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

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-20 12:36am

Western religions are indeed much more intolerant and violent most other beliefs. That's the reason why they're so wide spread. Is it a cop out to blame them for the problems? Hell no, especially when religion is to blame. One could easily find text in the Bible or the Koran that promotes senseless massacres. One might say humans are inherently violent. But if religion leads to that violence more easily than other means, then religion is clearly to blame.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-10-20 06:06am

1. Yes, human nature exists, and no it is not analogous to racism.

'Human nature' is identified at the last meaningful biological distinction: the species. Efforts below that point have failed to demonstrate any scientifically measurable differences - hence why racism is illogical. 'Race' is a meaningless distinction.

'Species' on the other hand, is a meaningful distinction - and humans do share certain evolved instincts which impact on our ability to be rational. We share many of these instincts with the other primates (i.e. chimps and apes), and ever share a few with many of the other mammals (wolves, herd animals, etc.)

Understanding 'human nature' is a matter of trying to identify the evolutionary reasons behind "Why are people so stupid?" - and it is because most of our instincts evolved in situations extremely different from the world of civilised humanity.

The thing which differentiates humans from other animals is not that we have no instincts - rather, it is that we can (to some degree) override the instincts that we do posess. The better our understanding of what our instincts are the better our ability to control them - and the better our ability to act in our own rational self-interest.

2. Many organised religions ARE to blame, but not for human irrationality

What they are to blame for is their ongoing and active opposition to efforts to increase the rationality of the human race. The increased control over sexuality granted by birth control & abortion is actually in the interests of most humans - but many religions oppose, not only both contraception and abortion, but even discussion of these issues.

And it is this suppresion of questioning thought for which they are to blame. Things aren't as bad as when Galileo was around, but the battlelines have merely shifted - the battle hasn't been won. Fundamentalists oppose scientific cosmology. The Catholic Church, along with Islam and many other religions, oppose a proper understanding of human sexuality.

Pretty much every spiritualist on the planet despises the idea of a biologically driven 'human nature'.

And that is the foundation for my dislike of organised religion (and many forms of religious thinking) - not because it is responsible for irrationality, but because it condones and supports it.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-20 08:47am

lgot wrote:Well
You can not blame the September 11 in Religion only, The major cause of that attack was USA's International politics and mistakes...30, 40 years of that.

But then, there is a difference between a Religious Institution and a gun. The Religious institution is something that act and have moral and beliefs that she looks to protect, claim and make know. That allows anyone to charge those Institutions with responsability.
But to me, again, those institutions have origem and develop inside societies, they are cultural trait of those societies, a indication of what those societies think and how they act. They use and give interpretations to "texts", myths and legends as they wish. If you blame a religion, you should blame that society, as it is not possible to put both apart.
So, I only see, that when people blame so much the Western Catholic Church as way to input responsability to most of Western Europeans societies from the last centuries.
Funny to think that, since some topics ago, there was argument about the good of those civilization to the natives of american and africa and for the oriental people...

i didnt say that the institution were comparable to the gun, but religion itself. the instituions would be the wielder of the gun. they can do good and evil with it just like with a gun. and for some reason (greed, lust for power) they mainly go for the evil part. and the institutions are not only religios institutions (e.g. catholic church), no politians also (ab)use religion ( usa, iran...)

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-20 10:57am

Ask yourself this. If Osama bin Laden was a secular humanist atheist, would he have flown two planes into the Twin Towers? - Durandel

In this case, probably not. It's possible that Osama might have found a different form of justification in order to carry such an act out, depending on how strongly he felt about it. For example, some people might "die for their country" without that belief being grounded in any religion per say. Your not saying that all acts of terrorism have roots in reigious justification, are you?

Why it [religion]continues to kick around is a complete mystery. - Durandel

That's easy to answer. People are not always rational beings. I'm surprised you would even ask that question since you've had religious fundementalists post here before.

XPViking

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-10-20 12:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:Of course it's not true, since God is fictional. But we can say that regardless of the leaders' sincerity, it means that one could get people to commit or condone atrocities by appealing to their religious beliefs. Name one time in history that someone has gotten anyone to commit or condone atrocities by appealing to, say Buddhism or humanism.

