Fitna

[evilbau]

Oh I definitely agree that it was a means to explain the unknown (hell, I'd say that's the chief reason man came up with it) and that it definitely pervaded almost all early civilizations. What I'm contending is that logically/rationally it's not necessary by any means, and I believe that collectively mankind would be better off without it (which of course is hard to back up entirely). For the record I kinda consider myself to have "gotten past" the stage of being really angry about religion in a general sense; I guess frankly I've come to realize that the extreme aspects of it generally don't affect me on a day to day basis so I'm not real apt to tear into it/religious people at any given opportunity, plus I see it's decline in motion so meh -> If it makes you happy and doesn't fuck with me, then be happy. I do concern myself when it comes to large-scale social initiatives and political policy issues, though.

The thing about Stalin, Mao, and Hitler is now the whole world (...for the most part) can deride their ideology/practice without restraint. But similarly I guess, Italian and Spanish fascists had their beef with some of Hitler's policies but you couldn't get away with generally bashing fascism in those countries at that time; same goes for Mao on Stalinism and communist dictatorships in general.

Not an unreasonable position. I think it is VERY possible (that we would have been better off w/o it). I think it is also possible that without religion we would not have made the moral progress we have now. No real way to back that up either. Would slavery have ended as quickly if those Americans were not Christians? I'm not suggesting that slavery ended because they were, but Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness might have played a role. On the other hand, there were plenty of slave owners who were Christians and probably didn't even think they were human. Hard to say one way or the other. I can say that I learned that the "Quakers, Congregationalists, Wesleyans, and Reformed Presbyterians as well as certain sects of mainstream denominations such as branches of the Methodist church and American Baptists" (ty wikipedia for the specifics) were involved in the Underground Railroad. They might have done the same w/o religion but the facts are what they are.

I personally think its funny that I'm being blasted for being ignorant when I am saying we should examine our past more. If we can't understand why we, as the human race, did some good and some bad under religion, why should we be so quick to get rid of it? Maybe it needs to be adjusted. If we find a way for all religions to exist peacefully will we still have a need to abolish it?

[Jefe]

As for Kuya, we have said our peice to each side. We have pointed out that even the minimal psychological benefits have their down side, as real life supports will always provide better mental stability for people suffering over fictional delussions. You dont even have to examine the multitude of damage the bad side of religion causes. Its like arguing a case for cocaine "Oh but it makes people feel better!!". That feel better feeling is short lived and always comes with a price.

Ah, logical fallacies, can spot them a mile away (irrelevant conclusion). Neo, neo, neo, you always fancy yourself of being "logical" but you spew non-sequiturs all over the place. Sorry buddy, but some of us can't take you seriously by a mere "ZOMG IM RIGHT BECAUSE..." etc. etc.

I'm Catholic, how's that for a paradox (tip: I don't approach religion with logic)

[Neosutra]

As for Kuya, we have said our peice to each side. We have pointed out that even the minimal psychological benefits have their down side, as real life supports will always provide better mental stability for people suffering over fictional delussions. You dont even have to examine the multitude of damage the bad side of religion causes. Its like arguing a case for cocaine "Oh but it makes people feel better!!". That feel better feeling is short lived and always comes with a price.

Ah, logical fallacies, can spot them a mile away (irrelevant conclusion). Neo, neo, neo, you always fancy yourself of being "logical" but you spew non-sequiturs all over the place. Sorry buddy, but some of us can't take you seriously by a mere "ZOMG IM RIGHT BECAUSE..." etc. etc.

I'm Catholic, how's that for a paradox (tip: I don't approach religion with logic)

Oh do tell the logical fallacy here Metoera? You yourself are notorious for coming into arguements 4 pages late and attempting to debase one side via insults w/o backing. Similar to this time you did nothing but swoop in, drop an insult, and bug out. Which is a logical fallacy? Explain it to me oh wise one.

And to evilbau, you keep rewording what you "ultimately are trying to say" everytime you get shot down.

You say in one post that religion is for the less enlightened, to assist them in follow moral codes. You say in the next post that you didnt say that... Then you get upset when you are "misinterpreted". Also, I am not upset in the least. I did that long rant on "why ask why" because I wanted to show you a point, that it is our very right to analyze the benefits/down sides of every social burden, and it is our responsibility to do so.

