The Huffington Post starts digging on their own...

[mr moose]

I'll bite the bait. I go to church every Sunday and Saturday and I altar serve, but only because if I told my mother I was atheist, she'd have a heart attack and probably die of sadness or something. So, I'm essentially dragged to church. I don't feel persecuted in any way. As for the genital mutilation, I will say that is an atrocity that should be stopped. But it is not linked with Islam. Also, according to this link, the Koran says nothing about FGM. Also, several quotes by Muhammad say that you should restrain from mutilating the genitals of female converts because it's painful, even if it pleases the husband. Also, it was ruled in Cairo by the closest thing Islam has to a council like the Vatican that FGM has no basis in Islamic law, here. Female genital mutilation has about as much to do with Islam as foot binding has to do with Confucianism. Certainly not helped by it, but not the cause of it. Also, religion's already going away in Europe. Most of Europe just doesn't care about religion anymore. Give it as much time as is needed (probably a lot in America, and probably never in the Middle East), and it'l go away. As the world advances farther and farther, eventually religion will either fully adapt or go away. It's already losing young followers here in America, who just don't care.

 

Basically nail on the head,  I was talking to an Israeli the other day,  most of them preferred to be called Israeli as opposed to Jewish, just like I preferred to be called an Australian rather than a Christian.  They don't live their lives by the Jewish religious rulings, they don't mess about with wailing walls, and they eat pork whenever they want (even on friday's).  What we see in the news and media is really the minority of the issues over there, the media love to focus on the religious components of any conflict because it sells, the reality is that hardly any of them are fighting on religious grounds, they are fighting because that is human nature, it's a battle over land and control. 

 

EDIT: also there are many tribes in Africa, Cambodia, Asia and the Congo that mutilate their bodies solely for cultural purposes, it has nothing to do with religion there. 

 

An interesting read for anyone wanting unbiased information on the causes of war:

 

  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/08/18/worlds-biggest-warmonger-could-lead-humanity-to-peace/

[OlekKing]

Basically nail on the head,  I was talking to an Israeli the other day,  most of them preferred to be called Israeli as opposed to Jewish, just like I preferred to be called an Australian rather than a Christian.  They don't live their lives by the Jewish religious rulings, they don't mess about with wailing walls, and they eat pork whenever they want (even on friday's).  What we see in the news and media is really the minority of the issues over there, the media love to focus on the religious components of any conflict because it sells, the reality is that hardly any of them are fighting on religious grounds, they are fighting because that is human nature, it's a battle over land and control. 

 

EDIT: also there are many tribes in Africa, Cambodia, Asia and the Congo that mutilate their bodies solely for cultural purposes, it has nothing to do with religion there. 

 

An interesting read for anyone wanting unbiased information on the causes of war:

 

  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/08/18/worlds-biggest-warmonger-could-lead-humanity-to-peace/

Most media completely refrains from focusing on the religious components or even mentioning it, where the hell are you even looking? I'm not saying that religious belief is the sole cause for conflict, but it plays a major role, especially if you have people truly invested in their doctrine, which specifically tells them to eradicate those who refuse to comply with them. Any ideology powerful enough can convince you of doing atrocious acts, religion happens to be main game in town. Why do you continue to choose to deny this? 

[OlekKing]

I'll bite the bait. I go to church every Sunday and Saturday and I altar serve, but only because if I told my mother I was atheist, she'd have a heart attack and probably die of sadness or something. So, I'm essentially dragged to church. I don't feel persecuted in any way. As for the genital mutilation, I will say that is an atrocity that should be stopped. But it is not linked with Islam. Also, according to this link, the Koran says nothing about FGM. Also, several quotes by Muhammad say that you should restrain from mutilating the genitals of female converts because it's painful, even if it pleases the husband. Also, it was ruled in Cairo by the closest thing Islam has to a council like the Vatican that FGM has no basis in Islamic law, here. Female genital mutilation has about as much to do with Islam as foot binding has to do with Confucianism. Certainly not helped by it, but not the cause of it. Also, religion's already going away in Europe. Most of Europe just doesn't care about religion anymore. Give it as much time as is needed (probably a lot in America, and probably never in the Middle East), and it'l go away. As the world advances farther and farther, eventually religion will either fully adapt or go away. It's already losing young followers here in America, who just don't care.

