Interesting piece on religion...

[Patrick Degan]

Mr. Xuenay, no matter how much handwaving you care to indulge in this discussion, know this: governments and nations may wipe out their enemies over political power, survival, or material gain, which are tangible goals. But religious violence is inflicted entirely over the figments of other peoples' imaginations.

[Plekhanov]

the Roman rulers who persecuted the Christians would be a good example

Actually that's a very bad example, Roman society whilst deeply unpleasant in many ways was on the whole extremely tolerant of a wide spectrum of religious beliefs (as polytheists tend to be) pagan Rome was infact massively more tolerant the Christian Europe.

Most of what you think you know about Roman persecution of Christians is basically Christian propaganda which after being filtered through over a thousands years of Christian cultural domination is commonly accepted as fact. Read an academic history book on early Christianity and you’ll find out that the reality was very, very different.

[Civil War Man]

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.

See, the difference is that I don't assume a universal human nature, even though you seem to be trying to imply that considering how you're now putting words in my mouth. The closest thing I acknowledge to a universal human nature is that philanthropy and compassion are major evolutionary advantages, which is why they are encouraged in all cultures regardless of what religions they follow, or whether they follow any at all. The addition of cruelty comes largely from people being encouraged to eradicate anyone that exists outside the bounds of their group. You know where the vast majority of that encouragement comes from? Religion, with the Abrahamic religions being the most notorious contributors.

So to review:
1. Stop trying to put words in my mouth
2. Religion is a known contributor to causing various cruelties and atrocities. Universal Human Nature is bullshit made up so people can claim that religion is not to blame.

[wolveraptor]

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.

Oh for Christ's sake, you're the one championing this "Universal Human Nature" that causes people act cruelly. If people are really inclined to be assholes, then they're more likely to follow those parts of a religion that allow them to be that way. So why is religion worse than any secular ethical code that advocates the same thing? Because religion is not up for critical review; if you criticize the basic tenants of sharia law, even in Canada, (for example), you're likely to attract the animosity of many fanatics. Hell, that's exactly what happened to Tarek Fatah, communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress. He retired for fear of his life and the health of his family.

[Xuenay]

The addition of cruelty comes largely from people being encouraged to eradicate anyone that exists outside the bounds of their group. You know where the vast majority of that encouragement comes from? Religion, with the Abrahamic religions being the most notorious contributors.

So to review:
1. Stop trying to put words in my mouth
2. Religion is a known contributor to causing various cruelties and atrocities. Universal Human Nature is bullshit made up so people can claim that religion is not to blame.

Well, if you want examples of non-religiously inspired cruelty, how about, let's see...

...Joseph Stalin (had between 3 to 9 million possible enemies killed directly, depending on who you ask), Mao Zedong (killed at least half a million to regain full control of the party in 1966–1969 alone), Pol Pot (killed 1.2 to 1.7 million), Hồ Chí Minh (had between 800 and 200 000 people deemed "counter-revolutionaries" killed), Saddam Hussein (comprehensive numbers unavailable, but at least 150 000 dead victims), Mobutu Sese Seko (Wikipedia didn't give a death count, but mentioned that he "consolidated power by publicly executing political rivals, secessionists, coup plotters, and other threats to his rule"), Francois Duvalier ("used both political murder and expulsion to suppress his opponents; estimates of those killed are as high as 30,000"), Francisco Macías Nguema ("During his presidency, his country was nicknamed 'Auschwitz of Africa,' and became notorious for political executions [...] violations of human rights during his reign caused over one-third of Equatorial Guinea's population to flee to neighboring countries [...] his policies, influenced by the authoritarianism of Franco's Spain, were violently anti-colonialist and anti-religious), Enver Hoxha ("every third citizen had either served time in labor camps or been interrogated by [secret police] officers. To eliminate dissent, the government resorted systematically to purges, in which opponents were dismissed from their jobs, imprisoned in forced-labour camps, and often executed [...] following two decades of progressively harsher persecution of religion under his rule, Hoxha triumphantly declared his nation to be the first and only officially atheist state in history"), Rafael Trujillo ("brutally tortured or silenced all opposition"), Augusto Pinochet ("not known exactly how many people were killed by government and military forces during the 17 years that he was in power, but the Rettig Commission listed 2,095 deaths and 1,102 'disappearances', with the vast majority of victims coming from the opposition to Pinochet at the hands of the state security apparatus")...