[Tristam]

Folks, religion is just a genetic predisposition to fairy tales!

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50

april fool's

[Gafgarionn]

So lets be straight:

evilbau believes that religion is required to allow the masses to follow moral standards and thus adds to the social peace.

Kuya believes (or rather argues the point of) that the psychological benefits of religion outweigh the negative traits that may follow.


I would have to say a belief that "lesser enlightened" members of our species require religious dogma to follow moral social standards shows a vast naivity towards history and human interactions. The massive historical evidence against your assumption asside, one could go back to the repeating argument that a person is more likely to follow order/social codes when they fear real world concequences, rather than supernatural reprecussions. When you were a child, if you stole a peice of candy... were you afraid god might find out? Or were you afraid you father might find out and tan your hide? The strongest support system for moral social codes will always be strong educational systems and just arbiters, not fictional reprecussions in the suppossed afterlife. A man running from the cops after he just killed his wife is running from the fear of prison, death, and the end of his current way of life, not from god/gods.

And to evilbau again: "Who are we to say religion has been negative as a whole?" We are men, rational free men, with the ability and right to look at our past and make a decision. A decision to continue on with the addictions to social delussions and self defeating philosophies that cause war and spread ignorance. Or we can rise up as a species and say no more. "who are we to questions it", Im a god damned human being, and I shake my fist in the air and demand an answer for all the crap that keeps getting spread across this planet by people that dare not ask why. People like you. Who the fuck are we to question it? My friends and I served in god damned Iraq so you could question it. My father served in Vietnam so you could question it. My grandfather served in korea so you could fucking question it. My great grandfather served in a world fucking war so you could question it. And all over the planet people have fought for the right to ask why, so god damnit, im going to fucking ask it.

As for Kuya, we have said our peice to each side. We have pointed out that even the minimal psychological benefits have their down side, as real life supports will always provide better mental stability for people suffering over fictional delussions. You dont even have to examine the multitude of damage the bad side of religion causes. Its like arguing a case for cocaine "Oh but it makes people feel better!!". That feel better feeling is short lived and always comes with a price.

Are you fucking serious?

[Neosutra]

Are you fucking serious?

In a sense, yese.

Boldness and profanity asside in the last post (Fuck is my favorite adjective, but I sometimes forget people take offense to it Q.Q), and I enjoy a good rant occasionally. I was basicaly pointing out that as a species, it is our responsiblity to analyze our past and ask the very questions we have been asking here.

Has religion ultimately had a positive or negative effect on humanity? Does it today, in current times, ultimately positively effect individuals?

One side has stated that religion has benefited humanity through encouragement to follow moral codes and through comforting through psychological support throughout the ages.

The other side has stated that the attrocities caused in the name of religion do not outweigh the benefits and furthermore that the benefits themselfs are counterproductive and inherently self-defeating.

The cocaine analogy and white supremist analogy both displayed the problem from a different angle, that revealed a bit more clearly the inherent flaws to supporting religion via the "positives" it causes.

I think from a historical point of view, one could easily say humanity has suffered greatly throughout time from religion, both from physical and mental oppression. The real question then comes out to be "what would the world have been like if there hadnt been religion for the last few milenia, as well as do we as a species have the capability to shed religion in the next milenia".

Thats the question that is most interesting to me.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Thats the question that is most interesting to me.

And it is a question so open ended and so impossible to give a real answer to that you can project your own ideas and have your answer be just as 'right' as any other. It's an utterly useless question.

[evilbau]

I keep trying to restate what I say because you are distorting my words to fuel your rants. You still aren't understanding. You must be a horrible listener in real life.

[Neosutra]

Thats the question that is most interesting to me.

And it is a question so open ended and so impossible to give a real answer to that you can project your own ideas and have your answer be just as 'right' as any other. It's an utterly useless question.

Because if the answer isnt easy then we shouldnt ask the question right?

Ways to develop logical and sound arguments for the ramifications of cultures developing w/o religion:

1. Analyze cultures throughout history that did not base their social laws and scientific progress on religious tenants (while a majority of cultures did develop some form of supernatural belief system as an early scientific explaination for physical events, not all of the cultures had religion merge inself heavily enough into politics/social development to cause the massive changes in the cultures history that say christianity or islam instituted.)