You don't feel persecuted? Happy that you don't have to deal with it, but seems hard to believe you've never dealt with it nor met anyone who has.

Doesn't this raise any concern? To you this doesn't mean persecution or discrimination? I find USA's situation simply astounding given that you're a developed, wealthy, educated superpower, yet your population is largely so behind when it comes to science education.

[Omon_Ra]

Don't you deem anthropology a political science? It's pretty bound up in contemporary debates about democracy after all. I.e. Is democracy a western "good" that can be "given" to countries with a democratic deficit, and is that best for these societies?

 

Or was it right that France and the Netherlands banned the burqa partially to promote women's rights and by doing so imply French and Dutch cultural values are morally superior?

 

Just speaking hypothetically, of course.

 

To a degree, yes. I personally studied (preferred) mostly cultural anthropology which does look at the state as part of culture; linguistics, physical anthropology and archaeology don't have as much to do the study of politics or the state (linguistics I suppose could, if you look at governments banning or mandating certain languages).

 

As to Western hegemony, it is always something considered, especially since myself and most anthropologists are from Western cultures (avoid that ethnocentrism yo!) but not necessarily the only thing that is studied. Your example of France and the Netherlands' burqa-bans are definitely issues that anthropologists would/should try to find solutions for. I don't know what the answer is, but claiming it's 'women's rights' seems like a PC way of saying, 'It's because you (Muslims) scare us' and not really out of genuine concern over the women.

 

And to the religion debate: chill out. Atheism, or claiming there is no existence of a god/deity, is just as logically flawed as claiming there is only one (or many) 'true' god/deity. We don't know everything, we never can, so there is always the possibility that there could be something out there. I don't like the idea of any religion (or anyone, for that matter) forcing their ideas of morality upon others, just as I also don't like the idea of non-believers attacking believers as somehow inferior or unintelligent. Who are you to say what is right or wrong for that person? I can take issue with the concept of organized religion and what it preaches to individuals; but on a individual basis, I could care less if someone is Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Rastafarian or Pastafarian. No need to claim one is right or wrong, just accept them for what they are.

[Tacitus]

 

To a degree, yes. I personally studied (preferred) mostly cultural anthropology which does look at the state as part of culture; linguistics, physical anthropology and archaeology don't have as much to do the study of politics or the state (linguistics I suppose could, if you look at governments banning or mandating certain languages).

 

As to Western hegemony, it is always something considered, especially since myself and most anthropologists are from Western cultures (avoid that ethnocentrism yo!) but not necessarily the only thing that is studied. Your example of France and the Netherlands' burqa-bans are definitely issues that anthropologists would/should try to find solutions for. I don't know what the answer is, but claiming it's 'women's rights' seems like a PC way of saying, 'It's because you (Muslims) scare us' and not really out of genuine concern over the women.

 

You make interesting points, my knowledge of anthropology is too limited to give a particularly interesting response.

 

I suppose the France case however does originate from a school teacher refusing to teach someone they couldn't see the face of, so it's more than just women's rights, it's prejudice. It definitely is the case that many political sciences are US/Eurocentric in their modes of thought. I raised the point of democracy because it's interesting how Democracy in Europe came about through genuine struggle in many parts of Europe and is really a consequence of the prevailing circumstances. It's quite ignorant to think you can transplant organically developed systems onto other cultures by legislation, rather than by a natural process of change.

 

Another issue I can remember from France was the female genital mutilation and how to punish the offenders - do you deem it a crime and push it underground or do you allow it and ensure it can be "safely" carried out? Do you risk tearing families apart by imprisoning children's parents, where the children are victims irrespective of the outcome? If there's no deterrent though, how do you stop it? It's dangerous and people have died from it.

