.


The Balkans in the early 90s, Israel's efforts against the Palistinians and vice versa, 9/11, terrorist attacks in London, the Second Sudanese Civil War...

Perhaps it is unfair to brand religion itself as evil, but there is no better way to persuade a large number of people to commit unspeakable acts than to use religion.

WraothAscendant, undoubtedly profit was to be made from the crusades, but they were ordered by the Papacy who would gain little financially compared to the gains of the countries taking part. The working men of England, Scotland, France, Germany and Spain were not driven by profit however, they were insired by religious fervour and the treatment of prisoners and sacking of occupied lands showed little concern for trade or merchants. If money were the prime motivator, why didn't we go for Novgorod first? Or target Constantinople specifically rather than sacking it en route to the Holy Land during the fourth crusade?




posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 



Perhaps it is unfair to brand religion itself as evil, but there is no better way to persuade a large number of people to commit unspeakable acts than to use religion.


True but to argue that religion itself causes it is rather short sighted in my opinion.
Look at the Buddhist faith.



WraothAscendant, undoubtedly profit was to be made from the crusades, but they were ordered by the Papacy who would gain little financially compared to the gains of the countries taking part. The working men of England, Scotland, France, Germany and Spain were not driven by profit however, they were insired by religious fervour and the treatment of prisoners and sacking of occupied lands showed little concern for trade or merchants. If money were the prime motivator, why didn't we go for Novgorod first? Or target Constantinople specifically rather than sacking it en route to the Holy Land during the fourth crusade?


The Papacy made tons in tithes, indulgences, and various other crap ways of milking money from those now richer nations.

Sacking is a time honored approach of looting which has taken place alot longer than the Middle Ages. Wave money in a great amount of people's face and they will do practically anything.
Look at reality tv shows.


And its worth noting that the existing traders living in the "Holy Land":
1) Were most likely not going to cooperate with the invaders.
2) You can take the stuff that is there now, (more money for you instead of those currently living there) you know smash and grab (and take home).
3) The invader's traders can trade with the caravans coming in.

If they attacked any of those other places it would be harder to justify. Jerusalem was after all "the city of Jesus".

I would imagine a great many of the leaders of the Crusade convinced themselves that their excuses were the true reason. When the simple fact of the matter is they probably didn't give squat about Jerusalem until they figured out the profit in invading it.
People are good at that sort of BS after all.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Granted profit was likely to feature in every leader's mind, but it certainly wasn't the motivator for the foot soldier who marched 2,000 miles, fought for the cross and committed acts of pillage and rape. It was his religion that drove him.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 


Greed is a major motivator of mankind.
And think of the trinkets that one soldier hopes to carry off.
In ancient (and medieval) times the loot the common solider hoped to carry home was a major motivator for him to go a long way to war.
And rape, well look at Vietnam.

Incidentally I added more to my previous statement.
Like I just did this one. =)







[edit on 19-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Au contraire regarding the traders, historical experience has shown that traders would quite cheerfully carry on trading regardless of who controlled their city/trade routes. Indeed the financially most expedient action on capturing an enemy city is to leave it intact, lower taxes on traders and improve sanitation. Everyone loves you and you get rich! The Romans did a particularly good line in this.

As for the average foot soldier, he might grab himself some coin, a bed for the night and an evening meal, but anything precious he found would be taken from him by his commanders and anything heavy (gold/silver artefacts) would be abandoned because he couldn't carry it all the way home.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 



Au contraire regarding the traders, historical experience has shown that traders would quite cheerfully carry on trading regardless of who controlled their city/trade routes. Indeed the financially most expedient action on capturing an enemy city is to leave it intact, lower taxes on traders and improve sanitation. Everyone loves you and you get rich! The Romans did a particularly good line in this.


You forget the factionalistic tendencies of the human animal.
A trader that is not "one of your people" you can't be 100% for sure you can trust that far to sell himself for coin. Might fund his fellows in fighting you. The Romans had such problems. With Israel none the less.
Easier to just kill him and his fellows and take the stuff he has on hand and deal with the Caravans with your own people.
Especially when you have yourself and your troops convinced he's just scum after all.



As for the average foot soldier, he might grab himself some coin, a bed for the night and an evening meal, but anything precious he found would be taken from him by his commanders and anything heavy (gold/silver artefacts) would be abandoned because he couldn't carry it all the way home.


Look at the stories man. Its a common theme. There are any number of ways to take the stuff from your soldiers once he gets it home.
Spending sprees come to mind.
Higher taxes and etc.
There are a few ways. We aren't talking about massive statues made of gold or silver here.