Some of those leaders were explict atheists, one (Hussein) claimed to be religious but replaced the Islamic system of law with a secular one nonetheless, and if the rest were in any form religious, Wikipedia made no mention of that.

You appear (wording this carefully so I won't put words in your mouth again - correct me if I've interpreted wrongly) to be saying that it's more reasonable to assume religion as a reason for cruelty than it is to assume human nature. I think it's a reasonable assumption to assume powerful rulers are likely to prosceute their foes even without an extra religious motivation (as evidenced here, and the list could've gotten a lot longer had I listed the people who prosecuted perceived foes in a slightly more peaceful way - McCarthy comes to mind), though religious motivation can sometimes be enough as well. However, assuming primary roots in religious motivation seems unnecessary if it can be explained with simply wanting to stay in power and eradicate opposition. Since you seem to disagree, you're welcome to provide the evidence you have supporting your own case - I think I've presented what I need to support mine.

(Where did those cruel elements come into religion from, if not human nature, by the way?)

Oh for Christ's sake, you're the one championing this "Universal Human Nature" that causes people act cruelly. If people are really inclined to be assholes, then they're more likely to follow those parts of a religion that allow them to be that way. So why is religion worse than any secular ethical code that advocates the same thing? Because religion is not up for critical review; if you criticize the basic tenants of sharia law, even in Canada, (for example), you're likely to attract the animosity of many fanatics. Hell, that's exactly what happened to Tarek Fatah, communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress. He retired for fear of his life and the health of his family.

I'm not saying that universal human nature causes people to act cruelly per se, I'm saying that it's a tendency in human nature to seek to preserve your power using any means necessary, and the average person (who isn't in a position to avoid cruelty from their peers in the same way as powerful leader is) is probably more inclined towards compassion and love. (This is one reason why I have a dislike for very organized religion, and think that relatively disorganized ones are better, as they give individual priests less power. It's also one possible explanation for why religion on a whole has moved towards a more compassionate direction in the West, as positions of power have become less certain and society has overall shifted towards a more individualistic direction. This is just my own speculation, but it'd make sense.)

Your point is still valid, though - yet the very fact that it isn't divinely inspired probably makes a secular ethics code also less pressing for some (albeit not all) people. Again, I don't deny that religion couldn't be harmful in many cases. Still, there are many environments in which even religious dogma can be up for review - at least in the Catholic and Protestant churches, there's constant discussion about church policy and Biblical interpretations that evolves over time. Considering that, for instance, the Lutheran Churches in the Nordic countries have been ordaining women as priests for several years now, and I believe (though I could remember wrong) the Finnish church even had some brief discussion about giving some sort of a blessing to same-sex marriages, it doesn't seem to be true that all religion would be off-limits for review.

[wolveraptor]

Your point is still valid, though - yet the very fact that it isn't divinely inspired probably makes a secular ethics code also less pressing for some (albeit not all) people.

Hence the need for government.

Again, I don't deny that religion couldn't be harmful in many cases. Still, there are many environments in which even religious dogma can be up for review - at least in the Catholic and Protestant churches, there's constant discussion about church policy and Biblical interpretations that evolves over time. Considering that, for instance, the Lutheran Churches in the Nordic countries have been ordaining women as priests for several years now, and I believe (though I could remember wrong) the Finnish church even had some brief discussion about giving some sort of a blessing to same-sex marriages, it doesn't seem to be true that all religion would be off-limits for review.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Abrahamic religions will probably catch up to 21st century values in a century or so. Did you know that John Paul II was the first Pope to formally recognize and apologize for many of the Catholic church's past wrongdoings?. I didn't mean to imply that religions could never change; I'm just saying that it's incredibly difficult to do so in a system that venerates faith, orthodoxy, and blind belief. In fact, any organization that promotes such values will always, always produce fundamentalists, the ones who will resist any and all change with tooth and claw.