 

Anyway, anthropology is certainly an interesting subject, but I'm not sure where I stand on cultural relativism.

[Lewellyn]

-snip-

 

You forgot 1/3 of US Americans don't 'believe' in evolution. In Missouri there is a bill in our state legislature that is aimed at allowing parents to prevent their children from going to biology class when it goes over evolution. 

 

There was a girl in my senior composition class that did a presentation about stem cells, all the while calling them 'embryos'. Yes, you and me have little tiny embryos in our bodies at this very moment.

 

A pew research study concluded that people hold atheists to the same level of trust as rapists. Speaks for itself.

 

In Utah the Mormon Church has so much influence that they literally take the propositions of legislature to it and the heads of the church decide how the masses are to vote.

 

 

There are very simple facts about religious influence over our lives and culture that so many people are ignorant of.

[Lewellyn]

And to the religion debate: chill out. Atheism, or claiming there is no existence of a god/deity, is just as logically flawed as claiming there is only one (or many) 'true' god/deity. We don't know everything, we never can, so there is always the possibility that there could be something out there. I don't like the idea of any religion (or anyone, for that matter) forcing their ideas of morality upon others, just as I also don't like the idea of non-believers attacking believers as somehow inferior or unintelligent. Who are you to say what is right or wrong for that person? I can take issue with the concept of organized religion and what it preaches to individuals; but on a individual basis, I could care less if someone is Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Rastafarian or Pastafarian. No need to claim one is right or wrong, just accept them for what they are.

I've seen that shitty comment so many times - "Atheism is just as bad as religion"

 

"Atheism, or claiming there is no existence of a god/deity, is just as logically flawed as claiming there is only one (or many) 'true' god/deity"

 

And therein lies many falsehoods, atheism is not a claim that there is no existence of a god/deity. It is instead the refutation of such claims. Atheism/theism is binary, because you either believe the claims made by religion or you don't. This 'on the fence' bullshit where you try and depict both sides as somehow equally bad is beyond ridiculous. Individual claims are vastly more important than you make them out to be, someone's personal religion giving people the right to kill in name of god is absurd and we don't allow it in society for a reason. The problem with religion is not that there could be something out there, it's the assumption made by individual claims that there is something out there and that people should all obey the laws because of that something. The biblical stories presented by many different mainstream religions are beyond absurd, as absurd as the "myths" of the Greek and Norse gods. To claim otherwise IS stupid, and it is unintelligent. The social community aspect of religion is the only reason why it still persists in modern society, it has been defeated time and time again by science and time and time again by moral philosophy.

[mr moose]

Most media completely refrains from focusing on the religious components or even mentioning it, where the hell are you even looking? I'm not saying that religious belief is the sole cause for conflict, but it plays a major role, especially if you have people truly invested in their doctrine, which specifically tells them to eradicate those who refuse to comply with them. Any ideology powerful enough can convince you of doing atrocious acts, religion happens to be main game in town. Why do you continue to choose to deny this? 

So you read the link explaining how the concept that religions causes wars is as flawed as any other yet you still maintain it plays a major role.  It doesn't, it barely registers. You like to talk about ideologies that cause atrocious acts maybe you should study north Korea, Russia and China.  three countries that suppress all religious ideologies and three countries with the worst human rights records.

[Lewellyn]

So you read the link explaining how the concept that religions causes wars is as flawed as any other yet you still maintain it plays a major role.  It's doesn't, it barely registers. You like to talk about ideologies that cause atrocious acts maybe you should study north Korea, Russia and China.  three countries that suppress all religious ideologies and three countries with the worst human rights records.

Russia suppresses religion, in what time period are you living? The 1950's?

[mr moose]

Russia suppresses religion, in what time period are you living? The 1950's?

