Interesting piece on religion...

[Magnetic]

Yes, moron. Because Jerusalem has been viciously fought over for more than a thousand years and it has no real tactical or strategic value to anyone. Its only particular value is religious.

Well, . . . . .they DO have that nice sea side property.

Even so, I've often wondered how that area of the globe would be so special to be called "the promised land". . . . epecially since it a SMALL piece of land. I would have headed towards Austria, or someplace with breathtaking high mountains, or would have trekked towards the mouth of the Mediterranean. Oh well. Glad I wasn't there with them.

[Xuenay]

My point exactly.

Wrong. The religions in question directly advocate the things we're accusing it of. Atheism advocates nothing. I pointed this out several times already and you've ignored it, asshole.

And I've pointed out that the religions in question directly advocate things that are directly the opposite as well. Did the Inquisition take place because the Bible says "treat others as you'd like to be treated" and "hate the sin, not the sinner", or did the Church leaders just conveniently ignore those parts and concentrate on the ones that allowed them to bolster their strength?

Yes, moron. Because Jerusalem has been viciously fought over for more than a thousand years and it has no real tactical or strategic value to anyone. Its only particular value is religious. Yet you pretend that all of this fighting, the multiple attempts to take and retake the so-called "Holy City", have all been motivated by simple greed and lust for power, and nothing else. Why the fuck are people fighting over that worthless pile of broken-down shit if not for its revered religious status?

I'm not saying that the religious meaning is entirely irrelevant - obviously the religious significance of the city made it important politically, as in it was an embarassment to lose it. But so could any embarassment or offense have triggered a war, even for a secular leader - heck, Napoleon III declared war on Prussia because of receiving a response with offensive language. Not to mention some of the colonial disputes that had more to do with prestige than any real strategic value, as well. Obviously the religion made Jerusalem politically important to control, but saying that was the fault of religion is like saying no leader would do anything to win prestige if there wasn't religion. Not to mention that unlike some of the points which can somehow be blamed on the sacred texts, there's nothing in the Bible about having to control the Holy City (AFAIK).

You have never satisfactorily answered the point that many of the problems we accuse religion of are directly promoted in the "scriptures" that its adherents are told to worship. You merely assume that this is an insignificant factor, and that every religious atrocity in history has been motivated by purely secular interests with not a shred of reasoning whatsoever other than your personal say-so.

Yes, they are. And it seems like a plausible assumption, since those very same scriptures promote exactly the opposite things at the same time. There has to be *some* criteria by which people choose what parts of them to follow, and if you have a more likely theory than the secular reasons, I'm all ears.

[Morilore]

And I've pointed out that the religions in question directly advocate things that are directly the opposite as well. Did the Inquisition take place because the Bible says "treat others as you'd like to be treated" and "hate the sin, not the sinner", or did the Church leaders just conveniently ignore those parts and concentrate on the ones that allowed them to bolster their strength?

"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is convenient shorthand for "torture the 'evil' out of those who think differently then pat yourself on the back for being so compassionate," and the Golden Rule is a farce when people actually believe they're better off flagellating themselves then risking the wrath of the Magic Sky Pixie.

[Xuenay]

And I've pointed out that the religions in question directly advocate things that are directly the opposite as well. Did the Inquisition take place because the Bible says "treat others as you'd like to be treated" and "hate the sin, not the sinner", or did the Church leaders just conveniently ignore those parts and concentrate on the ones that allowed them to bolster their strength?

"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is convenient shorthand for "torture the 'evil' out of those who think differently then pat yourself on the back for being so compassionate," and the Golden Rule is a farce when people actually believe they're better off flagellating themselves then risking the wrath of the Magic Sky Pixie.

In other words, it all depends on how you want to interprete it, the sacred texts themselves don't say anything conclusive.

[Ravencrow]

And I've pointed out that the religions in question directly advocate things that are directly the opposite as well. Did the Inquisition take place because the Bible says "treat others as you'd like to be treated" and "hate the sin, not the sinner", or did the Church leaders just conveniently ignore those parts and concentrate on the ones that allowed them to bolster their strength?