None, that's the point. No one every did that in China or India, yet that doesn't stop them from fighting just as many wars and doing just as many nasty things as countries WITH KillKillKillDieDieDie religions. Plus, the Communist Purges by Stalin and the Cultural Revolution put the Holocaust to chame, yet none of them were rooted in religion.

When one contry makes war on another, or does a bunch of Nasties, the reason is generally not "God told me to" but "I want extra territory" or "I want my power secure" Religion IS responsible for many events, but hardly something which, if eliminated, would have made all, or most, or even a good portion of the world's problems go away. If there's one thing people are good at, it's making up excuses.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-20 02:12pm

1. Yes, human nature exists, and no it is not analogous to racism.

'Human nature' is identified at the last meaningful biological distinction: the species. Efforts below that point have failed to demonstrate any scientifically measurable differences - hence why racism is illogical. 'Race' is a meaningless distinction.

Of course it is. However, just because "species" has biological validity as a distinction is no reason to assume that that humans are all governed by this mystical human nature which philosophers and ethicists never cease to yammer about, but never bother giving a concrete definition for.

So, I'll ask again ... What is human nature? What does it cause humans to do that it can be blamed for all violent acts on massive scales? Is human nature inherently negative? Is it inherently positive? Either way, you're taking one trait and applying it to every human who has ever lived, which is hasty generalization and a logical fallacy.

In this case, probably not. It's possible that Osama might have found a different form of justification in order to carry such an act out, depending on how strongly he felt about it. For example, some people might "die for their country" without that belief being grounded in any religion per say. Your not saying that all acts of terrorism have roots in reigious justification, are you?

It would have been impossible for him to associate his actions with secular humanism, because secular humanism condemns such actions. Also, if he was a true secular humanist, he simply wouldn't have done it, because secular humanism does not condemn followers of religion.

Acts of terrorism don't have to be rooted in religion; the people performing them can simply be insane. Osama bin Laden, however, is quite sane, despite being a religious fanatic. Certain religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) makes acts of terrorism much easier to carry out and justify. Like I said before, religion in general is held up as the be-all and end-all of humanity, so people automatically jump all over themselves trying to exonerate it if someone interprets a Bible or Qua'ran passage in a straightforward manner and kills a few thousand people. If religion didn't have such a preposterously high status, odds are that the Twin Towers would still be standing.

MattTheSkywalker · Post by **MattTheSkywalker** » 2002-10-20 05:57pm

Hitler was very much into religion as a motivator. His heroes included Martin Luther (among history's all time great Jew haters), and he was able to persuade Catholics in other countries to assist by rounding up Jews in advance.

islam is aprox 1400 years old. At age 1400, Christianity was similarly oppressive. We just were not as technologically advanced as to allow wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 06:51pm

Darth Wong wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:No that was a philosophy that he created. It may hint at religion, But Hitler wasn't a Religious Man, as far as I know. It was a philosophy of hate, plain and simple.
Read the relevant page on my Creationism site. Hitler was a Christian. He claimed that Jews and Blacks were evolved from apes, but Aryans were created in God's image.

Thanks for clarification there, But if I recall didn't Hitler eventually renounce his religion?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-20 06:55pm

Regardless of whether he renounced it or not, he still carried out those acts in the name of Christianity.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-20 08:25pm

It would have been impossible for him to associate his actions with secular humanism, because secular humanism condemns such actions. Also, if he was a true secular humanist, he simply wouldn't have done it, because secular humanism does not condemn followers of religion.

Correct. Just as moderate Muslims condemn Osama and say that he is not a "true" Muslim. That is, they were saying that "true" followers of Islam don't commit such acts. So if a secular humanist committed an act of terror (unlikely I'm sure), I have no doubt that, as you've already implied, that other secular humanists would condemn that person saying he isn't a "true" or "right" secular humanist.

Acts of terrorism don't have to be rooted in religion; the people performing them can simply be insane. Osama bin Laden, however, is quite sane, despite being a religious fanatic. Certain religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) makes acts of terrorism much easier to carry out and justify. Like I said before, religion in general is held up as the be-all and end-all of humanity, so people automatically jump all over themselves trying to exonerate it if someone interprets a Bible or Qua'ran passage in a straightforward manner and kills a few thousand people. If religion didn't have such a preposterously high status, odds are that the Twin Towers would still be standing. - Durandel

What I'd like to know, and this is for everyone, is what Qua'ran passage or passages did Osama bin Laden use to justify his act of terror? Has this already been covered? I'm looking here for actual scriptural references.