Are you insinuating that because they don't do it as much now that that invalidates the fact they did do it?  Hell, they are still mostly an atheist country yet you're not allowed to talk about being gay for fear of being imprisoned. 

 

Point is it is not religion that causes wars, human rights  violations etc, it is humanity that causes that, sometimes religion is used as the tool, but the cause is not religion.  

 

Edit: or are you saying that as Russia has recently been letting people practice religious ideologies that their human rights violations have been dropping?  Because that might actually be a fact and has been proposed by several respected researchers on the topic.

[Lewellyn]

Are you insinuating that because they don't do it as much now that that invalidates the fact they did do it?  Hell, they are still mostly an atheist country yet you're not allowed to talk about being gay for fear of being imprisoned. 

 

Point is it is not religion that causes wars, human rights  violations etc, it is humanity that causes that, sometimes religion is used as the tool, but the cause is not religion.  

 

Wow, the ignorance is stifling. 

 

http://masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church/

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/27/many-religions-heavily-concentrated-in-one-or-two-countries/#

 

Almost as bad as the people who tell me the world is 3/4 Christian

[mr moose]

Wow, the ignorance is stifling. 

 

http://masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church/

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/27/many-religions-heavily-concentrated-in-one-or-two-countries/#

 

Almost as bad as the people who tell me the world is 3/4 Christian

 

Do you even know what we are talking about? Might help if you get your head around the debate before calling people ignorant, it makes look like a child.

 

from one of the links you posted:

 

During the Soviet period, many priests were imprisoned, many churches were converted to other uses or fell into disrepair, and people who publicly professed religious beliefs were denied prestigious jobs and admission to universities.

 

Clearly religious beliefs were suppressed in Russia as I said, so whats your point?

 

EDIT: also from the last link you provided, china has the highest rate of atheists in the world, not surprising when you consider the Chinese government does not acknowledge religion in any form and actively suppresses it.   Yet, it still is among the worst offenders for human rights violations.  Please explain why you think these statistics dismiss what Horgan and Richardson claim?

 

Also for interest (it's long though):

http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-war

Essentially shows the predictability of war.

[The Crazed Child]

Another thread turns into a religious debate, LTT never fails to amuse me

[Lewellyn]

Do you even know what we are talking about? Might help if you get your head around the debate before calling people ignorant, it makes look like a child.

 

from one of the links you posted:

 

Clearly religious beliefs were suppressed in Russia as I said, so whats your point?

"were" "WERE" Key words my friend, very important.

 

You argue that religion plays utterly no role in violent conflicts, it "barely even registers". So what is the Islamic State then? Apparently they aren't doing it in the name of Allah and Islam according to your reasoning.

 

The moral argument made by religious apologists always baffles me. How many of the Russians, who were throwing their fellow countrymen into prison, were actually believers themselves? The majority of the German Nazis were Christian, yet they still carried out the systematic killing of jews, atheists, cripples, and gays? If religion is supposed to be a solvent of moral discipline, why does it not stop these horrible events?

[Lewellyn]

EDIT: also from the last link you provided, china has the highest rate of atheists in the world, not surprising when you consider the Chinese government does not acknowledge religion in any form and actively suppresses it.   Yet, it still is among the worst offenders for human rights violations.  Please explain why you think these statistics dismiss what Horgan and Richardson claim?

 

First off, don't edit your post to the point where it creates another argument. Second, there is a difference between atheism and state atheism. Third, before you make another stupid assumption between atheism and state atheism, where you undoubtedly conflate the two, please understand that while atheism is a spiritual-religious stance it has no ideological tenets.

[mr moose]

"were" "WERE" Key words my friend, very important.

 

You argue that religion plays utterly no role in violent conflicts, it "barely even registers". So what is the Islamic State then? Apparently they aren't doing it in the name of Allah and Islam according to your reasoning.

