If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong

[Darth Yoshi]

How exactly does a debate centering around actual history veer into alternate history, pray tell?

I believe he means non-Abrahamic religions would have been just as bad as Abrahamic religions if they had spread across the globe.

[Surlethe]

How exactly does a debate centering around actual history veer into alternate history, pray tell?

I believe he means non-Abrahamic religions would have been just as bad as Abrahamic religions if they had spread across the globe.

But that would be irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Abrahamic religions actually have caused more suffering than non-Abrahamic religions.

[The Silence and I]

True. But it is relevent if we are trying to judge all religions equally; saying X isn't as bad as Y because X hasn't caused so much mayhem doesn't mean all that much if there is powerful evidence X most certainly would cause comperable trouble if given the chance to shine.

[Battlehymn Republic]

That's my point.

[General Zod]

True. But it is relevent if we are trying to judge all religions equally; saying X isn't as bad as Y because X hasn't caused so much mayhem doesn't mean all that much if there is powerful evidence X most certainly would cause comperable trouble if given the chance to shine.

If that's the point of the topic, maybe. But it's a simple fact that not all religions affect everyone equally, so naturally some religions are going to be bashed more frequently because they make the headlines much more often.

[Darth Wong]

True. But it is relevent if we are trying to judge all religions equally; saying X isn't as bad as Y because X hasn't caused so much mayhem doesn't mean all that much if there is powerful evidence X most certainly would cause comperable trouble if given the chance to shine.

Except that this claim requires the assumption that it would be just as expansionist, and the expansionist drive is really quite specific to Islam and Christianity. Even Judaism doesn't really have the kind of rabid expansionist doctrine that Islam and Christianity do; it really gets obnoxious only about that hotly contested little piece of dirt in the Middle East that we call Israel.

That's another reason why people focus on Christianity and Islam; in case you're too dense to figure it out, those are the two religions which put the most emphasis on running around the whole world converting others to their belief system. Without that rabid expansionist drive, any other religion, even if it has some stupid-shit dogma like Hinduism's asinine caste system, would not cause as much global destruction.

[Magnetic]

I understand what you're saying. I'm just offering what I know to be true and what happens within the Christian circle. Doctrination is hard to overcome, and I ought to know. I still struggle with it.

So? It's about changing the tenor of a debate. I've "won" debates with Christians by putting them on the defensive with tactics like this. Not by making them admit that God is evil, but by putting them on the defensive. So a debate that originally started with some jackass Bible thumper demanding that "we put God back into the schools" ends up with him desperately defending his faith and pitifully trying to argue that "well, religion still has a place in society". He can have that point; simply by putting him on the defensive, I took his original point away from him. He doesn't even try to argue it. And then at the end, after relentlessly hammering on the worthiness of his religion to exist at all, you magnaminously pull back a little bit and grant him the "concession" that religion still has a valid place in society outside the taxpayer-funded public schools, so that he thinks the two of you reached a healthy compromise. And yes, I've done this in real-life many times.

In that sense you are correct (God in the schools). Those kind of debates shouldn't be 'won' by any religious group. School isn't a place to promote any religious agendas. Now, as for 'taking his original point away, thus putting him on the defensive', I've run into such things as well, a point that is left unanswered and the person saying I have sinned for even questioning.

And in a way, I do feel I can criticize the article because it just appears to be someone's opinion. There doesn't seem to be evidence to back up any claims.

You need "evidence" for a claim that a doctrine based solely on the authority of self-proclaimed "prophets" is bullshit?

I'm only saying that his statements (Abraham never existed, Jesus was insane, etc.) cannot be backed either. Whether Abraham actually existed, whether Hebrew people wandered in the desert after God plagued Egypt, whether there was a Noah who built an ark, . . . .whether any of these are true, there's going to be two sides (maybe a third who doesn't care) who will be resolute that they are correct. If you take the Bible to be the literal word of God and build a religion (several, actually) on it, then this debate will continue in absence of actual proof. That's all I'm saying. [/quote]

[The Silence and I]

That's another reason why people focus on Christianity and Islam; in case you're too dense to figure it out, those are the two religions which put the most emphasis on running around the whole world converting others to their belief system. Without that rabid expansionist drive, any other religion, even if it has some stupid-shit dogma like Hinduism's asinine caste system, would not cause as much global destruction.

Not going to argue with that, the expansionist drive of those two religions is IMO clearly the reason they are so dominate. I was merely speaking from a purely hypothetical situation where we arbitrarily put another religion into power and see what happens. I make no claims such a less aggressive religion is likely to find itself in that position.