"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is convenient shorthand for "torture the 'evil' out of those who think differently then pat yourself on the back for being so compassionate," and the Golden Rule is a farce when people actually believe they're better off flagellating themselves then risking the wrath of the Magic Sky Pixie.

In other words, it all depends on how you want to interprete it, the sacred texts themselves don't say anything conclusive.

But that is the problem isn't it. You make excuses for the religion. If as you say they are not conclusive and depends on how people interprete them, how are you certain that the 'sacred texts' as you put it are not advocating such atrocities after all?

[Civil War Man]

In other words, it all depends on how you want to interprete it, the sacred texts themselves don't say anything conclusive.

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

So according to Exodus, God's followers are explicitly ordered to kill anyone who does not follow their beliefs.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

And according to Deuteronomy, disobedient children must be stoned to death.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

And also in Deuteronomy, a woman is to be stoned to death if she does not cry for help loudly enough while being raped in the city.

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

And in Exodus, it explicitly states that there is nothing wrong with selling your own daughter into slavery.

[Darth Wong]

And I've pointed out that the religions in question directly advocate things that are directly the opposite as well.

This is the oldest and lamest religious apologist bullshit argument in the book. If the scriptures tell you to love your neighbour and kill the heretics, you assume that the two statements cancel out. They don't. If half the people follow the former message and half the people follow the latter (leaving aside the people who creatively find ways to reconcile both), you have still created millions of fanatics. Or is that too complex for your stunted imagination to grasp?

I'm not saying that the religious meaning is entirely irrelevant - obviously the religious significance of the city made it important politically, as in it was an embarassment to lose it. But so could any embarassment or offense have triggered a war, even for a secular leader - heck, Napoleon III declared war on Prussia because of receiving a response with offensive language. Not to mention some of the colonial disputes that had more to do with prestige than any real strategic value, as well. Obviously the religion made Jerusalem politically important to control, but saying that was the fault of religion is like saying no leader would do anything to win prestige if there wasn't religion. Not to mention that unlike some of the points which can somehow be blamed on the sacred texts, there's nothing in the Bible about having to control the Holy City (AFAIK).

The fact that A causes B is not refuted by showing that C can also cause B, moron.

Yes, they are. And it seems like a plausible assumption, since those very same scriptures promote exactly the opposite things at the same time.

Your logic is a joke. You're assuming that positive and negative sentiments in a document cancel out to become neutral in each individual follower, when in fact some people will hew to the positive, some will hew to the negative, and some will find a way to kill the heretics and say that they're loving their neighbours. This is demonstrable in practice. And the religion has the effect of giving divine blessing to those who follow either path, thus strengthening their conviction that they're doing the right thing.

[Ravencrow]

And I've pointed out that the religions in question directly advocate things that are directly the opposite as well. Did the Inquisition take place because the Bible says "treat others as you'd like to be treated" and "hate the sin, not the sinner", or did the Church leaders just conveniently ignore those parts and concentrate on the ones that allowed them to bolster their strength?

Might I also point out to you, that nowhere in the bible does it say "hate the sin, not the sinner". How can you say that the "bible says" when it does not say such a thing?

[Rye]

In other words, it all depends on how you want to interprete it, the sacred texts themselves don't say anything conclusive.

Is there a single educated biblical scholar in the world that supports what you just said, like with linguistic explanations and relation to historic symbolism? A single one that goes "okay, this entire collection of books is totally lost to antiquity, and it can mean whatever you want it to mean" ?

Why on Earth would you spout such obviously fraudulent and ignorant bullshit?

Iêsous ho Kristos!

[Darth Wong]

I'd also like to hear the part where the Bible contradicts the parts about accepting like a child, obeying the prophets mindlessly, not asking too many questions, not thinking critically, etc. Because it never contradicts that shit.

[Superman]

And by the way, does "hate the sin, love the sinner" actually make sense? If you steal things, you're a thief right? If you rape woman, you're a rapist.