2. Analyze human social patterns in modern society to determine the effects of largely secular cultures and their performance on economic/educational/research areas versus more religiously motivated cultures.

In all actuality, if religion had not been around, the library of alexander would probably still be standing and everyone would be flying their personal ships to the moon for the weekend.

And nice one evilbaud, your right. Its not that your a poor communicater, we just keep misunderstanding you Q.Q

[evilbau]

It actually is true, you seem to have very poor reading comprehension, I don't think I was unclear. You are probably the only one who interprets "Who are we to say something is ..." as its literal meaning, that we shouldn't say anything about it. It is a colloquialism that maybe is just too hard for you to understand?

I respect people who served in the armed services but its pretty funny that you pulled the 'i served my country' card like it actually means something in an argument. You are trying to hide the fact you are a hypocrite (lol fought for my country to silence all religions) with more bluster.

[Neosutra]

It actually is true, you seem to have very poor reading comprehension, I don't think I was unclear. You are probably the only one who interprets "Who are we to say something is ..." as its literal meaning, that we shouldn't say anything about it. It is a colloquialism that maybe is just too hard for you to understand?

I respect people who served in the armed services but its pretty funny that you pulled the 'i served my country' card like it actually means something in an argument. You are trying to hide the fact you are a hypocrite (lol fought for my country to silence all religions) with more bluster.

Oh, I am sorry for interpreting "what you say" as "what you mean". And if you had the reading/writing comprehension of a 3rd grader you would have seen I addressed your "colloquialism" in the post following yours.

Fighting for freedom of religion/speech also includes fighting for the right to speak up against such dogmas. It is not hypocratic to fight for religious expression, even when your expression towards religion is one of distaste.

Ill end the post with your coined phrase of "or is that too hard for you to understand", since your lack of evidence/debating skills leaves you with no retort other than sophomoric insults.

[evilbau]

Oh, I am sorry for interpreting "what you say" as "what you mean". And if you had the reading/writing comprehension of a 3rd grader you would have seen I addressed your "colloquialism" in the post following yours.

You mean this?

And to evilbau again: "Who are we to say religion has been negative as a whole?" We are men, rational free men, with the ability and right to look at our past and make a decision. A decision to continue on with the addictions to social delussions and self defeating philosophies that cause war and spread ignorance. Or we can rise up as a species and say no more. "who are we to questions it", Im a god damned human being, and I shake my fist in the air and demand an answer for all the crap that keeps getting spread across this planet by people that dare not ask why. People like you. Who the fuck are we to question it? My friends and I served in god damned Iraq so you could question it. My father served in Vietnam so you could question it. My grandfather served in korea so you could fucking question it. My great grandfather served in a world fucking war so you could question it. And all over the planet people have fought for the right to ask why, so god damnit, im going to fucking ask it.

It really stands on its own, haha. Its like a little slice into your illusions of grandeur. I have answered you with an opposing viewpoint which answers the 'why' more than yours does, but you don't deign to respond to the merits of what I said and instead just continue on about 'social delussions' and an inappropriate cocaine analogy.

And I wouldn't go so far as say I lack evidence and debating skills since I have already given many examples of how many atrocities were done in the absence of religion, and in other cases religion was simply a cover for what they would have done anyway. Additionally, I gave an example (and there are many more) of how humanitarian acts are carried out in the name of religion throughout history. Also, I admitted that many bad things are done in the name of religion, I don't think anyone will deny it. I have not passed judgment on religion as a whole, as there is lots I have yet to learn about it. You, on the other hand have already made up your mind, and are speculating on how history would have been different without religion, which is not much more than theorycraft.

I find it ironic that you are fighting against what you perceive is a mass social delusion when you yourself are self-delusional.

[Demosthenes11]

I like how we jump over all these other things religion has brought about too...like, oh I don't know, the most beautiful artwork on the planet? Without religion, we would live without knowing michaelagelo, donatello, and to some extent even da vinci. Not only were they masterpieces of religious nature, but their funding came directly from the churches. Even many scientists, yes scientists, were products of religion. From mesopotamia, to babylon, to greece, to rome, to native americans, religion was vital in the progression of art and science.

but everything about religion is bad, sorry i forgot. It's bad to have different motivations to do things, and that is more important than the act itself. Being kind to your neighbor is weakness if you do it because you have been taught it through religion rather than doing it on your own accord.
do you realize how stupid you sound?