XPViking

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 08:46pm

XPViking wrote:Correct. Just as moderate Muslims condemn Osama and say that he is not a "true" Muslim. That is, they were saying that "true" followers of Islam don't commit such acts. So if a secular humanist committed an act of terror (unlikely I'm sure), I have no doubt that, as you've already implied, that other secular humanists would condemn that person saying he isn't a "true" or "right" secular humanist.

And he would be unable to point to any secular humanist writings which could be used to justify his actions. This is no small distinction.

What I'd like to know, and this is for everyone, is what Qua'ran passage or passages did Osama bin Laden use to justify his act of terror? Has this already been covered? I'm looking here for actual scriptural references.

Surf to http://www.secularhumanism.org/wtc.htm to read an article about Islamic intolerance complete with many scriptural references, including such gems as "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them" (IX. 5-6) and "Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s." (VIII.39-42).

The "holy books" of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity form the pillars upon which the trinity of intolerance stands.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-20 09:01pm

And he would be unable to point to any secular humanist writings which could be used to justify his actions. This is no small distinction. - Darth Wong

Fair enough. Do you think it might be possible for one to misinterprete secular humanist writings in order to justify an act of terror? Or would that be "impossible"?

Surf to http://www.secularhumanism.org/wtc.htm to read an article about Islamic intolerance complete with many scriptural references, including such gems as " Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them " (IX. 5-6) and " Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s. " (VIII.39-42). - Darth Wong

A good article and thanks for the link.

XPViking

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-20 09:06pm

I should clarify my above post a little bit. I realize that such scriptural works such as the Bible, the Qua'ran, etc... can be interpreted by certain groups to justify acts of terror. Mr. Wong then states that secular humanism has no such writings. Taking him at his word, since I don't know enough about secular humanism to comment, I'm wondering if someone could possibly misinterprete (or even invent) some secular humanist writings to justify acts of terror. I suppose the easy answer would be "yes" since anyone desperate enough could probably find validation in anything.

XPViking

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 09:25pm

XPViking wrote:I should clarify my above post a little bit. I realize that such scriptural works such as the Bible, the Qua'ran, etc... can be interpreted by certain groups to justify acts of terror.

Without too much difficulty, given passages such as those cited above and in my anti-creationism website.

Mr. Wong then states that secular humanism has no such writings. Taking him at his word, since I don't know enough about secular humanism to comment, I'm wondering if someone could possibly misinterprete (or even invent) some secular humanist writings to justify acts of terror. I suppose the easy answer would be "yes" since anyone desperate enough could probably find validation in anything.

No. For one thing, secular humanism has no scriptural basis. There is no "holy book", and no appeal to authority. That fact alone negates the possibility of using any kind of holy "writings" in order to justify terrorism on the basis of secular humanism.

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.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 09:37pm

Durandal wrote:
So we can find the cause of the problem and attempt to fix it! Why else? You don't sit there on a jury in a murder trial muttering, "Why do we have to place blame?", do you?
Even attempting to fix problems is wishful thinking, especially the problems that humanity currently faces. BTW that's a poor analogy to use.

So, we should do what, then? Continue to encourage irrational beliefs, many of which were created for the sole purpose of endorsing and justifying slaughter and death on extremely large scales?
Well this clearly shows that you don't tolerate any Religion at all. That's your opinion.

You don't get it. People would sooner blame "human nature" than religious beliefs for massive acts of slaughter, already! What has that gotten us? Nothing. Religion is held up as some sort of symbol of all that is good in humanity, so no evil can come from it, even though monstrous amounts of evil can easily be traced back to religious beliefs!
Name some, and I'll show you how evil was actually spawned from humans and was sanctioned by Religion. (after making modifications)

Religion is perhaps one of, if not the largest problem the human race has. Ask yourself this. If Osama bin Laden was a secular humanist atheist, would he have flown two planes into the Twin Towers?
Yes Because, most of the Mideast's hatred of America stems from the inconsistent US policies there. Have you heard of the Iran/Iraq wars. Or the US foolish, pointless defense of Israel. Those are the root causes for their hatred of the US and the west, and b/c the west has laid waste to everything there. Religion only came into play when Bin Landen needed followers and stooges to do his dirty work. Do you think He would have Volunteered to have been on those Jets. Hell no he wouldn't. In fact if he really was a holy man (not to say that he isn't) he would have died for his cause, but he's nothing but a pathetic, billionaire who is twisting a Religion to his desire and using that distortion to get disillusioned people to be his followers, he not that much different from David Koresh(sp).