 

The moral argument made by religious apologists always baffles me. How many of the Russians, who were throwing their fellow countrymen into prison, were actually believers themselves? The majority of the German Nazis were Christian, yet they still carried out the systematic killing of jews, atheists, cripples, and gays? If religion is supposed to be a solvent of moral discipline, why does it not stop these horrible events?

 

Is calling someone an apologist a new way to dismiss their argument without actually offering a counter argument?  The argument is that religion cannot be the root cause of human violence and war because in places where religion was actively suppressed, the acts of violence and outbreaks of war still occur,  you can try to avoid that fact as much as you want,  but it remains the one simple truth.  Humanity is responsible for violence and humanity is responsible for religion,  religion in of itself is not the cause, humanity is.

 

First off, don't edit your post to the point where it creates another argument. Second, there is a difference between atheism and state atheism. Third, before you make another stupid assumption between atheism and state atheism, where you undoubtedly conflate the two, please understand that while atheism is a spiritual-religious stance it has no ideological tenets.

 

I never said there was no difference or indeed that any difference is relevant.  I made no assumptions to that point at all. My point is simply that in countries with low or no religion (due to religious suppression by governments) the rate of violence and outbreaks of war are still as high if not higher than any other country.  A point one cannot simply ignore if one wishes to condemn religion as a major cause of atrocious behaviour towards another human.

[Lewellyn]

Is calling someone an apologist a new way to dismiss their argument without actually offering a counter argument?  The argument is that religion cannot be the root cause of human violence and war because in places where religion was actively suppressed, the acts of violence and outbreaks of war still occur,  you can try to avoid that fact as much as you want,  but it remains the one simple truth.  Humanity is responsible for violence and humanity is responsible for religion,  religion in of itself is not the cause, humanity is.

 

 

I never said there was no difference or indeed that any difference is relevant.  I made no assumptions to that point at all. My point is simply that in countries with low or no religion (due to religious suppression by governments) the rate of violence and outbreaks of war are still as high if not higher than any other country.  A point one cannot simply ignore if one wishes to condemn religion as a major cause of atrocious behaviour towards another human.

"The moral argument made by religious apologists always baffles me"

 

I guess you think that's where I offhandedly dismissed the entire argument. Maybe you need to read it through slowly to understand how it wasn't more than a statement of opinion on happenstance.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that religion is a tool left up to the will of the users, the same as any other ideological will. Religion as a philosophy is not inherently evil or a creator of evil, it depends on how the people respond to the arguments made by the particular authorities. Hence the reason why I called distinction between atheism and state atheism. The active suppression by authoritarians who fear any other outside voice influencing public opinion are the paramount structure you seem to be forgetting. It isn't an argument that atheism leads to a more moral society, it is instead that there is the counter argument by atheists that theism does not lead to a more moral society. Japan has high rates of atheism, yet vastly lower crime rates than other industrialized nations as do some Scandinavian countries. Is this because they are atheist? Probably not. But they are successful in being civil without theism.

[mr moose]

 

 It isn't an argument that atheism leads to a more moral society,

 

And here in lies the issue, I was never arguing nor mean to infer that it did, I also had no intention of inferring that religion was somehow a driving moral beacon for altruism.   My argument has only been that religion is not the root cause that many believe it is.   There are some on these forums who speak excessively ill of religion and the only answer they will accept is that it is the root issue to all the worlds problems and should be eradicated like small pox.  However the evidence seems to tell us that if we were to have the ability to instantly wipe out all forms of superstition and spiritual beliefs from the world, the aggression, war and human rights abuses would simply shift to a new cause.   Clearly without extremists you'd stop an aweful lot there (thinking westborough, islamic terrorists and the like). However what would happen after that is just speculation.

[OlekKing]

You forgot 1/3 of US Americans don't 'believe' in evolution. In Missouri there is a bill in our state legislature that is aimed at allowing parents to prevent their children from going to biology class when it goes over evolution. 

 

There was a girl in my senior composition class that did a presentation about stem cells, all the while calling them 'embryos'. Yes, you and me have little tiny embryos in our bodies at this very moment.