Incidentally I find I like debating you Naboo.

You disagree without being insulting.
And I am sadly finding that a rare thing.


[edit on 19-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma

'Good men do good things and evil men do evil things, but for a good man to do something evil requires Religion.'

Self refuting argument, if he is a good man doing something evil then he isn't a good man after all and that requires common sense.


What you do guy just swallow a Sam Harris sleaze book



Secular humanist and Atheist Governments of the State:

USSR: Stalin's regime (incl. WW2-era atrocities) 20,000,000 (This doesn't seem to include the Ukranian political famine, which was 6-15 million by itself.)
First World War (incl. Armenian massacres 1-2 million) (WW I by itself could be considered a "Christian" war).
Holocaust: 6,000,000 various unwanted, mostly Jews.
Russian Civil War 8,800,000
China: Warlord & Nationalist Era 4,000,000
Congo Free State 3,000,000
Chinese Civil War 2,500,000
Second Sudanese Civil War 1,700,000
Congolese Civil War 1998- 14 1,650,000
Cambodia: Khmer Rouge Regime 1975-79 15 1,400,000
Afghanistan: Civil War 1980- 15 1,400,000
Ethiopian Civil Wars 1962-92 17 1,250,000
East Pakistan: Massacres 1971 19 1,000,000
Iran-Iraq War 1980-88 19 1,000,000
Nigeria: Biafran revolt 1967-70 21 800,000
Mozambique: Civil War 1976-92 21 800,000
Rwandan Massacres 1994 23 650,000
First Indochina War 1945-54 25 500,000
India-Pakistan Partition 1947 25 500,000
Indonesia: Massacre of Communists 1965-67 25 500,000
Angolan Civil War 1975-94 25 500,000
First Sudanese Civil War 1955-72 25 500,000
Decline of the Amazonian Indians 1900-99 30 365,000
Somalia: Civil War 1991- ? Unknown
North Korea: Communist Regime 1948-




Christian nation involvement
WW I - 15,000,000 I think the Christian nations must bear the blame for this one.
Korean War The North attacked the south and the world came to its defense.
2nd Indochina War (incl. Laos & Cambodia)
German Expulsions after WW2 I'm not familiar with this--were 1.7 million Germans killed?
Mexican Revolution 1910-20 18 1,250,000
French-Algerian War 1954-62 24 600,000
Spanish Civil War 1936-39 31 350,000
Conclusions: people are evil. Christianity seems to mitigate some of it. The death total and incident total seems less for the Christian nations.


Sounds to me like you are just itching to bash Christianity

- Con



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


What matters, Conspiriology, is that he thinks he is being a good man. Religion allows him to believe he is "good" despite his actions.

Your list is an excellent example that religion does not have a monopoly on evil, but atheism/secularism was not the driving force behind the atrocoties in question, the conflicts were simply not religiously motivated. Stalin did not commit his atrcoities in the name of atheism, he was an atheist who committed atrocities, similarly Pol Pot. Obviously the holocaust was utterly devoid of religious justification, what with the very vast majority of victims being Jewish!

Do also check your facts before cutting and pasting, World War One may not have been fought for religious reasons but all sides used religious justification to encourage enlistment and persuade their troops of the evil of the opposition. The Germans in particular were described by Allied propoganda as being godless.


The death total and incident total seems less for the Christian nations.


Please do not confuse religion with christianity, the reference in this thread is about all religion, of which christianity is just one part.

P.S. Who is Sam Harris?



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 



Your list is an excellent example that religion does not have a monopoly on evil, but atheism/secularism was not the driving force behind the atrocoties in question, the conflicts were simply not religiously motivated. Stalin did not commit his atrcoities in the name of atheism, he was an atheist who committed atrocities, similarly Pol Pot. Obviously the holocaust was utterly devoid of religious justification, what with the very vast majority of victims being Jewish!


Ah but a good part of your argument is that religion is a driving force in other situations. What is good for one is good for the other.
I added a line on the bottom of my previous post.






posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Well I think I begin to understand the OP, and where he stands (I've been there too!). He is very disappointed in religions in general, and that is partly misplaced anger. There would be no religions unless there would be followers. There would had not been crusades, unless the people wouldn't follow the crusaders to the crusade. The people's faith, and therefore religion too, were misused by contemporary rulers to gain acceptance to atrocities. So everything boils down into oneself, not the religion. And it is almost like the question which were first, the egg or the chick? But this one has clear answer, in my opinion. If every person would look inside, he wouldn't need religion, because he would find the true moral codes, universal ones, just from within. No need for religion.