Yes, religion was originally created as a means of explaining the unknown and controlling large groups of people, but we have science and secular governments for those two respective purposes, now. Religion is an utterly useless and unneeded aspect of society that has done much more harm than good. Why it continues to kick around is a complete mystery.
Personally I would go with the former. Religion was supposed to be a good thing, but it was just corrupted, Henry the VIII did when He wanted a divorce, He created the Church of England (Anglican). How else would you explain why there are so many sects of so many different Religions? It's B/c man shapes religion and not the other way around. Your belief of merely allows humans to excuse ourselves for the atrocities committed, and blame it entirely on Religion (or a huge bulk of it). Thats foolishly irresponsible, and if we do that were are only gonna miss the real reason why. (Did Stalin Kill 20 millionof his own people b/c he was religious?) You choose religion b/c you think it is the most convienient way to solve a problem, It is certainly not. We have corrupted science, just as much as we've corrupted religion and Government. Humans have faults, that's why there are atrocities being committed. If you think throwing away religion will end it then you have blinders to the world.

Then, pray tell, what is the real problem? Some humans are evil? Well, no shit, Sherlock. You can't just snap your fingers and make everyone be a good person. But, you can identify and control the means by which these evil men can harm others. One of those mechanisms is -- get ready for this -- religion!
Well who the fuck was asking for instant bliss!?!?! I'm not nor have I stated that in my posts. And even if you stop all religion from existing, do you think that bliss will shoot up out of nowhere? No, not only is that wishful thinking but that's just plain stupid. 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. It seem that you are on a crusade to end religion, well you can't do that b/c you are gonna come along people who are gonna resist and reject your notions. What are you gonna do about them? Hmmm? Commit an atrocity?

Strawman. Specify where I accused all followers of Islam of ramming planes into buildings, rather than simply giving an accurate description of the people who commit such acts: Muslim terrorists.
Point conceded. I'll just say that you should have been more specific in differentiating Islam and Islam terrorists.
How is it a "cop out" to make the simple correlation between Islam's beliefs that suicidal attacks upon those deemed "infidels" (read: people who pray to a different invisible man from the one they pray to) will automatically earn them a spot in Heaven and suicidal attacks upon "infidels" by Muslims? If Islam purported the belief that such attacks would automatically send you to Hell, do you think Muslims would be carrying them out?

OH come on!!
Not exactly, what about "Thou Salt not Judge others", they judge people on a daily basis. Plain and simple, the Bible is a massive contradiction of the word of God written By man, that's why I don't really like to use it as a source.

Of course it is, it was written by man. Oh and i Have read the Bible on many occassions, don't attack my credibilty on the Bible that's just stupid especially if your ignorant to the fact that I have read and understood it many times. Again, I ask you NOT TO FLAME ME it's really childish and takes away from my thread. The ONly reason I Wrote an Aggresive response is b/c of your unecessarily hostile post. If You do it again I won't even dignify it with a response.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 09:43pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:Not exactly, what about "Thou Salt not Judge others", they judge people on a daily basis. Plain and simple, the Bible is a massive contradiction of the word of God written By man, that's why I don't really like to use it as a source.

Not to stick my nose into this or anything, but since it is obvious that the Bible was written by man, why should we assume that there is any "Word of God" at all?

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 09:49pm

There are plenty of non Religious Terrorists, or at least ones who don't hide behind Religion. If the US government gave some guy pissed off at the Goevrment, or some wacko (with the know how and the equipment to wreak havok) an incentive to commit terror, he/she would do so. All those right- wing wacko militiamen would be no different than Bin Laden. They may be Religious, but they aren't Religious wackos like Bin Laden.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 09:51pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:There are plenty of non Religious Terrorists, or at least ones who don't hide behind Religion. If the US government gave some guy pissed off at the Goevrment, or some wacko (with the know how and the equipment to wreak havok) an incentive to commit terror, he/she would do so. All those right- wing wacko militiamen would be no different than Bin Laden. They may be Religious, but they aren't Religious wackos like Bin Laden.