You pointed out that since something like, say, Hinduism lacks that converting drive it isn't likely to be as damaging, simply because it will never control the globe, and I agree. However I do think it would be just as damging IF it could find itself there--and that is the full and only extent of my point. I'm just trying to hold a certain standard to everything, although you might be able to claim my standard isn't valid in this case since only the big two can get to the point where I can apply that standard.

[General Zod]

You pointed out that since something like, say, Hinduism lacks that converting drive it isn't likely to be as damaging, simply because it will never control the globe, and I agree. However I do think it would be just as damging IF it could find itself there--and that is the full and only extent of my point. I'm just trying to hold a certain standard to everything, although you might be able to claim my standard isn't valid in this case since only the big two can get to the point where I can apply that standard.

Isn't that something of a red-herring? Since it doesn't actually address any of the points someone makes in an argument against Christianity, except to say that they should bash all religions as well?

[The Silence and I]

You pointed out that since something like, say, Hinduism lacks that converting drive it isn't likely to be as damaging, simply because it will never control the globe, and I agree. However I do think it would be just as damging IF it could find itself there--and that is the full and only extent of my point. I'm just trying to hold a certain standard to everything, although you might be able to claim my standard isn't valid in this case since only the big two can get to the point where I can apply that standard.

Isn't that something of a red-herring? Since it doesn't actually address any of the points someone makes in an argument against Christianity, except to say that they should bash all religions as well?

Honestly, I don't know if it is or not. What you say doesn't make sense to me:

Since it doesn't actually address any of the points someone makes in an argument against Christianity

I wasn't trying to address points against Christianity--I think Christianity should get the full beating it deserves... so I'm confused here...

When I typed my first post I was responding to the statement that Abrahamic religions HAVE caused more damage, therefore we are ignoring all others. I simply wanted to point out that I feel the same standard should be used--Abrahamic religions HAVE caused more damage, thanks to their aggressive, spreading nature, but what makes individuals act like bigots is common to most/all religions. So even if non Abrahamic religions have caused less damage it is ONLY/largely because they are less widespread.

Is that a fallacy of some kind? I couldn't tell you. Researching them made me bored to tears and I only know a few from repeated exposure--I usually avoid them naturally, but *shrug*

[General Zod]

When I typed my first post I was responding to the statement that Abrahamic religions HAVE caused more damage, therefore we are ignoring all others. I simply wanted to point out that I feel the same standard should be used--Abrahamic religions HAVE caused more damage, thanks to their aggressive, spreading nature, but what makes individuals act like bigots is common to most/all religions. So even if non Abrahamic religions have caused less damage it is ONLY/largely because they are less widespread.

It' doesn't seem to be so much that we're ignoring the others as they're simply not given as much of a spotlight in the news as mainstream
Abrahamic religions are. It's kind of hard to bash something when you almost never hear about it happening after all.

[CoyoteNature]

Not sure if I agree with the article, seems to single out religion, when more accurately it should be singling out ideology and/or finaticism. Didn't address alternative sociopolitical structures such as Nazism, or Communism, which did kill a great many people and caused a great deal of suffering but were not explicitly religious, unless you count them as religious, in which point I agree.

I also disagree that religion is somehow the ultimate of all human evil, and that by elliminating it well then, everything will be happy and wonderful.

Its inaccurate and illogical to say this, religion and in particular Abraihamic religion are like any other portion of our society, which is double edged swords, a government such as the US can commit genoicide (deliberate annihalation of Native Americans), but does this mean the structure itself is bad. It can through its own particular ideology cause the persecution of many different people, oh lets see nearly the entire exspance of from 1792 to 1900s.

Religion's a tool, just like a government; the fact that its constitution is misinterpreted or interpreted correctly in no way dissallows its essential importance or good and evil it creates in the moment and time it exists in.


Yes people murder rape and do other reprehensible acts in the name of God, on the other side of the spectrum they do feed the poor, they do educate(even if it is only to spread the word faster), and serve as a unifying force for many different people.

And no I am not saying its all good, or all bad, but its innacurate to label it as the worst facet of human society, it completely ignores the fact that people regardless of belief structure twist that belief to whatever their desires wish it to be, or alternatively serve as a moderating force on otherwise psychotic individuals who would kill and rape otherwise.

I mean altruism is, well, its in rather short supply in the human race, I think more people help the poor and others then through altruism alone.

As long as it stays in balance, its fine in its place, its when it becomes unbalanced to other parts of our society that it becomes a problem and creates the suffering it does.

