Blaming Religion For the fault of Humanity. A Cop Out?

[Coyote]

The fact that it is non-supernatural in origin was precisely one of Marx's pillars of credibility. The Sovet system turned it into a state religion beyond normal nationalist or patriotic bounds....

Which is precisely why it isn't analogous to this situation. Islam, Christianity and Judaism marketed intolerance, and they practice it, as well.

Marx predicted a violent and revolutionary clash between workers and capitalists, and violent hatred towards the 'bosses'. They focused anger against a particular social class as part of the revolutionary ethic, and the crushing of anyone who disagreed with them. Those 94 million dead did not just drop from heart attacks when they saw the hammer & sickle. There was an 'accept or die' Crusade spirit to the Communist revolution as corrupt as that which ran rampant in the streets of Jerusalem in 1099.

All I am saying is that secularity does not automatically equate morality- the philosophy labeled as 'secular humanism' is supposedly based on human rights but in the end, who will decide what those 'rights' are? I'd be willing to bet that no matter how open minded, secular and tolerant you may be there are still many things you wouldn't tolerate-- some extreme, like pedophelia; others more fuzzy, like picking sides in the abortion or gun control debate where others will oppose you (and for non-religious reasons as well).

Conflict and intolerance come from many sources. Many of them seem to stem from governments or social movements trying to take away the rights of another group, using particular philosophies as their crutch of legitimacy. Perhaps the real root of human conflict is that certain people seek power and will corrupt anything to attain it; while many people lack the motivation or self-confidence to stand before a crowd and say 'that's wrong'; so they go along with the mob.

[Darth Wong]

Marx predicted a violent and revolutionary clash between workers and capitalists, and violent hatred towards the 'bosses'. They focused anger against a particular social class as part of the revolutionary ethic, and the crushing of anyone who disagreed with them. Those 94 million dead did not just drop from heart attacks when they saw the hammer & sickle. There was an 'accept or die' Crusade spirit to the Communist revolution as corrupt as that which ran rampant in the streets of Jerusalem in 1099.

Of course, which is why we are not Marxists.

All I am saying is that secularity does not automatically equate morality- the philosophy labeled as 'secular humanism' is supposedly based on human rights but in the end, who will decide what those 'rights' are?

Secular humanism is a distinct subset of secularism. Do not confuse the two. And secularism should also not be confused with communism, which was essentially a state religion of party-worship rather than separation of church and state. You are smearing many different concepts together carelessly.

As for the determination of human rights, this comes from the base principles of humanism, which is based on the simple values of "pain, suffering, death = bad" and then generates a set of human rights from that basis.

I'd be willing to bet that no matter how open minded, secular and tolerant you may be there are still many things you wouldn't tolerate-- some extreme, like pedophelia; others more fuzzy, like picking sides in the abortion or gun control debate where others will oppose you (and for non-religious reasons as well).

Tolerance doesn't mean anarchy, nor should it. Of course we oppose pedophilia; how does that make us equivalent to religious intolerants? If we're going to oppose something, we have to explain what's wrong with it, rather than simply pointing out that it's different from us and wrong for that reason alone.

Conflict and intolerance come from many sources. Many of them seem to stem from governments or social movements trying to take away the rights of another group, using particular philosophies as their crutch of legitimacy. Perhaps the real root of human conflict is that certain people seek power and will corrupt anything to attain it; while many people lack the motivation or self-confidence to stand before a crowd and say 'that's wrong'; so they go along with the mob.

Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that monotheistic religion has taken on a life of its own and become, in many parts of the world, a direct organizing force for hatred and intolerance. This is like asking where the roots of Nazism came from, when the question was simply "does Nazism cause suffering". It's a red herring.

[lgot]

Of course Marx is as much responsable for the Soviet Union was the next guy.
A crude analyses of Marx would just point out (Actually, Lenin pointed this out also) they are not doing Marx's revolution since Russia actually lacked the heavy industrial development that was so needed in Marx's road to Comunism (He always focused his "hopes" in France, Germany and England only).
Plus this is true. People searches for the opium and some people do the mistake like this. They "worship" systems or thinkers (or artists or sportsmans). But this is rarely to blame Marx. He, as alive, did nothing for this. And his ideas must be judged for what they are, not for what the people after then made and used it.
There is of course the simple fact that Soviet Union was never what Marx wanted to. It was just tyranical society. Not Marx's workers governament.

[Coyote]

Secular humanism is a distinct subset of secularism. Do not confuse the two. And secularism should also not be confused with communism, which was essentially a state religion of party-worship rather than separation of church and state. You are smearing many different concepts together carelessly.

Not my intent; I was trying to make the connection that Communism chose secularity as a rallying banner, rather than implying that secularism led to Communism. Sorry 'bout that.

As for the determination of human rights, this comes from the base principles of humanism...Tolerance doesn't mean anarchy, nor should it. Of course we oppose pedophilia; how does that make us equivalent to religious intolerants?

I've found that people out there will take tolerance to the extreme and insist that if children acquiesce to sex that there is no longer any reason to 'squash their rights' by denying them their outlet. I met a guy in California who made much the same argument for acts with animals. And they really will label you intolerant for opposing their 'rights'.

On a more rational side, you've got people who say that since criminals abound out there, they have a right to protect themselves with a pistol; while others say that the idea of citizens having weapons (good people or not) terrifies them. It is not always easy to determine the line between one's rights and anothers' in such a case. As for the pedophiles, well, sign me up for the intolerance bandwagon.

... monotheistic religion has taken on a life of its own and become, in many parts of the world, a direct organizing force for hatred and intolerance.

An irrefutable truth. Unfortunately, there is something about believing in a higher power or higher philosophy that is a part of human nature-- I doubt religion will ever be erased from the human scene. But in countries where people do not feel pressured by lack or immediate tribal threat, religion takes a back seat and quickly becomes a watered-down social club for most of the people that bother to go.

[Darth Wong]

A crude analyses of Marx would just point out (Actually, Lenin pointed this out also) they are not doing Marx's revolution since Russia actually lacked the heavy industrial development that was so needed in Marx's road to Comunism (He always focused his "hopes" in France, Germany and England only).

Fair enough. Leninism and Marxism aren't the same thing.