We're defined by what we do, not what we think in our heads.

[Darth Wong]

And by the way, does "hate the sin, love the sinner" actually make sense? If you steal things, you're a thief right? If you rape woman, you're a rapist.

We're defined by what we do, not what we think in our heads.

Besides, Christians who say that never seem to be too happy when I say "Hate Christianity, love the Christian".

[Magnetic]

And by the way, does "hate the sin, love the sinner" actually make sense? If you steal things, you're a thief right? If you rape woman, you're a rapist.

We're defined by what we do, not what we think in our heads.

Besides, Christians who say that never seem to be too happy when I say "Hate Christianity, love the Christian".

Awweeee! Darth Wong. . . . . . You love me??

[Xuenay]

In other words, it all depends on how you want to interprete it, the sacred texts themselves don't say anything conclusive.

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

So according to Exodus, God's followers are explicitly ordered to kill anyone who does not follow their beliefs.

Yes. And those bits were most likely used them to sell the war for the people during the Crusades (though they don't say anything about Jerusalem in particular, and they would have been just as valid excuses for war had the Holy City never been captured). Yet the modern Catholic Church - or any other major Christian denomination that I'm aware of - does not advocate killing non-Christians. In fact, I have a feeling that the churches oppose the thought. Yet it explictly says in Exodus that all non-believers are to be killed.

Guess it all comes down to interpretation again, then. Interpreting things in a way that happens to sell.

This is the oldest and lamest religious apologist bullshit argument in the book. If the scriptures tell you to love your neighbour and kill the heretics, you assume that the two statements cancel out. They don't. If half the people follow the former message and half the people follow the latter (leaving aside the people who creatively find ways to reconcile both), you have still created millions of fanatics. Or is that too complex for your stunted imagination to grasp?

Your logic is a joke. You're assuming that positive and negative sentiments in a document cancel out to become neutral in each individual follower, when in fact some people will hew to the positive, some will hew to the negative, and some will find a way to kill the heretics and say that they're loving their neighbours. This is demonstrable in practice. And the religion has the effect of giving divine blessing to those who follow either path, thus strengthening their conviction that they're doing the right thing.

Right... so first you say that there's a good reason to blame the Inquisition on religion because the religion says you should act like that, then you admit yourself that it doesn't say anything definitive and it depends on the person and the Church leadership of the time (who'd have had an interest in using the bloodthirsty interpreation) how it's finally interpreted? (Not to mention that it takes a bit of a stretch to turn "kill non-believers" into "kill Christians with a different interpretation".)

You talk like this'd be an inherent flaw in religion itself, but anything can be interpreted with a good or bad meaning. The Theory of Evolution would be a good analogue. You can interprete it to be what it is, that is to say, an explanation of how things have evolved with no moral implications. Or you can turn it into Social Darwinism, saying that oppressing and killing part of the population is simply weeding out the weak and helping mankind evolve. Yet nobody claims (as they shouldn't) that the Theory of Evolution in itself caused human suffering, it was just used that way. Just as the ultimate origins of the Inquisiton were elsewhere.

The fact that A causes B is not refuted by showing that C can also cause B, moron.

Hmm... alright, point conceded. The Crusades were partially the fault of religion.

Might I also point out to you, that nowhere in the bible does it say "hate the sin, not the sinner". How can you say that the "bible says" when it does not say such a thing?

*shrug* Okay, the bits about casting the first stone and turning the other cheek, then. Wasn't sure about the 'hate the sin' bit, but those two I know for sure are Biblical.

In other words, it all depends on how you want to interprete it, the sacred texts themselves don't say anything conclusive.

Is there a single educated biblical scholar in the world that supports what you just said, like with linguistic explanations and relation to historic symbolism? A single one that goes "okay, this entire collection of books is totally lost to antiquity, and it can mean whatever you want it to mean" ?

Why on Earth would you spout such obviously fraudulent and ignorant bullshit?

...you're kidding, right?