[Spyder]

As athiests it's time we stop mincing words and grow some balls. If we are ever to progress as a species the enlightened ones must answer the one true calling!

Arise my Godless brothers and slay the non-non-believers!

DARWIN AKUBAR!

[CaptJodan]

Not sure if I agree with the article, seems to single out religion, when more accurately it should be singling out ideology and/or finaticism. Didn't address alternative sociopolitical structures such as Nazism, or Communism, which did kill a great many people and caused a great deal of suffering but were not explicitly religious, unless you count them as religious, in which point I agree.

It didn't address many facets of society which are wrong. That wasn't the point of the article, to go after every possible social problem that leads to war.

I also disagree that religion is somehow the ultimate of all human evil, and that by elliminating it well then, everything will be happy and wonderful.

I don't think that the article said anything of the kind. Certainly no one with half a braincell thinks all war will be eliminated just because we get rid of religion. North Korea isn't going to stop saber rattling if all religion bit the dust. But with half or more of the wars started in history start with religion as the core of it, you could really cut down on all the unnecessary bloodshed between wars that have nothing to do with religion.

Its inaccurate and illogical to say this, religion and in particular Abraihamic religion are like any other portion of our society, which is double edged swords, a government such as the US can commit genoicide (deliberate annihalation of Native Americans), but does this mean the structure itself is bad. It can through its own particular ideology cause the persecution of many different people, oh lets see nearly the entire exspance of from 1792 to 1900s.

Problem is it adds another portion of society that someone can get really worked up over, and take seriously. Few people are honestly going to take the ST vs SW debate and make a shooting war out of it, but something as serious as the fairytales in religion, arguing over the details until it meets with some kind of war? That's a bit of a problem.

Religion's a tool, just like a government; the fact that its constitution is misinterpreted or interpreted correctly in no way dissallows its essential importance or good and evil it creates in the moment and time it exists in.

I question, certainly in Christianty's sake, whether the interpretations by the Fundies are wrong. Some non-fundies (who may or may not have actually read the Bible, like I was previous to reading it) may believe that the Bible is literal truth, but just may sweep under the rug or try and excuse God's acts in the Bible to say that we simply don't understand his love yadda yadda and it's all well and good.

I think the problem is that, the Bible in particular because I know it and don't know much of Arabic religion, the fundie interpretations are right in what they believe in. The Bible is God's own words, and if you decide to take it that way, then the extreemism you see is a result of the religion and the precieved literal stories in the Bible.

Yes people murder rape and do other reprehensible acts in the name of God, on the other side of the spectrum they do feed the poor,

A noble goal. One which humanists can and I'd wager do participate in as well, you just don't hear about it much. (I'd argue that if religion didn't exist, or didn't exist as strongly, you'd hear about many other non-profit organizations going out and helping during disasters or helping feed the poor.) But certainly this is an honorable trait.

they do educate(even if it is only to spread the word faster),

Yes, and what is it they teach again? Intelligent Design anyone? They sure as hell tend to try and avoid real science whenever possible. That's not real education, there. If they do teach reading and writing and math, it is simply to help them better understand the Bible. "If there are Ten people that Jesus needs to clear into Heaven, and Jesus clears 3, how many are going to hell?" that kind of thing.

and serve as a unifying force for many different people.

Sporting events draw people together in common goal. A nation is built around the very concept of joining people together in a common society. You get ever smaller from there, from state (or provience) to your neighborhood. Hell this board is a unifying force equal to that of any religion. Most of us share a common thread...we enjoy SW, ST, SLAM or all 3 and find it a nice hobby to get away and beat each other over the head with slightly conflicting views on the specifics. But we sure don't influence the political structure of any country.

And no I am not saying its all good, or all bad, but its innacurate to label it as the worst facet of human society, it completely ignores the fact that people regardless of belief structure twist that belief to whatever their desires wish it to be, or alternatively serve as a moderating force on otherwise psychotic individuals who would kill and rape otherwise.

Mostly addressed above, however I personally wouldn't suggest that religion is the worst facet of human society. But then I've never thought what would be.

I mean altruism is, well, its in rather short supply in the human race, I think more people help the poor and others then through altruism alone.

I don't have solid data on this either way so I won't comment, except to say that yes, humans...Americans in particular I'd say have a serious altruism problem. My country in particular and the generation I grew up in generally got what it wanted when it wanted it, and expects such treatment now as well. They don't want to be inconvinenced, and helping the poor is such to many.

As long as it stays in balance, its fine in its place, its when it becomes unbalanced to other parts of our society that it becomes a problem and creates the suffering it does.