Plus this is true. People searches for the opium and some people do the mistake like this. They "worship" systems or thinkers (or artists or sportsmans). But this is rarely to blame Marx. He, as alive, did nothing for this. And his ideas must be judged for what they are, not for what the people after then made and used it.

But it should be kept in mind that Marx's ideas could not possibly be implemented on a large scale as-is. They were inherently flawed for that reason; they were based on arrogant predictions about the predictability and controllability of human nature which were never seen to be valid.

There is of course the simple fact that Soviet Union was never what Marx wanted to. It was just tyranical society. Not Marx's workers governament.

Marx's workers' government was the mental fiction of a man who never actually worked a day in his life. Did you know that all of the white-collar workers who were driven out during Lenin's revolution eventually got their old jobs back, because the workers discovered to their chagrin that burgeousie education actually does count for something?

Marx was a man who had a lot of theories about how factories worked ... but never actually bothered to try working in one to see if his theories matched observation. He paid lip service to science, but he never recognized or adopted its methods and philosophies. His ideas were shitty because they could never possibly work, so any real-life implentation was bound to be something other than what he envisioned.

Star Trek simply attempts to pretend that his original vision can actually work, since it is written by the same kind of nimrods (writers who have no actual industrial experience) as Marx himself. One of the most common defenses of Trek society is the idiotic "no-cost replicator" argument, ie- if you can make whatever you want by pushing a button, no one needs to work. By that idiotic token, you can make light and heat and run all your appliances on electricity by simply flipping switches in real life, so no one needs to work! Doesn't it occur to these dumb-fucks that any technology will always have an infrastructure associated with it, and that the people working in that infrastructure won't slave away just for that feeling of accomplishment? They'll expect something back.

[lgot]

Darth Wong:

But it should be kept in mind that Marx's ideas could not possibly be implemented on a large scale as-is. They were inherently flawed for that reason; they were based on arrogant predictions about the predictability and controllability of human nature which were never seen to be valid.

Indeed. I never meant that Marx idea about the social revolution would work. Its a mistake even by the use of some of Marx own teories about the formation of societies. (This is something, Not all Marx's ideas are not possibly, some of his economic and hystorical teories still valid and used. )
I would say they are flawed because Marx lost objectivity. He was "touched" by the workers problems and wanted to see them work. So he forget any logic in his conclusion...

Marx's workers' government was the mental fiction of a man who never actually worked a day in his life. Did you know that all of the white-collar workers who were driven out during Lenin's revolution eventually got their old jobs back, because the workers discovered to their chagrin that burgeousie education actually does count for something?

Well, we already agreed that Lenin's mind and Marx's have no real ties. But yeah, I know. Lenin had to face the fact that russians are really miserable.
But if you mean's Marx never worked, he studied hardly everyday. Sure, he was a parasite and let people work (his wife for example) to sustain his idealistic researches and publishing.
Also, some of idea of governament was huge influence of Engels.

He paid lip service to science, but he never recognized or adopted its methods and philosophies. His ideas were shitty because they could never possibly work, so any real-life implentation was bound to be something other than what he envisioned.

Marx did a good job as a social scientist (i know your feelings about this, but i mean he used the science ) for his studies about the social formation and economy. Those teories are still valid, used and teached. This is one Marx.

The revolutionary Marx really left this aside. He jumped to the conclusion he wanted, not the one he would found if he could text his teory to predict future, and created a Utopia. Of course he failed and by such his ideas will fail.
It is even easy to see, if you aply the hystoric materialism (the one about one system create the source that will replace him) you will see that Workers are not those who would replace burguesy. Simple because workers are existent since ever. They may have changed in organization, system, etc but they are pretty not something new...But Marx wanted to be the workers "shrugs*

Star Trek simply attempts to pretend that his original vision can actually work, since it is written by the same kind of nimrods (writers who have no actual industrial experience) as Marx himself.

Well, Marx never said about the end of work, but only about the end of exploration of work (of course this does not change the fact the writers may give a interpretation of marx and his utopia was somethign correct and perfect and just use it)...

[XPViking]

Moreover, independent secular humanist writings (none of which bear any more "authority" than any other) are generally based on definitions of human rights. I don't see how descriptions of the importance of human rights can be used to justify terrorism. - Darth Wong

Ok. Not trying to imply that any of them have more "authority" over eachother. I'll bet that there are some writings that atheists seem to agree more than other though. All I'm saying that it might be possible for someone to take secular humanist writings, modify it, and then declare that new work as justification for doing something. Looks like I'll have to do some research on secular humanism. Then one would wonder if this modified work is still considered secular humanism. Just a quick question to anyone who can answer, are there some main branches of atheistic thought? The only ones that I can identify at the moment seem to be secular humanism and communistic-atheism. Are there any more?

XPViking

[Antediluvian]

Moreover, independent secular humanist writings (none of which bear any more "authority" than any other) are generally based on definitions of human rights. I don't see how descriptions of the importance of human rights can be used to justify terrorism. - Darth Wong

Ok. Not trying to imply that any of them have more "authority" over eachother. I'll bet that there are some writings that atheists seem to agree more than other though. All I'm saying that it might be possible for someone to take secular humanist writings, modify it, and then declare that new work as justification for doing something. Looks like I'll have to do some research on secular humanism. Then one would wonder if this modified work is still considered secular humanism. Just a quick question to anyone who can answer, are there some main branches of atheistic thought? The only ones that I can identify at the moment seem to be secular humanism and communistic-atheism. Are there any more?

XPViking

What about free thought?

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

I don't care if you'll tolerate flaming or not. If you bow out of the debate on the grounds that I'm being a poopy-head, then I'll happily declare victory because of your use of the style over substance fallacy.

Don't even think about it!! Your no closer to winning this than I am, don't be so arrogant. This is why I sai No Flaming, It had very little to do with style over substance. The point of this thread was to get an Objective opinion from everybody on what's really to blame for the calamity of humankind, and have a little fun in contrasting opinions. Flaming just merely ruins the fun of it. But if you want to be hostile fin by me, I'll just respond in kind.

I've outlined the fundamental differences in our respective approaches. Your conclusion is simplistic, and it is completely useless toward the end of minimizing the problem of terrorism. Useful information can be gleaned from my conclusion to that end. Neither of us is wrong, but your conclusions are simply useless.