[CaptJodan]

I'm terribly sorry. I missed the rally where athiests stood up and stated that it should be policy to withhold condoms and even proper sexual education to teens and young adults. I missed reading the passages in the athiest and humanism handbook that stated homosexuality as immoral.

These are two classic examples of RELIGION, not "Universal Human Nature" pushing an agenda which harms others and destroys lives. Secularism doesn't have a handy book that people wave in front of you and say homosexuals are satan spawn, or that birth control and proper sex education is wrong. And the move towards individualism isn't as strong as you think in most of the Abrahamic religions. So you have a few cases where things are slowly changing, but the vast majority aren't.

I'm not saying that universal human nature causes people to act cruelly per se, I'm saying that it's a tendency in human nature to seek to preserve your power using any means necessary, and the average person (who isn't in a position to avoid cruelty from their peers in the same way as powerful leader is) is probably more inclined towards compassion and love.

Power is a two way street, and compassion and love are rarely what is preached when dealing with undesirables the church doesn't want anywhere near it, or acts they don't want their people to participate in. That's the fire and brimstone aspect.

Look at it this way. Abrahamic religion invariably teaches one thing above all others. Those that worship whatever particular branch you're in are more special than everyone else, because you're right and they are wrong. You're going to Heaven because you picked right in the grand lottery of religion. Everyone else is going to hell. Oh no, you're not supposed to treat them differently, but you always have to be careful around them. Secularism doesn't teach such silly things.

There are always going to be loonies out there such as Stalin who MIGHT get into power if one's not careful. The problem is, the chances are MUCH HIGHER if religion is invovled because religion teaches you to be selective of who is right and who is wrong in the world. And you want to be on the winning side.

If universal human nature tells us we want to always try to be on the winning side, then religion is the force that focuses that need and uses it to it's own ends at the price of those they deem on the losing side. That makes religion evil. Secularism doesn't cherry pick who is the winning side and who is the losing side.

[CaptJodan]

Addendum:

And before you start raving about how other things could be just as evil because humans would just find something else to bicker about, such as nationalism, race, creed, or the way you brush your teeth at night, I agree. These things can be dangerous as well. But religion goes one step further and says that you must believe what they say ON FAITH. From the get-go, they give you this invisible sky-pixie and say that you must believe in him no matter what. Then they give you their set of moral beliefs that may not match up completely with that loving and compassionate approach you think everyone in religion has, and are told that you have to believe THAT on faith as well. No wait, ignore the evidence that condoms save lives or that gays are people too (in keeping with my previous examples so as not to complicate things). It demands of you not to think and not to question. That alone is a horrible evil.

[Darth Wong]

Some of those leaders were explict atheists, one (Hussein) claimed to be religious but replaced the Islamic system of law with a secular one nonetheless, and if the rest were in any form religious, Wikipedia made no mention of that.

You are dumber than the common cockroach. You are also deliberately ignoring the point, made repeatedly, that religion is not the only thing which causes men to act badly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause men to act badly. I'm growing sick of the way you keep bringing up this idiotic argument, hearing the rebuttal, acknowledging its validity, and then starting the cycle over again, you fucking retard. You're either so goddamned stupid that you don't realize you're running around in circles or you're a fucking troll. Yes, racism and totalitarianism are other potential causes of cruelty. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT THOSE ARE BAD THINGS, you fucking moron. All we're pointing out is that the Abrahamic religions fall into that category.

You appear (wording this carefully so I won't put words in your mouth again - correct me if I've interpreted wrongly) to be saying that it's more reasonable to assume religion as a reason for cruelty than it is to assume human nature.

And this is another example of a point (this false dilemma of yours, that cruelty must be caused by either religion or something else) which has been repeatedly shown to be fallacious, yet you keep repeating it. And once again, you will say "hmm, I see your point" or some other such mealy-mouthed bullshit but then you'll turn around and repeat this idea again.