Again, the problem with religion is almost unique in that the books themselves encourage, through either literal tellings or through parables (if you take the Bible as a parable it still is giving the message of "stone your kids if they mouth off") volience against others. Whether that be non-believers, believers of another religion, whatever, it says "We're right and there's NO ROOM for another view". And look, they have a book with evidence no one can actaully prove, and the authors are long...long dead so no one can ask them either.

Take homosexuality for example. This is a good example of something said in the Bible that is very immoral, of which Science has proven hurts neither the two people who are in love and participate in it (no more dangerous than normal sex) and neither really hurts society. Yet even most moderate Christians today still point to homosexuality as being a sin, and a large one at that. Social changes finally brought about the end to slavery that is supported in the Bible, but this one remains. You're not even talking the extremists when dealing with this issue as many non-extremists still believe it's wrong. But why do they think so? What do they hold up as evidence? Science? No. The Bible. God said it.

There are still strong ideals within many religious texts that promote violence against others. If not violence, then distain and prejudice or some form of negative emotions to an individual.

I do agree with you that religion does have some positive beneifts for some. Giving people a reason to be generous to others, to treat others with kindness, etc. But I think that speaks highly to the kind of people you deal with in religion, that they need a story of God and his power in order to make sure they treat human kind fairly. It says a lot about their character. In the end, are the benefits really worth the negatives?

[CoyoteNature]

I think that human nature tends to alter the interpretation to what is preferred, regardless of whether or not its a religion or not.

A conservative might alter the interpretation of the constitution to support his view, just as a liberal might do the same regardless of what it actually says.

If you wanted to more money, you might conversely alter the interpretation of the Bible to fit your viewpoint, like the Calvinists did. And at the same time you might literally believe it, it would be real in your eyes, and would take the stage of factual faith in your eyes.


It also seems to be something most people need anyway, not sure if it would ever really go away anyway, something that is foundational, that if changed would only evolve but not really go away.

And historically it was the only thing really that did educate people, even when the feudal lords or other groups did not support it, it was also the only power group during the Dark Ages which saved much of the knowledge from the Roman Empire's fall (although admittedly the church also to some effect made the Dark Ages last longer than necessary due to its own power ambitions).

Its good, its bad; I submit that people would believe in what they believe irregardless, they'd believe in Scientology, or UFOology; or in some of our particular case perhaps our own gods like AIs or a hypothetical computer at the end of time.

And they would fight just as much over this or that dogma, and this fighting would increase the more powerful it became. They would still be intolerant, and they would still create a belief structure around it, most of all I think because its gratifying to the Ego.

Most Science doesn't seem to do this, tends to make you small, unimportant, it also sometimes doesn't allow you to do what you really want, like for example steal another nation's territory or resources. You can rationalize its a holy mission, and it makes sense within that limited context. Science doesn't give a special place in anything, Religion does.

But even if it didn't exist, they'd just create different lies to rationalize action, like the lie of democracy in Iraq for example; Face it people don't like the truth, particularly what it says about their own nature or desires. Its a lot easier to think of a noble holy war, then one in which you simply want those resources.

As to homosexuality, I would say they feel its wrong simply because it threatens people sexually that is, then they come up with rationalizations from the bible to support it, if not that they would come up with something else, its emotional not logical, destroying the religion would only move the locus somewhere else.

Overall yes if it does not become too powerful, religion is a good thing I would say, as long as it stays in its place and is in balance.

Although I would like more change, seemed like in the old days, religions were coming up all the time, seems that its unhealthy for their to be a unified religion for so long promotes inflexibility and rigid thinking.

[wolveraptor]

One good thing about Hinduism is its lack of central authority. This is what allowed people to grow past the caste system, and eventually stop caring deeply about it at all. Hindus don't have "church" or go to a temple every week. They only do so at funeral rites, holidays (which are mostly kickass), or if they are ignorant and want it not to rain.

The ignorant fundie Hindus fall into separate groups, each of which are quite small. There are some, the poorest and most uneducated, who continued the caste system until recently, when it was outlawed. There are others were are more moderate. It's basically an inverse correlation to education, just like here, except there are no super-rich televangelists who spread the shit. That's lucky.

It's basically South india, where the backwoods farmers are, where this happens. Of course there are exceptions, but on the whole, you'll almost never see a Hindu fundie here in America, and even they don't actively preach their religion.

Anti-muslim sentiments are actually more national than religious. The Mogals came in with a mini-Crusade and ruined much of North India's shit. Since then, there have only been escalating tensions, which died down during British occupation, and resurfaced during the Independence movement, and culminated in the Indo-Pak war over Kashmir