Explain how so, you twist my arguments beyond recognition, and you missunderstood everything I have written down.

And blaming it on this nondescript, undefined, completely ambiguous thing you call "human nature" isn't?

It isn't as abiguous as you think it is, read a psychology book or watch some documentaries (esp. ones on serial killers) It is pretty well established by that community, although not entirely, then nothing really is. But I bet that you think Psychology is a Bull shit concept to begin with. That the differnece Between me and you, I'll try to understand the other side, you don't. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

Just because my answer is more useful than yours doesn't mean that it's somehow a copout. I've identified an easily observable and verifiable cause for terrorism. It isn't the only cause, but it is a big one.

It's not, it is a cop out, You Just Don't want to see it from my perspective. what is too difficult to read some Psych books, I am trying to undestand your perspective so I can at have a general Understanding of your stance and then attack it. You for some reason refuse to do the same and just arbitrarily declare Human Nature as falsehood. I might not have totally backed up my claims, but neither have you. Prove that the Field of psychology is a waste of time and then I'll concede.

Acts of terror by Muslims can be very easily traced back to their religious beliefs, so religion must play a significant role in their actions. This is very simple reasoning that you and others in this country are dismissing because you work from the assumption that religion must be inherently good, so any evil that results from it must be the result of men "perverting" it. This is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

True, I've had no arguement with that. I've never said that religion has nothing to do with what has been going on. You just assume I had. Of course it has, but the Huge Bulk of it is the US policies in the Mideast. The whole Mid east was screwed over by the west. It explains why a good majority of Arab nations are Supporting terrorism, esp Saudi Arabia, not all of them follow of agree with Bin Laden or like him for that matter but he 's their hammer against the US.

Religion helped establish basic rules in certain parts of the world, like laws regarding murder, theft, et cetera, but these concepts are not exclusive to religion. Confucius came up with similar concepts without any professed divine aid.

Well Duhh!! I know that, again you are putting words in my mouth.

Furthermore, our modern concept of morality -- which shuns murderous acts in the name of one's religion, something the Big Three don't do in their holy books -- comes from the basic assumption that all humans have rights, and killing someone without legitimate, objective reason (self-defense) is a violation of their right to live their life to its natural end. Islam teaches that murder is wrong because God said so, but if God tells you it's okay, you can go and murder someone. Ditto for Judaism and Christianity. All their holy books contain these messages.

Basically that shows that Religion was twisted so they can continue their crusades of death. Is it soo hard to believe that Humans would do this. the worst of them have corrupted so many things.

That's precisely what you're doing. You explicitly stated that religion started out as something good, with absolutely no evidence to support that conclusion, and mountains of evidence to refute it.

No I'm not!!! What the fuck is wrong with YOU !?!? Don't you read entire posts??? I've Stated in my initial thread that started this whole thing that, although I think Religion had a small but very important role in various atrocities throughout time, It condoned deaths of millions, or billions of people.

Really? So, since I virulently disagree with the United States' current pandering to and elevating of religion, I'm all set to go and ram a plane into the White House?

You know exactly what I mean!!! Don't twist my words around. I'm talking about someone Like Saddam Hussein, of someone who isn't enitirely bound by Religion (or has none at all) who sees the US as a major threat, would do that, to prove a point. All those Right-wing Militia wackos, those conspiracy theorists who think the government is after them, or anyone who thinks the US is endagering them, they would do the exact thing or something that would take lives. Why do you think the IRA Bomb thing all over England and N. Ireland, they do have Religious Differences, but the main reason is b/c the Irish want N Ireland back from England.

You're dangerously close to saying that morality can only exist with religion, but doesn't necessarily have to, while ascribing immorality automatically to nonreligious people.

No I'm not!! I said that Religion was one of the factors that Helped in formulating many of the Moral standards we have. May be I should have included Primordial Governmental law, b/c I knew you would have blown what I said out of proportion.

If bin Laden was a secular humanist, he certainly would not have commissioned people to fly planes into buildings right off the bat; he would have been more reasonable, bringing his case to the United Nations. If the people he got to fly the planes were secular humanists, they probably would not have done what they did, because secular humanism promises no eternal reward for mass murder.

You're probably right there, but I have never said secular Humanist would be capable of killing thousands. Stop jumping the Gun!!! See this is why I don't condone flaming, you get all subjective and you start twisting my words around to try and make me sound like some right-wing wack-job.

In fact, I'll make a more specific challenge. Give a definition of human nature that all evil can be traced back to.

Read a Psycology book man!! Although you probably think that whole field is Bull shit any way.

In this case to Blame Religions is a cop-out. There are many atrocities that aren't attributed to Religion, and can be attributed to human Behavior.
1. Survival/Competition- This is a big one, Humans kill the weaker ones, or the less technically advanced to survive in a new surrounding. Modern Man did this nearly 20,000 give or take, to the Neanderthals when they first came to Europe. So did the Europeans when they butchered the Native Americans. (religion eventually did come to play)

2. Xenophobia- Humans More often than not aren't too tolerant of different looking people. Most of the world governments in the past were not at all tolerant of anyone that was different. With the Exception of Some African tribes and Native Americans, to a degree. Long before the Native Americans (at most 10,000 years) Arfican/Aboriginals reached the Americas (mostly S America), then the Native Americans wiped them out in a war. There Evidence in caves that support this, and a human skull that Predates all Native American activity there by many milennia.(that is another story) Today, there is still evidence of xenophobia in the world. There are some people who haven't seen Black people or white people and are frightened of their appearance. On the Flip side humans also are intrigued by the Unknown and want ot know more about it a conquer it.

Humans are not that much different than animals, well kill, we have sex and many other thing. What makes us better than animals is that we are smarter and more aware of our surroundings. So we can overcome some of theNegative aspects of our Human nature,

If you really want a more definative explanation go to a psycologist. I'm not a psych major and Have only taken a handful of psych courses.