You didn't look around you and notice that there are lots of different Christian sects with slightly different interpretations of the Bible, did you? The main ones being, say, such insignificant divisions like the Catholic Church, the Protestant Churches and the Orthodox Church? Or you haven't noticed that the interpretation of the Bible has changed over time, and it's no longer the same as it was in the Middle Ages?

Even my act of writing these words doesn't mean anything conclusive, they will probably be read and misunderstood in some bizarre, convulted way again. Meaning is always ultimately given by the reader, that's a fundamental property of the world. It doesn't need the opinion of a Biblical scholar to support it. Duh.

I'd also like to hear the part where the Bible contradicts the parts about accepting like a child, obeying the prophets mindlessly, not asking too many questions, not thinking critically, etc. Because it never contradicts that shit.

I thought we had left this topic already? But if we're talking about religion in general and not in the context of the Middle Ages again, I've already admitted that in some situations and interpretations religion can have bad sides.

[Darth Wong]

Right... so first you say that there's a good reason to blame the Inquisition on religion because the religion says you should act like that, then you admit yourself that it doesn't say anything definitive and it depends on the person and the Church leadership of the time (who'd have had an interest in using the bloodthirsty interpreation) how it's finally interpreted? (Not to mention that it takes a bit of a stretch to turn "kill non-believers" into "kill Christians with a different interpretation".)

What the fuck makes you think those two statements are contradictory, moron? Yes, a document which exhorts you to both love and kill the "sinners" can cause atrocities, for the simple reason that followers can choose which part to follow.

You talk like this'd be an inherent flaw in religion itself, but anything can be interpreted with a good or bad meaning.

Bullshit.

The Theory of Evolution would be a good analogue. You can interprete it to be what it is, that is to say, an explanation of how things have evolved with no moral implications. Or you can turn it into Social Darwinism, saying that oppressing and killing part of the population is simply weeding out the weak and helping mankind evolve.

Nowhere in the Theory of Evolution is this promoted in any way, shape, or form. That is totally different from saying that one passage in a document sends a different message than another passage.

Yet nobody claims (as they shouldn't) that the Theory of Evolution in itself caused human suffering, it was just used that way. Just as the ultimate origins of the Inquisiton were elsewhere.

False analogy, you dishonest little shit. The Theory of Evolution never claimed to have any moral implications whatsoever. It's not a matter of it claiming to have moral implications in one area and then contradicting that in another. This would only be a valid analogy if the Bible never promoted any kind of atrocities anywhere, and people were just fraudulently reading that into it.

Hmm... alright, point conceded. The Crusades were partially the fault of religion.

Then why do you deny that these religions were harmful? Junk food is only partially to blame for obesity, but nobody denies that it's harmful.

I'd also like to hear the part where the Bible contradicts the parts about accepting like a child, obeying the prophets mindlessly, not asking too many questions, not thinking critically, etc. Because it never contradicts that shit.

I thought we had left this topic already? But if we're talking about religion in general and not in the context of the Middle Ages again, I've already admitted that in some situations and interpretations religion can have bad sides.

What you ignore, however, is that wildly creative interpretation is not necessary in order to find these messages in the Bible. It states them quite clearly.

[Ravencrow]

*shrug* Okay, the bits about casting the first stone and turning the other cheek, then. Wasn't sure about the 'hate the sin' bit, but those two I know for sure are Biblical.

You think that what you did is trival? You have made things up that don't exist in attempt to win a debate. You are a very deceitful person trying to pretend that you know the bible when you don't, you have merely regurgitated what evagelistic cliches you have heard from others like a stupid parrot.

[wolveraptor]

To be fair, that phrase is spouted so often that he may have been deluded into thinking it is part of the Bible.

Xuenay, you seem to have failed to comprehend that anything that gives people an excuse to act badly is bad. Some religions operatively say that you can go to heaven despite acts of violence as long as the only people you harmed are "infidels". This allows for a wide range of barbarous acts to be condoned.

[Darth Wong]

By Xuenay's idiot logic, Hitler never definitively said anything bad because he also said some good things.