Either SHOW THAT THIS POINT IS WRONG OR CONCEDE IT AND DON'T BRING UP THIS IDIOCY AGAIN, asshole. The broken-record style of debate is against the fucking rules here, you goddamned imbecile.

For the UMPTEENTH FUCKING TIME, you cannot disprove that religion is a cause of problems by simply showing that there are other causes of problems as well. And if you pretend to concede this point again, only to use it again in a future point, I will ban your worthless ass.

[Xuenay]

For the UMPTEENTH FUCKING TIME, you cannot disprove that religion is a cause of problems by simply showing that there are other causes of problems as well. And if you pretend to concede this point again, only to use it again in a future point, I will ban your worthless ass.

I was just pointing out that one cannot make the assumption of religion being the factor causing the problems in the Middle Ages, once we accept that absolute power causes trouble and that the Middle Age Church had pretty close to that (one could say the Church wouldn't have had that power without religion and thus religion is to blame, but that's ignoring the fact that without the Church, the power would have moved to the secular rulers who seem to be just as eager to wield it ruthlessly). Nobody here has shown evidence for religion being a more important factor than the pure power of the church either - I'm being demanded to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.

However, since I do see that this argument isn't going to go anywhere, I'll bow and end my participation in this thread. Treat it as a surrender if you wish.

[Medic]

For the UMPTEENTH FUCKING TIME, you cannot disprove that religion is a cause of problems by simply showing that there are other causes of problems as well. And if you pretend to concede this point again, only to use it again in a future point, I will ban your worthless ass.

I was just pointing out that one cannot make the assumption of religion being the factor causing the problems in the Middle Ages, once we accept that absolute power causes trouble and that the Middle Age Church had pretty close to that (one could say the Church wouldn't have had that power without religion and thus religion is to blame, but that's ignoring the fact that without the Church, the power would have moved to the secular rulers who seem to be just as eager to wield it ruthlessly). Nobody here has shown evidence for religion being a more important factor than the pure power of the church either - I'm being demanded to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.

However, since I do see that this argument isn't going to go anywhere, I'll bow and end my participation in this thread. Treat it as a surrender if you wish.

I doubt that without religion, "ruthless, secular" forces could make a coaltion out of nations that would otherwise be warring with each other.

[Darth Wong]

I was just pointing out that one cannot make the assumption of religion being the factor causing the problems in the Middle Ages, once we accept that absolute power causes trouble and that the Middle Age Church had pretty close to that (one could say the Church wouldn't have had that power without religion and thus religion is to blame, but that's ignoring the fact that without the Church, the power would have moved to the secular rulers who seem to be just as eager to wield it ruthlessly).

It's not an assumption, cuntflap. The people involved in the fighting openly state that they're doing it for their god. That's more than enough evidence, you blithering idiot. That puts the onus on you to show that they're all lying, and you haven't done jack shit to disprove that. Your only argument is your totally unsupported claim that if you removed this motivating factor, another one would replace it with 100% effectiveness. By that idiot logic, racism isn't bad either, because something else would replace it, right?

Nobody here has shown evidence for religion being a more important factor than the pure power of the church either - I'm being demanded to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.

"Proven" using what criteria, asshole? You just move the goalposts every goddamned time someone presents evidence.

However, since I do see that this argument isn't going to go anywhere, I'll bow and end my participation in this thread. Treat it as a surrender if you wish.

You are a worthless evasive little shit. You abandon points when they're challenged with evidence to the contrary, only to bring them up again later and claim that no one's brought up any evidence. Don't think this chickenshit behaviour will be forgotten.

[Superman]

What a fucking tard. I can't decide either if he's just this stupid or purposely being a douche. Since he seems to be a fundie, I am leaning toward being stupid. He kind of reminds me of Robert Walper with his 'Borg could kill Yahweh" style of debate.

This is the same shit he pulled when I said that smart people realize that just making a statement like "fundies are assholes" doesn't have to include 100% of them, and that's really the difference between smart and stupid people.

Look doucher, you can be stupid but you don't have to ACT on it. Sometimes you have to realize that many people are smarter than you, and it's probably better to sit these out instead of showing your stupidity.