Now that I do think of it, Your stance is self-Defeating, as I try to look at it from Your perspective. You think religion is pointless waste of time. It was created by man and used to control the masses. Which is a quality of Human Nature to control the many, to have power over a group. Well since according to you, man created Religion, why are you blaming Religion for atrocities??? Since Man created Religion, It Ultimately leads back to man, for creating a powerful influence to the masses, that could lead countless deaths over time. This May be a leap, but think about it how can you blame religion when man created it maliciously? (accornding to you)

[XPViking]

Antediluvian,

What do you mean exactly by "free thought"? Is that the basis of secularism? Is that one of its core ideas? I would say that "free thought" as an idea has a basis in certain writings. In other words, the concept of "free thought" could probably be traced, researched, and modified.

XPViking

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, I wouldn't say than t I am a Religious person, but I do believe in God, and an afterlife, and I find the Bible to be a biased version on what God really meant. Besides all that I find it a huge Cop out that people blame Religions for some of the atrocities in the past. True Religions have sanctioned them, but I think they play a small (but very important) role in letting them happen. I think mostly it's Human nature that is the prominent characteristic that not only allows atrocities to occur but creates them in the first place. Look at slavery for example, or the massacre of the Native Americans, both were fueled by the Human fear of the unusual, which led to the superiority complex that the Europeans gradually felt. (plus the Technological gap) Religion only eventually came into the equation. (either forcing the conversion or justifying the atrocities that were commited to both of them) But mostly the atrocities that Humankind has commited on each other has mostly been done because of human nature, and if we as humans don't recognize that, we'll be just as short sighted as we've always been.
I'll open the Floor to other's, and respond.

A deeper question for you: Why do you assume that there's something wrong with humanity, so to speak, or that there's something that needs to be fixed?

I would say that violence is simply a part of the human condition, and that we should fully expect things like this. Moreso, the world is a very rough place. Most of us are from western countries and we're fortunate to have a measure of comfort; but the fact is, simply enough, a lot of people don't. And that's the way it will always be, there are winners and losers.

Through their own brilliance and cunning those Islamist Terrorists killed over three thousand people, for example. There's nothing wrong with the world to explain it. They simply chose to do it. The reasons why are debatable, but it's part of the world we live in where free will is a reality, and most any higher animal has the capability to kill another, for food or for defence.

Our world is always going to be this way, always, because humans can suffer, and they can die, and you can't remove all probabilities; so they will do both. And some of the time they'll do it from the hand of their fellow humans because free will gives those humans the ability to choose to do so, for a countless myriad of reasons.

So, really, all we can do is alleviate the tragedy that is inherent in existence. And considering the amount of suffering that religion has caused throughout history, and the disadvantages that religion has in the modern, industrial era, in comparison to a philosophy of reason, I think it is entirely reasonable to bring the full measure of condemnation down upon religion's flawed theories in this day and age.

It may have once been important in certain ways, but it no longer is, and indeed now it is a detriment to society and really it has been for the past two or two and a half centuries. So let us alleviate some of the burden of our existence as a race by pushing the religions of the world as a whole strictly into the hearts of their adherents (And I don't mean to advocate any persecution against them, but rather the strict seperation of Church and State) and there if they have any virtues they shall remain, and if they do not, they shall die quiet deaths.

[Durandal]

Explain how so, you twist my arguments beyond recognition, and you missunderstood everything I have written down.

It's simple enough. You're pointing out the blatantly obvious and drawing a non-sequiter from it. "Humans did it, so blaming religion is a cop-out." You fallaciously assume that, since humans are responsible for the attacks, this mystical thing you call human nature must be responsible.

It isn't as abiguous as you think it is, read a psychology book or watch some documentaries (esp. ones on serial killers) It is pretty well established by that community, although not entirely, then nothing really is. But I bet that you think Psychology is a Bull shit concept to begin with. That the differnece Between me and you, I'll try to understand the other side, you don't. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

Appeal to anonymous, irrelevant authorities. If they present good arguments, then give them here.

It's not, it is a cop out, You Just Don't want to see it from my perspective. what is too difficult to read some Psych books, I am trying to undestand your perspective so I can at have a general Understanding of your stance and then attack it. You for some reason refuse to do the same and just arbitrarily declare Human Nature as falsehood. I might not have totally backed up my claims, but neither have you. Prove that the Field of psychology is a waste of time and then I'll concede.

Red herring, ad hominem challenge, and shifting the burden of proof. It's amazing how many fallacies you can cram into one paragraph.

You've presented no arguments for me to address, so you expect me to prove that whatever source they come from is bunk, which is an ad hominem and a red herring. You then also expect me to prove that your assumption of human nature is false, when you've given absolutely no argument in it's favor.

Don't you remember? You made the fucking claim that human nature exists, and I called you on it. Provide proof of your claim, or concede. I'm not going to address your moronic challenges that I prove your undefined, fallacious arguments wrong by using ad hominem attacks.

True, I've had no arguement with that. I've never said that religion has nothing to do with what has been going on. You just assume I had.

What else am I to assume, when you decry laying blame on religion as a "copout"? Perhaps you should strive for more consistency in your stance.

Of course it has, but the Huge Bulk of it is the US policies in the Mideast. The whole Mid east was screwed over by the west. It explains why a good majority of Arab nations are Supporting terrorism, esp Saudi Arabia, not all of them follow of agree with Bin Laden or like him for that matter but he 's their hammer against the US.

Irrelevant. If those men hadn't been promised virgins with legs wide-open in the afterlife, they would have been far less likely to fly planes into buildings, which is my argument.

Well Duhh!! I know that, again you are putting words in my mouth.

You claimed that religion helped gave us our moral concepts, and this is false. Secular humanism has given us the modern concept of morality. Religion had no part in it, because Christianity, Islam and Judaism all decry human rights. Some of their conclusions may be the same, but the process by which they arrive is completely different.

Basically that shows that Religion was twisted so they can continue their crusades of death. Is it soo hard to believe that Humans would do this. the worst of them have corrupted so many things.

Stop stating your assumptions as fact. Prove that religion is inherently good and has been corrupted.

No I'm not!!! What the fuck is wrong with YOU !?!? Don't you read entire posts??? I've Stated in my initial thread that started this whole thing that, although I think Religion had a small but very important role in various atrocities throughout time, It condoned deaths of millions, or billions of people.

Must I remind you of your own words?

Once Again your wrong, It's (the worst of)human nature that warped Religion to their own eveil deeds and not the other way around, come on man, Humans aren't so pathetic as you describe them.