[Blarg]

I like how we jump over all these other things religion has brought about too...like, oh I don't know, the most beautiful artwork on the planet? Without religion, we would live without knowing michaelagelo, donatello, and to some extent even da vinci. Not only were they masterpieces of religious nature, but their funding came directly from the churches. Even many scientists, yes scientists, were products of religion. From mesopotamia, to babylon, to greece, to rome, to native americans, religion was vital in the progression of art and science.

but everything about religion is bad, sorry i forgot. It's bad to have different motivations to do things, and that is more important than the act itself. Being kind to your neighbor is weakness if you do it because you have been taught it through religion rather than doing it on your own accord.
do you realize how stupid you sound?

I'm guessing that those artists would have found something else to create had there not been a church for inspiration and funding. The church was where the biggest exposure and money was at the time but had it not been there those same artists wouldn't be sitting on couches drinking beer and doing nothing.

Many of those scientists were religious but what do you mean they were products of it? Do you mean they wished to find out how god works through their science?

[Demosthenes11]

speculate all you want, I'm speaking off of pure fact and history.

[Blarg]

It looks like you are speculating yourself.

Without religion, we would live without knowing michaelagelo, donatello, and to some extent even da vinci.

[Neosutra]

Its like a little slice into your illusions of grandeur. I have answered you with an opposing viewpoint which answers the 'why' more than yours does, but you don't deign to respond to the merits of what I said and instead just continue on about 'social delussions' and an inappropriate cocaine analogy.

You provided no "answer", rather a misguided attempt to justify religion through its social benefits throughout history. You then had your ass handed to you for you failure to read the previous posts in the thread. The cocaine/white supremacy analogies were dead on.

And I wouldn't go so far as say I lack evidence and debating skills since I have already given many examples of how many atrocities were done in the absence of religion, and in other cases religion was simply a cover for what they would have done anyway. Additionally, I gave an example (and there are many more) of how humanitarian acts are carried out in the name of religion throughout history. Also, I admitted that many bad things are done in the name of religion, I don't think anyone will deny it. I have not passed judgment on religion as a whole, as there is lots I have yet to learn about it. You, on the other hand have already made up your mind, and are speculating on how history would have been different without religion, which is not much more than theorycraft.

Again, read the god damned thread. We have already touched on good/bad being done w/ and w/o religion. You cant be that think headed. The conclusion was that the positives of religion are infact counterproductive, not even delving into the katalysts for the negatives.

I find it ironic that you are fighting against what you perceive is a mass social delusion when you yourself are self-delusional.

You always end with name calling in a laughable attempt to debase a more solid argument than your own. Which concept are we delussional on? Please enlighten us.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Neosutra, do you think that every idea that comes to your mind is right?

[Beckwin]

I like how we jump over all these other things religion has brought about too...like, oh I don't know, the most beautiful artwork on the planet? Without religion, we would live without knowing michaelagelo, donatello, and to some extent even da vinci. Not only were they masterpieces of religious nature, but their funding came directly from the churches. Even many scientists, yes scientists, were products of religion. From mesopotamia, to babylon, to greece, to rome, to native americans, religion was vital in the progression of art and science.

but everything about religion is bad, sorry i forgot. It's bad to have different motivations to do things, and that is more important than the act itself. Being kind to your neighbor is weakness if you do it because you have been taught it through religion rather than doing it on your own accord.
do you realize how stupid you sound?

Really dude, don't try to talk about art and science as products of religion. Those men and women were more products of their time than people shepherded into genius by God/religion. Michelangelo was a fucking trainwreck of a person and tbh bringing up his personal beliefs won't get you far (other than being able to explain why his women looked so manly); you just have to simply respect the man for his enormous talent and stubbornness/determination. On top of that, religion just provided subject matter, but it's not like there would've been nothing to paint about without it. Subsequent eras in art proved that over and over.

And of course you can't ignore parallel achievements in the arts and sciences in significantly less theist societies.

[Neosutra]

Neosutra, do you think that every idea that comes to your mind is right?

My wife tells me no.

But in a debate where someone brings forth a weak argument based on nothing but repetitive schemes of religious merits (regardless of that being shot down on every page of this thread), then I dont think it is too extreme to lay into them a bit.