 

A pew research study concluded that people hold atheists to the same level of trust as rapists. Speaks for itself.

 

In Utah the Mormon Church has so much influence that they literally take the propositions of legislature to it and the heads of the church decide how the masses are to vote.

 

 

There are very simple facts about religious influence over our lives and culture that so many people are ignorant of.

I know, like i was saying, i only gave a couple of examples.

The amount of ignorance in your country and the way that it's glorified is simply chilling. I honestly feel bad for all the non-religious people who have to deal with that shit on the daily.

I find it amazing how the government is doing such a bad job at maintaining the separation of Church and State, one of the main pillars of the USA. Seems like it has turned into allowing the Christians to do whatever the hell they want.

The founding fathers would be horrified and disgusted by today's USA.

A lot of people these days simply make fun of the Americans for their ridiculous religiosity, while forgetting of all the non-believers who have to endure that environment.

Your country is in desperate need of more people like Carl Sagan, he had some really big hopes for your country, i think he's another person who'd be surprised by what's going on today. He proposed so many solutions and advice to fix the education system, but it's all been ignored. 

[OlekKing]

And here in lies the issue, I was never arguing nor mean to infer that it did, I also had no intention of inferring that religion was somehow a driving moral beacon for altruism.   My argument has only been that religion is not the root cause that many believe it is.   There are some on these forums who speak excessively ill of religion and the only answer they will accept is that it is the root issue to all the worlds problems and should be eradicated like small pox.  However the evidence seems to tell us that if we were to have the ability to instantly wipe out all forms of superstition and spiritual beliefs from the world, the aggression, war and human rights abuses would simply shift to a new cause.   Clearly without extremists you'd stop an aweful lot there (thinking westborough, islamic terrorists and the like). However what would happen after that is just speculation.

It seems like your idea of "eradicating religion" would be to instate state atheism like it was done by previous dictatorships? Do you forget that they did it in order to turn themselves into worshiped figures, they just wanted the attention diverted to them, that's why they wanted to get rid of religion, it wasn't for the betterment of their society, it was simply so that they could become all powerful, deity figures themselves.

My solution is to get rid of religion via good education and some state intervention. Churches and other religious organisations should not be getting tax exempt status anywhere, especially in the USA where they have been turned into multi billion dollar industries.

There should be a proper separation of Church and State, a bunch of religious idiots shouldn't have any say or influence on any legislative decision or action by invoking their beliefs. That's not how decisions should be made. Whatever bullshit they believe in stays in their head and their home.

Faith Schools should not be allowed to exist, even less to receive funding by the state. All of those TV evangelists scamming people should receive punishment and should be outlawed.

Religion needs to be eradicated via good education, via the popularization of science, of critical thinking.

Parents indoctrinating their children is a huge problem, especially when they get homeschooled with religious bullcrap. I'm not sure how this can be solved, but some state intervention would be necessary. Children should be taught the existence and fundamentals of all the different religious beliefs, they should be taught to not take anything on faith, to analyse claims, to go where proper evidence leads. They will naturally become atheists and good critical thinkers, good scientists and so on.

You're telling me that this wouldn't give rise to a better world, to a better society with less or next to no conflict?

 

You really look like an apologist, i'm not going to dismiss you just by saying it, but it does appear so.

[mr moose]

It seems like your idea of "eradicating religion" would be to instate state atheism like it was done by previous dictatorships? Do you forget that they did it in order to turn themselves into worshiped figures, they just wanted the attention diverted to them, that's why they wanted to get rid of religion, it wasn't for the betterment of their society, it was simply so that they could become all powerful, deity figures themselves.

My solution is to get rid of religion via good education and some state intervention. Churches and other religious organisations should not be getting tax exempt status anywhere, especially in the USA where they have been turned into multi billion dollar industries.