Man altered Religion, man sought to control the masses, and man committed all those atrocities.

Something can't be corrupted if it's already evil, so you must assume that religion is inherently good to put forth these arguments, an assumption which has no merit.

You know exactly what I mean!!! Don't twist my words around. I'm talking about someone Like Saddam Hussein, of someone who isn't enitirely bound by Religion (or has none at all) who sees the US as a major threat, would do that, to prove a point. All those Right-wing Militia wackos, those conspiracy theorists who think the government is after them, or anyone who thinks the US is endagering them, they would do the exact thing or something that would take lives. Why do you think the IRA Bomb thing all over England and N. Ireland, they do have Religious Differences, but the main reason is b/c the Irish want N Ireland back from England.

But their religions promise them a better afterlife after being martyred in the name of god. I don't think people would be so willing to suicide bomb without that promise.

No I'm not!! I said that Religion was one of the factors that Helped in formulating many of the Moral standards we have. May be I should have included Primordial Governmental law, b/c I knew you would have blown what I said out of proportion.

No, it wasn't. The moral standards we have are based on secular humanism. You're assuming that because secular humanism and religion have some of the same concepts that secular humanism must have been influenced by religion, which is a false cause fallacy. You have no evidence that the two are connected.

You're probably right there, but I have never said secular Humanist would be capable of killing thousands. Stop jumping the Gun!!!

You've been arguing that, were religion taken away, that these people would still commit evil acts, even though their religion is easily identified as their primary motivator because it promises eternal rewards in return for committing such acts.

See this is why I don't condone flaming, you get all subjective and you start twisting my words around to try and make me sound like some right-wing wack-job.

You're doing a fine job of making yourself look irrational. I'm simply telling you that you're doing it.

Read a Psycology book man!! Although you probably think that whole field is Bull shit any way.

More appeals to authority.

In this case to Blame Religions is a cop-out. There are many atrocities that aren't attributed to Religion, and can be attributed to human Behavior.

<snip>

Red herrings. We're talking about terrorism, a large chunk of which can be pointed directly at religion.

This is your argument in a nutshell.

It is wrong to blame religion for these atrocities, since humans committed them, so it must be due to human nature, because religion has been corrupted by man.

I'll sum up with a list of challenges.

• •Prove that human nature exists.
  •Do so without appeals to authority. If psychology textbooks provide evidence of such a thing, then give it. I'm not going to do your research for you.
  •Provide a concrete definition of human nature. Explain why all acts of violence can be traced back to it.
  •Explain how religion started out as a good thing and was corrupted, even though in the case of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, it was corrupt from the very beginning.
  •Address Mike's example using legal systems instead of religion.

[Nick]

I'll sum up with a list of challenges.

I'm sure THJ will have a go at this too, but hey. I'm for it.

•Prove that human nature exists.
•Do so without appeals to authority. If psychology textbooks provide evidence of such a thing, then give it. I'm not going to do your research for you.
•Provide a concrete definition of human nature. Explain why all acts of violence can be traced back to it.

Fine.

Humans evolved, correct? What is the single most defining feature which separates humans from other animals?

Why, our rationality of course. Our ability to select a goal, assess a situation, and determine the appropriate course of action that is most likely to take us closer to our goal.

So, humans are rational - that means we don't have instincts (i.e a 'nature'), right?

Wrong. Just as we have instincts which tell us "you are hungry, it's time to eat", we have other instincts designed to preserve our existence, and maximise our chances of sexual reproduction. This may include things like: getting angry when our position in the pack is threatened, being possesive of our mates and tools, feeling threatened when our space is invaded.

Problem - these instincts were shaped by an environment where humans lived like animals, because we were animals. This programming didn't magically go away just because we learned to think - it is still there, ticking away to its age-old rhythyms.

OK, so we have instincts, but we can control them, right? Well, to a degree - if they are weak enough, our rational will may be enough to override our irrational urges. However, if they become strong enough they become irresistable - and no amount of rational will in the world will overcome them. All of these urges are rooted in the biochemistry of the brain - this is why psychiatrists can prescribe medication.

Just like our intelligence, the strength of these instincts in each of us is dependent on the brain structure we are born with (nature) and the life events we experience (nurture).

So if you want a rough handle on what human nature is like, without the intervention of rational thought - go study a bunch of chimpanzees. They've got most of the relevant brain hardware - but they appear to be missing the major elements which make human rationality such a potent tool.

So I turn the question back to you, Durandal: justify your belief that the human animal is unique among the higher primates in not having an instinctive nature.

Once we accept that humans instincts exist, and that they can be modified - well, that's when the journey of discovery to figure what the instincts are, and how our rational capacity may be used to alter or direct them begins. And that goal of discovery is a major part of psychological science (which you seem ever-so-ready to dismiss, simply because you are ignorant of it).

•Explain how religion started out as a good thing and was corrupted, even though in the case of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, it was corrupt from the very beginning.

Any religion which discourages rationality should itself be discouraged. The modes of thought of fundamentalism are the classic submission to authority we pick up from the old human instincts. Note that these organisations tend to have charismatic leaders, and those leaders tend to be male. Does the phrase "alpha male" ring a bell?

Face it - humans are animals, with all the baggage that entails. You want to know why humans are generally irrational? Because we are animals - and our instincts are maladaptive for the environment we have created for ourselves.

Evolution is too slow a way to deal with this, and humans have found a _different_ way - a self-directed learning machine, otherwise known as the human intellect.

•Address Mike's example using legal systems instead of religion.

Mike's example using legal systems is the same as my original articulation of the problem with religions.

The problem with fundamentalism is not that it makes people irrational, but rather that it condones their irrational instincts.

Notice that all of the belief systems that people consider 'good' are the ones which encourage rational thought:

Liberal Christianity, modern Jews, modern Muslims, Buddhism, secular humanism, atheism in general, taoism, etc.

Humans are irrational by nature - we don't need any more bloody encouragement from religious institutions.

[Nick]

There seemed to be a couple of appeasement & isolationist attitudes towards terrorism cropping up in this thread.

Here's a tip: "live & let live" only works if the other bloke agrees to abide by the same rules.

We live in a world where it is possible to circle the globe in less than 48 hours. The luxury of ignoring events outside our own backyard has gone away with that change in circumstances.