False dilemma fallacy: you are silently assuming that either religion causes ALL terrorism or it can't be blamed for terrorism. This is not necessary; religion causes a lot of terrorism; not ALL terrorism, but a lot of it. Decrying its influence is no different than decrying the influence of drunk driving on traffic fatalities, even though many traffic fatalities don't involve alcohol.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 09:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:Not exactly, what about "Thou Salt not Judge others", they judge people on a daily basis. Plain and simple, the Bible is a massive contradiction of the word of God written By man, that's why I don't really like to use it as a source.
Not to stick my nose into this or anything, but since it is obvious that the Bible was written by man, why should we assume that there is any "Word of God" at all?

You got a point there, I question that all the time. But there are soo many thing in the Universe that we are far from having and concrete explanation for, we can't be entirely sure. I just try to have faith. Man I watch too much Contact.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 09:54pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:You got a point there, I question that all the time. But there are soo many thing in the Universe that we are far from having and concrete explanation for, we can't be entirely sure. I just try to have faith. Man I watch too much Contact.

Well, as long as you admit it's simple faith, I don't have a problem with it.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 09:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:There are plenty of non Religious Terrorists, or at least ones who don't hide behind Religion. If the US government gave some guy pissed off at the Goevrment, or some wacko (with the know how and the equipment to wreak havok) an incentive to commit terror, he/she would do so. All those right- wing wacko militiamen would be no different than Bin Laden. They may be Religious, but they aren't Religious wackos like Bin Laden.
False dilemma fallacy: you are silently assuming that either religion causes ALL terrorism or it can't be blamed for terrorism. This is not necessary; religion causes a lot of terrorism; not ALL terrorism, but a lot of it. Decrying its influence is no different than decrying the influence of drunk driving on traffic fatalities, even though many traffic fatalities don't involve alcohol.

Oh I said that? Well I was just saying that it goes both ways. Religious wackos can commit atrocities and some pissed off guy with shitload of explosives can do the same. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, just point out that you don't have to be a religious Zealot like Bin Laden to be a Terrorist.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 10:02pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:Oh I said that? Well I was just saying that it goes both ways. Religious wackos can commit atrocities and some pissed off guy with shitload of explosives can do the same. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, just point out that you don't have to be a religious Zealot like Bin Laden to be a Terrorist.

True. But how does that affect the point that religion is one of the major causes of terrorism? Why even mention it? No one said that religion is the ONLY cause of terrorism, so it's not as if you were refuting anything.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 10:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:Oh I said that? Well I was just saying that it goes both ways. Religious wackos can commit atrocities and some pissed off guy with shitload of explosives can do the same. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, just point out that you don't have to be a religious Zealot like Bin Laden to be a Terrorist.
True. But how does that affect the point that religion is one of the major causes of terrorism? Why even mention it? No one said that religion is the ONLY cause of terrorism, so it's not as if you were refuting anything.

I wasn't, But you'd be suprised about what some peoplew are saying. Such as Human nature is Bull shit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 10:11pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:I wasn't, But you'd be suprised about what some peoplew are saying. Such as Human nature is Bull shit.

In context, I believe he was saying that it's bullshit to blame human nature rather than religion for the acts of an Islamic terrorist with explicitly stated religious motivations. What's wrong with that?

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 10:29pm

Darth Wong wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:I wasn't, But you'd be suprised about what some peoplew are saying. Such as Human nature is Bull shit.
In context, I believe he was saying that it's bullshit to blame human nature rather than religion for the acts of an Islamic terrorist with explicitly stated religious motivations. What's wrong with that?

Well True, But Also Alot of their (or at least their followers) are more pissed off at US foreign Policy in the Mideast and their Foolish, pointless, defense of Israel. Bin Laden is just captalizing on their calamity and anger, Just as a Cult Leader (i.e. David Koresh) does. Personally Religion does have some responsibility in atrocities (a small but very important role), but a stronger part is formed by how Humans first preceived each other. Europeans saw Africans and Native Americans as dirty savages (who lived like animals in their eyes) because of how they lived and the technological gaps between them. Eventually the European Religion would come into play in the persecution of these people.