Religions are mere interpretations. Or - as someone already said above - mere ideas. Wraoth's gun metaphora was also a good one. Religion wouldn't do ABSOLUTELY nothing, unless there would be some evil people using it. Religion might be tool of evil, but as well it could be a tool of good, but it is neutral in itself. Or would you call a rock, that is used as a murder weapon, evil?

[edit on 19-2-2008 by v01i0]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


I must say I haven't met an atheist yet who is driven to hatred by atheism!

I'm enjoying debating with you too Wraoth, I always endeavour not to resort to personal insults, they achieve nothing - but I am tiring rather as the sole Atheist on this thread... I might need a break, my boss is expecting me to do some work today!



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Once religion was introduced it's main goal was to help those "in need", the weakest, those who have nothing left to lose.
The problem with zealots like those kind of people is that they for one are easy to control and 2, if they completely surrender themselves to the faith persuading them, they tend to end up completely absorbed by the ideals of that religion. The so to speak grow intolerance...

The reason for this is since they now in some way or other have found something good in life in opposed to begging at the sidewalk or being alone, they will do whatever they can to maintain that illusion they now live in.
This illusion is challenged everytime they bump into someone who holds another faith, and thus let the throwing of mud begin.
The first one to run out of arguments will cast a stone... and that will happen fast, since there are no sane arguments for believing in what you believe (if you are religious), except if you own the selfrealisation to actually ackknowledge that you are following a religion because by doing so you daily life is more exciting than if you didn't and not because you believe some guy in white or with a beard created this earth.

Religion by it's very nature breeds intolerance, if it didn't it wouldn't survive for that long.

(don't bring buddhism into this... Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion. There are no idols in buddhism...)





[edit on 19/2/08 by flice]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 



I must say I haven't met an atheist yet who is driven to hatred by atheism!


Oh I have. A great many as a matter of fact. On this board alone.
Not to the point of bloodshed YET but I can see that is where the plant is growing. Any ideology that states that everyone needs to accept the ideology for mankind to move forward eventually dips its hands in blood and quite a few atheists state just that. It's that little evil bugger of human tendencies called intolerance that makes it go that far.




I'm enjoying debating with you too Wraoth, I always endeavour not to resort to personal insults, they achieve nothing - but I am tiring rather as the sole Atheist on this thread... I might need a break, my boss is expecting me to do some work today!


Eh. You gotta admit I have valid points, the lack of other responses to my previous points makes me assume that but eh.

But I understand and I am sorry if it seems I am joining in a "teaming up" against you. That is not my intention. It's just I have points I would like to state. As do these others.



[edit on 19-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


Intolerance is a human trait and it taints a LARGE portion of well everything human.
You have:
Racial Intolerance
Religious Intolerance
Regional Intolerance
Ideological Intolerance
National Intolerance
Ethnic Intolerance
And the list goes on and on. A few having nothing to do what so ever with religion.

Intolerance is a larger thing than just something caused by religion.
Case in point I have seen a fair amount of intolerance in Atheism.
A great amount of Atheists cannot and will not tolerate that word we call religion. Feeling the need to attack it on a daily basis and constantly bash anyone who claims to be religious. A textbook example of intolerance if I ever saw one all justifications and bs rationalizations aside.
And it doesn't matter who did it first it's still being done.

Another being I have a few (5-6 but I am a social retard on top of a introvert so I don't meet many people) VERY devout Christian friends.
Sure they think I am going to burn in hell.
But they aren't going to try to send me there. In fact all of them has given me the kinda screwy compliment that I'm more Christian than most Christians, but they mean it as a compliment so i take it as such.
And we just don't make our beliefs an issue.


Buddhism is a religion.
It contains spiritual beliefs, is organised and offers a path to spiritual advancement.
I find atheist trying to say otherwise on the simple fact that it is a good example of a peaceful religion.
That incorporates and enforces tolerance within their belief structure.

I personally could care less if a person believes in Buddha, Mohammad/Allah, Shiva/Vishnu/etc, Jesus/Jehovah, or the great all seeing all knowing Tapioca Pudding of the ninth dimension or even nothing at all. I prefer to not make it an issue. Individuals not groups impress me, in fact group mentality (ANY group) tends to make my gums ache.
I will happily tolerate anyones belief as long as they don't try to bash me over the head with it or send me (or my family) to their afterlife land o punishment.



[edit on 19-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


What matters, Conspiriology, is that he thinks he is being a good man. Religion allows him to believe he is "good" despite his actions.