September 11 & Bali make the point that the worst terrorists are not those who want you to do something. Rather, the worst terrorists are those who hate you, and everything you stand for, and just want you dead.

What does the Western world stand for? Well, primarily, it stands for rational thought (despite the efforts of the American Christian Right). It stands for having ideas that make sense, for judging situations by their merits, and drawing only meaningful distinctions between people (no misogyny or racism!). We are a long way from achieving these ideals (those annoying human instincts are powerful buggers), but at least most of us see them as valuable goals.

These ideas are antithetical to the fundamentalist. They are not something which a fundamentalist can peacefully co-exist with - because they represent a threat to everything the fundamentalist holds sacred. And, if the threat is sufficiently strong, they will lash out - with results like those seen in New York and Bali.

Global poverty, US foreign policy and the like - these are excuses, not reasons. Yes they are problems, but addressing them will NOT make the issue of terrorism go away - just look at Northern Ireland.

War is stupid. Terrorism is stupid. Stop deluding yourselves that terrorists are rational people who can be reasoned with "if only we understood their anger". The only way to break any of them of their conditioning would be to arrest them, lock them up, and subject them to aggressive counter-indoctrination. And most of them are going to be too far gone for that to work.

EDIT: Bloody hell, did somebody push the "set rant mode to on" button or something? Ah well - I'll let it stand as is, but my attitude isn't quite that extreme. I do believe there are grave dangers in applying a rational mindset when we try to figure the motives of fundamentalists, but I'm, not suggesting that going out and gunning people down at random is going to get us anywhere either. It's a complex problem - leaning too far in either direction (terrorists have reasonable gripes/terrorists are all completely irrational) isn't likely to help matters. Obviously, I have a tendency to veer towards the latter opinion when confronted by people of the former position

[Darth Wong]

OK, I'll be blunt about this. Ultimately, every argument made against blaming religion for the result of its own doctrines can be applied equally well to any other social movement, up to and including Nazism. But I don't see anybody saying that Nazism should not be blamed for the faults of human nature.

This entire thread is the biggest fucking cop-out I've ever seen. "Oh, we can't blame religions even when they explicitly teach people to hate; people are imperfect, and they would find some other reason to hate!" Yeah, right. By that token, we can't blame Nazism either. It's an absolutely ridiculous argument.

[Durandal]

So, Nick, unless I misread, you believe that human nature is our instincts? That's fair enough, and I can see how acts of terrorism could be traced back to survival and power instincts.

Now, this is the difficult part, being that you're doing someone else's work. What are we supposed to do about it? Destroy human nature? How?

Nope. We control it. We control it by controlling those things that encourage irrational, harmful activity or activity based purely upon instinct ... like religion, which is what I've been saying all along. In other words, blaming everything on human nature changes nothing, which is also what I've been saying all along. It's a fundamentally useless approach, so who even gives a shit?

Oh, and I never dismissed the entire field of psychology. I demanded that THJ back up his statements rather than simply appealing to authority.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

This entire thread is the biggest fucking cop-out I've ever seen. "Oh, we can't blame religions even when they explicitly teach people to hate; people are imperfect, and they would find some other reason to hate!" Yeah, right. By that token, we can't blame Nazism either. It's an absolutely ridiculous argument.

Besides all that I find it a huge Cop out that people blame Religions for some of the atrocities in the past. True Religions have sanctioned them, but I think they play a small (but very important) role in letting them happen.

Have People missed this in my initial post? I've said over and over that Religion is a very important factor in Human atrocities, but you can't attribute 100% percent of the blame on it. That's what I'm saying is a cop out. I seem to be very misunderstood around here.

[Justforfun000]

Have People missed this in my initial post? I've said over and over that Religion is a very important factor in Human atrocities, but you can't attribute 100% percent of the blame on it. That's what I'm saying is a cop out. I seem to be very misunderstood around here.

I have just read through this entire thread from beginning to end. You are guilty of EXACTLY what you are accusing others of being. You are misunderstanding everyone else's position. I did not see ONE post by anyone arguing against you that said that Religion was 100% to blame. In fact they said the opposite. There's far too many for me to search through and locate specific quotes, but they are all quite fresh to me, and I saw them.

everyone arguing against your position is simply trying to get through to you on one major point:

Religion is a definitive factor in a causal relationship with acts of terrorism and intolerance. Worse, it is derived from belief in irrational ideas that cannot be reasoned with.

So the simple point here has been to express the very valid idea that religious thought be challenged as to it's veracity, especially when being used to justify reprehensible acts against other people and the world.

When people start using religious belief as a REASON for affecting or sustaining any morals,laws,actions in our society then it becomes fair game to say "Ok, you are using this as justification. so justify IT."

The disturbing thing is that people have been calling this very reasonable viewpoint "religious intolerance". This is ridiculous.

We have to stop this madness. This is the heigth of irrationality, and it's a very dangerous practice. We cannot be sensible by repressing our ability to look at religious thoughts without bias, and testing their validity. If you CAN'T test it, then it's NOT PROVABLE YET if ever. So it falls squarely into belief. Belief is NEVER a good reason to be the progenitor of laws and actions that affect all human beings.

Why are so many people resistant to the idea of looking at religion rationally? Easy. They know it will fail the test. They're scared.

Now that is my belief, but I'll bet my ass it's TRUE as well.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

So, Nick, unless I misread, you believe that human nature is our instincts? That's fair enough, and I can see how acts of terrorism could be traced back to survival and power instincts.

If you read this, maybe you would have come to that same conclusuion that you have came to now, But you convieniently ignored it.

1. Survival/Competition- This is a big one, Humans kill the weaker ones, or the less technically advanced to survive in a new surrounding. Modern Man did this nearly 20,000 give or take, to the Neanderthals when they first came to Europe. So did the Europeans when they butchered the Native Americans. (religion eventually did come to play)

2. Xenophobia- Humans More often than not aren't too tolerant of different looking people. Most of the world governments in the past were not at all tolerant of anyone that was different. With the Exception of Some African tribes and Native Americans, to a degree. Long before the Native Americans (at most 10,000 years) Arfican/Aboriginals reached the Americas (mostly S America), then the Native Americans wiped them out in a war. There Evidence in caves that support this, and a human skull that Predates all Native American activity there by many milennia.(that is another story) Today, there is still evidence of xenophobia in the world. There are some people who haven't seen Black people or white people and are frightened of their appearance. On the Flip side humans also are intrigued by the Unknown and want ot know more about it a conquer it.