[Elaro]

The only thing Xuenay proves is that religion is extremely risky. (In fact, I had a very nice, very pleasant conversation with the local priest about.) Just like a totally subservient society thrives or not depending on its ruler, so does a group of followers do good or evil depending on their pastor (or priest, or rabbi, etc.).

Generally, people in democratic countries frown on totalitarianism, yet they let its oldest and most blatant form live and grow and thrive.

[Rye]

...you're kidding, right?

No? You think that the bible doesn't specifically say to, say, stone disobedient children, when it is abundantly clear in the actual text that it does say that. Being able to judge that as archaic because your society has moved on doesn't change the meaning of those passages, and nor is the bible/whatever totally blameless when people actually follow the wrong part (the number of countries in the modern world with death penalties for gay sex spring to mind).

You didn't look around you and notice that there are lots of different Christian sects with slightly different interpretations of the Bible, did you?

So what? The fact they can ignore an honest examination of the text in favour of what they want to be theologically true doesn't change anything, since you asserted that the text says nothing in particular.

Let's say I had a religion, a cult of people that worshipped me and idolised my sayings. If in some of my sayings I said "kill people that wear the colour red," and in others I said "love everyone, even your enemies," would I be blameless if my followers started killing those who wore red?

I don't think so.

Now, what if my followers had splintered into a million different groups, some with modern ideas found nowhere in my actual teachings, and others founding countries dedicated to following my speech as close as possible, because that is their preferred view of the universe? Would that make my sayings now lost to antiquity or not say anything inconclusive? Do you think that splinter groups could only arise around perfectly vague texts that don't say anything conclsuive?

Having millions of differing view s wouldn't necessarily make something less clear, nor would it make it unknowable, it, in the case of liberal christianity, would just mean that their liberal views overrule the archaic bible on this point.

The main ones being, say, such insignificant divisions like the Catholic Church, the Protestant Churches and the Orthodox Church? Or you haven't noticed that the interpretation of the Bible has changed over time, and it's no longer the same as it was in the Middle Ages?

Yeah, actual understanding of the text has grown, as well as churches amending their policies to be more distant from it in line with society, the rise of fundamentalism, etc.

Even my act of writing these words doesn't mean anything conclusive, they will probably be read and misunderstood in some bizarre, convulted way again. Meaning is always ultimately given by the reader, that's a fundamental property of the world. It doesn't need the opinion of a Biblical scholar to support it. Duh.

Eisegesis is of an equal critical value as exegesis? That's so fundamentally wrong I shouldn't have to point out the bullshit in it. That's like saying Darkstar was as equally critical as Mike when he examined Star Wars.

You fucking 'tard.

[Xuenay]

Right... so first you say that there's a good reason to blame the Inquisition on religion because the religion says you should act like that, then you admit yourself that it doesn't say anything definitive and it depends on the person and the Church leadership of the time (who'd have had an interest in using the bloodthirsty interpreation) how it's finally interpreted? (Not to mention that it takes a bit of a stretch to turn "kill non-believers" into "kill Christians with a different interpretation".)

What the fuck makes you think those two statements are contradictory, moron? Yes, a document which exhorts you to both love and kill the "sinners" can cause atrocities, for the simple reason that followers can choose which part to follow.

Hmm. I can admit that religion may have had partial blame in making it much easier to find justifications for the Inquisition - though had those justifications not existed, people would've made up other ones.

Hmm... alright, point conceded. The Crusades were partially the fault of religion.

Then why do you deny that these religions were harmful? Junk food is only partially to blame for obesity, but nobody denies that it's harmful.

I admit that in this particular situation, this particular form of religion was harmful. Which says nothing about whether religion in general was good or bad - it's been my understanding that the church was responsible for preserving much science thorough the Middle Ages, for instance.

What you ignore, however, is that wildly creative interpretation is not necessary in order to find these messages in the Bible. It states them quite clearly.

Xuenay, you seem to have failed to comprehend that anything that gives people an excuse to act badly is bad. Some religions operatively say that you can go to heaven despite acts of violence as long as the only people you harmed are "infidels". This allows for a wide range of barbarous acts to be condoned.