They rationalize all kinds of things these days

No what matters is that Atheists have Christianity to blame .,, I have heard this EXACT argument other Faith specific bigots have used as a mantra for their worldview agenda as it is all over this forum and said verbatim in lockstep to yours.

You say they were religiously motivated

I say they were religiously manipulated.


Stalin did not commit his atrocities in the name of atheism,


yeah it seems Atheists don't need a reason to be that way. C'mon guy this argument is getting really tired, People like Jeffery Dahmer didn't kill his victims in the name of anything either. I haven't seen our troops going in with the flag of the United States of Christianity either.

in spite of Atheists agenda to keep talking smack about Christianity I will continue to draw attention to these alarmingly coincidental broken record attacks on it till people get a clue and tell atheist to get a life.

I have no idea what religious proclivities you have if at all but



he was an atheist who committed atrocities, similarly Pol Pot. Obviously the holocaust was utterly devoid of religious justification, what with the very vast majority of victims being Jewish!


Yeah I have said that myself many times but that never stops them from re-posting the same argument again and again.



The Germans in particular were described by Allied propaganda as being godless.


The Nazi party was inherently Atheist, I find it rather curious that this issue where Ill admit you are the first to see the illogical dichotomy with the Jews however, why is it propaganda for your argument while mine you insist has to be done in the name of a thing else it is invalid according to your rules for inductive arguments and logical fallacy.




Do also check your facts before cutting and pasting, World War One may not have been fought for religious reasons but all sides used religious justification to encourage enlistment and persuade their troops of the evil of the opposition.


Thank you, I will do that



Please do not confuse religion with Christianity, the reference in this thread is about all religion, of which Christianity is just one part.


Oh there is hope for this discussion yet. Yes I totally agree *whew*



P.S. Who is Sam Harris?


He is nobody,, nobody at all.

- Con



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 




The Nazi party was inherently Atheist, I find it rather curious that this issue where Ill admit you are the first to see the illogical dichotomy with the Jews however, why is it propaganda for your argument while mine you insist has to be done in the name of a thing else it is invalid according to your rules for inductive arguments and logical fallacy.


They were most certainly not atheists there friend.
Don't watch the Hitler (I mean history) Channel much do you?

That is not to say that they did what they did because of religion as I am sure I will be accused of.
But they weren't atheists.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant



The Nazi party was inherently Atheist, I find it rather curious that this issue where Ill admit you are the first to see the illogical dichotomy with the Jews however, why is it propaganda for your argument while mine you insist has to be done in the name of a thing else it is invalid according to your rules for inductive arguments and logical fallacy.



But they weren't atheists.



Well I love that channel lol You compose damn good posts

Ill be more specific, They were anti Christian

- Con



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
If religions didn't exist there wouldn't be any need for the National Security state - the REAL government. The secrets they're keeping are clearly primarily about coddling, enabling the fragile egos/personalities of those who psychotically need to see the universe (or multiverse) in terms of a a single, white-bearded Creator (and all attendant lore) rather than the simple science (however currently undefined) of COLLECTIVE beings it really is.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
In this world you have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. However thanks too religion you have very good people doing very bad things.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Incarnated
 


I believe you are right, although the use of words may be interpreted in the wrong way. I am thinking less of evil and more of ignorance. The problem with this is that someone who is ignorant may do things that others consider evil. I will give you a few examples;

Giordano Bruno, was burned to death by the church for claiming the universe was infinite with infinite inhabitable worlds. The church later apologized an erected a monument for him, but nonetheless killed him in earlier times because they were ignorant.

Another example is in the dark ages. The church would hunt witches and burn them at the stake. Thousands of women were burnt over many years approved by the church. www.religioustolerance.org...

I won't get into specifics because there are many more instances of outright ignorance, and it still goes on in the world today! Wars are fought over religion, people are stilled being killed for their beliefs.

Whomever you believe your God to be, there is no way any supreme ruling being would stoop to this kind of ignorance. So in a way I can see how someone would claim religion to be evil. Religions are still very ignorant today, and in turn the people are ignorant. There was a need for religion, but that is slowly dissipating, people will awaken and realize that God is within us all. We are the gardeners of the garden, we are the prophets, we simply need to look within ourselves to see GOD.

When you will be able to release yourself from the grip of your religion, whether its Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc... Only then will you be able to see who the True God is.

GOD does not want you to worship idols, GOD wants you to awaken the spirit inside you and wants you to realize that you are GOD.

Peace





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join