Humans are not that much different than animals, well kill, we have sex and many other thing. What makes us better than animals is that we are smarter and more aware of our surroundings. So we can overcome some of the Negative aspects of our Human nature.

Now, this is the difficult part, being that you're doing someone else's work. What are we supposed to do about it? Destroy human nature? How?

Because Humans are more sentient, intelligent, and aware (of both ourselves and our surroudings). That's what keeps us from being as savage and territorial, or from wiping each other off the face of the Earth. That's not something we can fix, as you have said, but Humans can't fix everything. The best we can do is is recognize it and try not to make the same mistakes again.

Nope. We control it. We control it by controlling those things that encourage irrational, harmful activity or activity based purely upon instinct ... like religion, which is what I've been saying all along.

No reason in posting your personal opnion in this debate, it serves no purpose.

In other words, blaming everything on human nature changes nothing, which is also what I've been saying all along. It's a fundamentally useless approach, so who even gives a shit?

Exactly, you just gotta realize that trying to solve certain problems are futile. And I've never Blamed everything 100% percent on Humans. I've stated that Religion has condoned, atrocities and sanctioned them. Both very prominent descriptions on how they helped.

Oh, and I never dismissed the entire field of psychology. I demanded that THJ back up his statements rather than simply appealing to authority.[/quote]Read Above. If you read my entire response you would have seen it. I'll retract my assumption that I said you must think the entire Psych field is b.s.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Explain how so, you twist my arguments beyond recognition, and you missunderstood everything I have written down.

It's simple enough. You're pointing out the blatantly obvious and drawing a non-sequiter from it. "Humans did it, so blaming religion is a cop-out." You fallaciously assume that, since humans are responsible for the attacks, this mystical thing you call human nature must be responsible.


Appeal to anonymous, irrelevant authorities. If they present good arguments, then give them here.


Red herring, ad hominem challenge, and shifting the burden of proof. It's amazing how many fallacies you can cram into one paragraph.

You've presented no arguments for me to address, so you expect me to prove that whatever source they come from is bunk, which is an ad hominem and a red herring. You then also expect me to prove that your assumption of human nature is false, when you've given absolutely no argument in it's favor.

Don't you remember? You made the fucking claim that human nature exists, and I called you on it. Provide proof of your claim, or concede. I'm not going to address your moronic challenges that I prove your undefined, fallacious arguments wrong by using ad hominem attacks.


What else am I to assume, when you decry laying blame on religion as a "copout"? Perhaps you should strive for more consistency in your stance.


Irrelevant. If those men hadn't been promised virgins with legs wide-open in the afterlife, they would have been far less likely to fly planes into buildings, which is my argument.


You claimed that religion helped gave us our moral concepts, and this is false. Secular humanism has given us the modern concept of morality. Religion had no part in it, because Christianity, Islam and Judaism all decry human rights. Some of their conclusions may be the same, but the process by which they arrive is completely different.

Basically that shows that Religion was twisted so they can continue their crusades of death. Is it soo hard to believe that Humans would do this. the worst of them have corrupted so many things.

Stop stating your assumptions as fact. Prove that religion is inherently good and has been corrupted.

No I'm not!!! What the fuck is wrong with YOU !?!? Don't you read entire posts??? I've Stated in my initial thread that started this whole thing that, although I think Religion had a small but very important role in various atrocities throughout time, It condoned deaths of millions, or billions of people.

Must I remind you of your own words?

Once Again your wrong, It's (the worst of)human nature that warped Religion to their own eveil deeds and not the other way around, come on man, Humans aren't so pathetic as you describe them.

Nice Way to interpret it, when I wrote that I had Henry the VII in mind.

Man altered Religion, man sought to control the masses, and man committed all those atrocities.

Something can't be corrupted if it's already evil, so you must assume that religion is inherently good to put forth these arguments, an assumption which has no merit.

You know exactly what I mean!!! Don't twist my words around. I'm talking about someone Like Saddam Hussein, of someone who isn't enitirely bound by Religion (or has none at all) who sees the US as a major threat, would do that, to prove a point. All those Right-wing Militia wackos, those conspiracy theorists who think the government is after them, or anyone who thinks the US is endagering them, they would do the exact thing or something that would take lives. Why do you think the IRA Bomb thing all over England and N. Ireland, they do have Religious Differences, but the main reason is b/c the Irish want N Ireland back from England.

But their religions promise them a better afterlife after being martyred in the name of god. I don't think people would be so willing to suicide bomb without that promise.

No, it wasn't. The moral standards we have are based on secular humanism. You're assuming that because secular humanism and religion have some of the same concepts that secular humanism must have been influenced by religion, which is a false cause fallacy. You have no evidence that the two are connected.

That Depends on the Civilization, Babylonian myth states that Hammurabi's Code was given to them By Marduk IIRC

You've been arguing that, were religion taken away, that these people would still commit evil acts, even though their religion is easily identified as their primary motivator because it promises eternal rewards in return for committing such acts.

I'm responding to you other responses some other time, even if there is Little point in doing that. I find it amusing that you left out the other half of my post so convienently.

You're doing a fine job of making yourself look irrational. I'm simply telling you that you're doing it.

Oh Have I Now?? Get off you high horse!! Stop being so arrogant, plus I think you just made youself look bad by only responding and attacking half of my post and convieniently leaving out the rest of it, and proclaiming that I didn't provide evidence so you can Look good and make me sound stupid. GROW UP!!!!

More appeals to authority.[/qoute]
Wow, did the Other half of my post just dissapear?

In this case to Blame Religions is a cop-out. There are many atrocities that aren't attributed to Religion, and can be attributed to human Behavior.

<snip>

Red herrings. We're talking about terrorism, a large chunk of which can be pointed directly at religion.

This is your argument in a nutshell.

Did you read everything on my last post you obviously didn't

It is wrong to blame religion for these atrocities, since humans committed them, so it must be due to human nature, because religion has been corrupted by man.