By Xuenay's idiot logic, Hitler never definitively said anything bad because he also said some good things.

What you folks seem to be ignoring are the good things that come out of religion. If religion only gave people excuses to act bad, then I'd agree with you. But as Mike said himself, even as the Bible causes some people to act bad, it also causes some to act good. The outcome of -X+Y can be positive or negative, depending on X and Y.

If what you were saying was true, then there'd be no point in arguing, since anybody could obviously see that religions were doing more bad than good - but that doesn't seem to be the case. While I don't know what the situation is like in North America, at least here the major Christian churches all seem to be concentrating much more on the love and live & let live aspects of the Bible than the nasty Old Testament stuff, which seems to mostly get skimmed over. Every person I've met who was religious enough for it to be noticable has, with the exception of the occasional Jehova's Witness, been exceptional in their tolerance and friendliness, not nastiness. The Lutheran Church is probably one of Finland's biggest charities, not to mention the Salvation Army and the rest. Et cetera.

I don't dispute that there probably are lots of nasty people who've become that way because of religion. Nor do I dispute that Christianity would be a lot better and more likely to produce only good people if it omitted the Old Testament entirely. Yet it just doesn't seem very plausible to claim that religion would primarily cause nastiness, nor is it an obvious conclusion that religion in general always causes more trouble than it's worth. A better conclusion would be that a religion can be good or bad based on the surrounding culture and environment it's in - as the culture in general grows more tolerant, so does the religion, up until the point where it actually can be beneficial. Just what do those people who pick and choose their interpretation of the Bible base their choices on? Most likely, on the same basis that they base all their choices on - the culture and values they grew up with. Christianity does have lots of bad elements just as it has good, and it could be better - but there are lots of cases where Christianity still does more good than bad. (If anything, in the West the fanatic stereotype seems to be more a case of vocal minorities drawing negative attention to a large majority.)

*shrug* Okay, the bits about casting the first stone and turning the other cheek, then. Wasn't sure about the 'hate the sin' bit, but those two I know for sure are Biblical.

You think that what you did is trival? You have made things up that don't exist in attempt to win a debate. You are a very deceitful person trying to pretend that you know the bible when you don't, you have merely regurgitated what evagelistic cliches you have heard from others like a stupid parrot.

I didn't "make up" anything - it might not be in the New Testament in those very same words, but the two other bits match it in spirit if not in letter. So sue me if the "hate the sin" bit gets passed around so much that I thought it was from the Bible and didn't explictly go check it. And I never claimed to be a Bible scholar or anything like that.

You didn't look around you and notice that there are lots of different Christian sects with slightly different interpretations of the Bible, did you?

So what? The fact they can ignore an honest examination of the text in favour of what they want to be theologically true doesn't change anything, since you asserted that the text says nothing in particular.

Let's say I had a religion, a cult of people that worshipped me and idolised my sayings. If in some of my sayings I said "kill people that wear the colour red," and in others I said "love everyone, even your enemies," would I be blameless if my followers started killing those who wore red?

I don't think so.

Of course not. But then again, if part of your followers started doing lots of good deeds that made up for the killing, neither would you be entirely meritless.

The main ones being, say, such insignificant divisions like the Catholic Church, the Protestant Churches and the Orthodox Church? Or you haven't noticed that the interpretation of the Bible has changed over time, and it's no longer the same as it was in the Middle Ages?

Yeah, actual understanding of the text has grown, as well as churches amending their policies to be more distant from it in line with society, the rise of fundamentalism, etc.

Exactly. So the interpretation of the Bible is a constantly living, changing one, shaped by cultural forces and secular considerations. And in many situations, it may shift to being more good than being more bad.

[Darth Wong]

had those justifications not existed, people would've made up other ones.

You will, of course, provide evidence for this claim.