Not entirely. You seemed to have left this out. It was in my first thread that stared this whole mess.

Besides all that I find it a huge Cop out that people blame Religions for some of the atrocities in the past. True Religions have sanctioned them, but I think they play a small (but very important) role in letting them happen.

I'll sum up with a list of challenges.

• •Prove that human nature exists.

  Challenge accepted.

  •Do so without appeals to authority. If psychology textbooks provide evidence of such a thing, then give it. I'm not going to do your research for you.

  Okay, No problem! The only reason I ask you to do it so maybe you can see thing from my perspective in an objective manner, I'm attempting to look at your perspective, why do you avoid doing the same?? Is it soo hard? And I did that already anyway.
  •Provide a concrete definition of human nature. Explain why all acts of violence can be traced back to it.
  •Explain how religion started out as a good thing and was corrupted, even though in the case of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, it was corrupt from the very beginning.
  •Address Mike's example using legal systems instead of religion.

Again no Problem

1. Survival/Competition- This is a big one, Humans kill the weaker ones, or the less technically advanced to survive in a new surrounding. Modern Man did this nearly 20,000 give or take, to the Neanderthals when they first came to Europe. So did the Europeans when they butchered the Native Americans. (religion eventually did come to play)

2. Xenophobia- Humans More often than not aren't too tolerant of different looking people. Most of the world governments in the past were not at all tolerant of anyone that was different. With the Exception of Some African tribes and Native Americans, to a degree. Long before the Native Americans (at most 10,000 years) Arfican/Aboriginals reached the Americas (mostly S America), then the Native Americans wiped them out in a war. There Evidence in caves that support this, and a human skull that Predates all Native American activity there by many milennia.(that is another story) Today, there is still evidence of xenophobia in the world. There are some people who haven't seen Black people or white people and are frightened of their appearance. On the Flip side humans also are intrigued by the Unknown and want ot know more about it a conquer it.

Humans are not that much different than animals, well kill, we have sex and many other thing. What makes us better than animals is that we are smarter and more aware of our surroundings. So we can overcome some of theNegative aspects of our Human nature,

If you really want a more definative explanation go to a psycologist. I'm not a psych major and Have only taken a handful of psych courses.

Now that I do think of it, Your stance is self-Defeating, as I try to look at it from Your perspective. You think religion is pointless waste of time. It was created by man and used to control the masses. Which is a quality of Human Nature to control the many, to have power over a group. Well since according to you, man created Religion, why are you blaming Religion for atrocities??? Since Man created Religion, It Ultimately leads back to man, for creating a powerful influence to the masses, that could lead countless deaths over time. This May be a leap, but think about it how can you blame religion when man created it maliciously? (according to you)

Did you happen to forget this??? I at least gave you some examples of Human Atrocities which are attributed to human Nature, you seemed to have ignored them, how convenient.

I'll do what I can in explaining it again. There are two examples of some natural Human characteristics (many can be attributed to animal too) that can very much be the direct root to many atrocities. Think of many of the first encounters that Humans of different races 10,000 years or so ago, More often than not wars were the end result of contact with strangers, Humans in the past were far less sophisticated when deal with out siders, they were more animalist and followed the whole Kill or be Killed mentality
Survival/Competion: Humans move into an area and directly, cause the extinction or subjugation of another Group. For Survival and competition. Lower lifeforms do the same thing all the time. Humans did this Neanderthals thousands of years ago
Xenophobia: Humans More often than not aren't too tolerant of different looking people. The Neandethals were different in appearance, so humans wiped them out. The Native American and Africans were different and lived differently so they were subordinated or wiped out. I've stated this Before.

Oh and here's a definition of Human Nature from: http://www.degruyter.de/journals/humnat/

Human Nature is dedicated to advancing the interdisciplinary investigation of the biological, social, and environmental factors that underlie human behavior. It focuses primarily on the functional unity in which these factors are continuously and mutually interactive, including evolutionary, biological, and sociological processes as they interact with human social behavior; biological and demographic consequences of human history; cross-cultural, cross-species, and historical perspectives on human behavior; and the relevance of a biosocial perspective to scientific, social, and policy issues.

Frequently cited and highly rated, the journal features major overviews and statements of biosocial interpretation and research as well as news briefs highlighting recent conferences and research reports.

Abstracted in Sociological Abstracts (SA); Psychological Abstracts (PA, PsycINFO); BIOSIS; Social Science Citation Index (SSCI); Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences; Cited in Magazines for Libraries (Katz)

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Now that I do think of it, Your stance is self-Defeating, as I try to look at it from Your perspective. You think religion is pointless waste of time. It was created by man and used to control the masses. Which is a quality of Human Nature to control the many, to have power over a group. Well since according to you, man created Religion, why are you blaming Religion for atrocities??? Since Man created Religion, It Ultimately leads back to man, for creating a powerful influence to the masses, that could lead countless deaths over time. This May be a leap, but think about it how can you blame religion when man created it maliciously? (according to you)

Just In Case You Missed It?[/quote]

[Durandal]

Please edit your post and reformat it so that your comments aren't trapped inside the quotes they are responding to, if you want me to address what you said. I'm not going to wade through lazy formatting. Hell, I don't even think I'll bother responding to it. I just think that the debate has become convoluted with everyone saying, "You're misrepresenting me!" If you wish to continue this argument, I suggest that we start fresh.

Just post a new post, giving your arguments, and completely ignoring everything we've said before. Start a new thread. Whatever. If you don't want to, fine. Then we'll simply part with no ill will or snipes about one of us conceding.

Sound fair?

[Justforfun000]

Don't blame you Durandel. I was practically getting goggle eyed trying to figure out the mess.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Please edit your post and reformat it so that your comments aren't trapped inside the quotes they are responding to, if you want me to address what you said. I'm not going to wade through lazy formatting. Hell, I don't even think I'll bother responding to it. I just think that the debate has become convoluted with everyone saying, "You're misrepresenting me!" If you wish to continue this argument, I suggest that we start fresh.

Just post a new post, giving your arguments, and completely ignoring everything we've said before. Start a new thread. Whatever. If you don't want to, fine. Then we'll simply part with no ill will or snipes about one of us conceding.

Sound fair?

Agreed!

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Mods Lock this one if you want, It's unnecessary now.