I admit that in this particular situation, this particular form of religion was harmful. Which says nothing about whether religion in general was good or bad

Many people have pointed out to you many times that we are talking about the Abrahamic religions. Is there some particular reason why you insist on ignoring those admonitions? Is it careless stupidity on your part, or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent peoples' intent? If the latter, be aware that we have rules against that kind of behaviour.

it's been my understanding that the church was responsible for preserving much science thorough the Middle Ages, for instance.

Your understanding was wrong. It was only "responsible" insofar as it was so deeply intertwined with society at the time that any major activity had church involvement. It certainly did not promote scientific thinking, and in fact, the scientific method was essentially nonexistent at the time. Science did not really begin to rapidly progress until scientists threw off the shackles of religious thinking and used the completely irreligious scientific method exclusively.

[Xuenay]

had those justifications not existed, people would've made up other ones.

You will, of course, provide evidence for this claim.

While I have no hard evidence - obviously, since I would've presented it by now if I had - it would at least seem likely - in many cases if not all. After all, purging any enemy with different ideologies that seemed a threat to their power is what the leaders of modern police states did constantly, just to stay in power. Seems implausible to assume that the psychologies of the rulers in the past would've been so different that they wouldn't have come up with such justifications. (Occam's Razor - don't attribute to religion what can be attributed to universal human nature.)

I admit that in this particular situation, this particular form of religion was harmful. Which says nothing about whether religion in general was good or bad

Many people have pointed out to you many times that we are talking about the Abrahamic religions. Is there some particular reason why you insist on ignoring those admonitions? Is it careless stupidity on your part, or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent peoples' intent? If the latter, be aware that we have rules against that kind of behaviour.

Sorry, I was unclear. I was concentrating exclusively on Christianity in my last post. "Which says nothing about whether Christianity in general was good or bad", would have been more accurate.

it's been my understanding that the church was responsible for preserving much science thorough the Middle Ages, for instance.

Your understanding was wrong. It was only "responsible" insofar as it was so deeply intertwined with society at the time that any major activity had church involvement. It certainly did not promote scientific thinking, and in fact, the scientific method was essentially nonexistent at the time. Science did not really begin to rapidly progress until scientists threw off the shackles of religious thinking and used the completely irreligious scientific method exclusively.

Mmm. Alright, then.

[Civil War Man]

(Occam's Razor - don't attribute to religion what can be attributed to universal human nature.)

Sorry. Doesn't fit Occam's Razor for a couple reasons. First, it only applies to two equally valid theories, and your "everyone does it, don't blame the Abrahamic religions" has so far been supported by very little evidence.

Secondly, assuming the two are equally valid for a moment, you would have just violated Occam's Razor by adding an unnecessary term. Look at it this way:

Us: The cruelty can easily be explained by the pervasive nature of the Abrahamic religions in the culture committing the atrocities, since they have a long history of promoting violence and cruelty towards people of other beliefs.

You: Sure, there is the history of cruelty. But what if we added some universal human nature that caused cruelty? Then religion wouldn't be at fault.

It's kind of like the Creationists who think that "Laws of Nature" violates parsimony, but not "Laws of Nature + Omnipotent God"

[Xuenay]

Secondly, assuming the two are equally valid for a moment, you would have just violated Occam's Razor by adding an unnecessary term. Look at it this way:

Us: The cruelty can easily be explained by the pervasive nature of the Abrahamic religions in the culture committing the atrocities, since they have a long history of promoting violence and cruelty towards people of other beliefs.

You: Sure, there is the history of cruelty. But what if we added some universal human nature that caused cruelty? Then religion wouldn't be at fault.

Heh, our formulations are exactly the reverse. The way I thought it:

Me: There's a history of cruelty in practically every culture known to man, and lots of absolute rulers were cruel in order to stay in power even before the Abrahamic religions (the Roman rulers who persecuted the Christians would be a good example). Therefore it seems plausible to assume that the cruelty is just an integral part of human nature.

You: Sure, there is the history of cruelty. But what if we added religion to the mix, even though it's already known that human nature alone can cause the cruelty? After all, the religion's cruelty seems like an obvious clue that it could've been the actual reason.