There should be a proper separation of Church and State, a bunch of religious idiots shouldn't have any say or influence on any legislative decision or action by invoking their beliefs. That's not how decisions should be made. Whatever bullshit they believe in stays in their head and their home.

Faith Schools should not be allowed to exist, even less to receive funding by the state. All of those TV evangelists scamming people should receive punishment and should be outlawed.

Religion needs to be eradicated via good education, via the popularization of science, of critical thinking.

Parents indoctrinating their children is a huge problem, especially when they get homeschooled with religious bullcrap. I'm not sure how this can be solved, but some state intervention would be necessary. Children should be taught the existence and fundamentals of all the different religious beliefs, they should be taught to not take anything on faith, to analyse claims, to go where proper evidence leads. They will naturally become atheists and good critical thinkers, good scientists and so on.

You're telling me that this wouldn't give rise to a better world, to a better society with less or next to no conflict?

 

You really look like an apologist, i'm not going to dismiss you just by saying it, but it does appear so.

 

Religions generally were eradicated in order to suppress an organised group that could uprise and usurp the government.  I don't know where you got the idea they did it so people would worship them, about the only country I can think of the top of my head that has a leader that likes to consider himself godlike is north Korea.  All that aside it does not invalidate my point,  Without religion the violence and warring still occurs.

 

Not too sure what the rest of your opinion is founded on, last time I looked at the US government they were all taking bribes, rooting prostitutes and getting kickbacks from big business, they are religious in name only, using it as a tool to get the masses to vote for them.  Even if you consider representing a constituent religious majority in a democracy as proof there is no separation,  then see my previous point that even in governments that have ZERO religious affiliation and actively suppress it, it does not change the outcomes for the people.

[OlekKing]

Religions generally were eradicated in order to suppress an organised group that could uprise and usurp the government.  I don't know where you got the idea they did it so people would worship them, about the only country I can think of the top of my head that has a leader that likes to consider himself godlike is north Korea.  All that aside it does not invalidate my point,  Without religion the violence and warring still occurs.

 

Not too sure what the rest of your opinion is founded on, last time I looked at the US government they were all taking bribes, rooting prostitutes and getting kickbacks from big business, they are religious in name only, using it as a tool to get the masses to vote for them.  Even if you consider representing a constituent religious majority in a democracy as proof there is no separation,  then see my previous point that even in governments that have ZERO religious affiliation and actively suppress it, it does not change the outcomes for the people.

"Without religion."

Your examples are taken from dictatorships where religion was simply outlawed, where religion was simply forcefully taken away in a really bad way. I don't support that at all, and how exactly do you expect that kind of action would make people any better? It would only make people angrier and cling to their superstitions even more. That's been shown ineffective time and time again.

 

Whether the US government is pandering or really dominated by religious nuts is irrelevant. It's still an issue. You keep trying to make it look as though the only solution is full on suppression, that doesn't work, why do you keep bringing it up?

 

I mean did you even bother reading my whole post? I want this issue tackled in a different manner, via proper separation of Church and State and by the promotion of education, critical thinking and science. That will make people better and they'll naturally become atheists by their own reasoning, that's just a bonus, the key part is that it will make people better critical thinkers. That will lead to atheism and many other good things.

[mr moose]

"Without religion."

Your examples are taken from dictatorships where religion was simply outlawed, where religion was simply forcefully taken away in a really bad way. I don't support that at all, and how exactly do you expect that kind of action would make people any better? It would only make people angrier and cling to their superstitions even more. That's been shown ineffective time and time again.

 

Whether the US government is pandering or really dominated by religious nuts is irrelevant. It's still an issue. You keep trying to make it look as though the only solution is full on suppression, that doesn't work, why do you keep bringing it up?

 

I mean did you even bother reading my whole post? I want this issue tackled in a different manner, via proper separation of Church and State and by the promotion of education, critical thinking and science. That will make people better and they'll naturally become atheists by their own reasoning, that's just a bonus, the key part is that it will make people better critical thinkers. That will lead to atheism and many other good things.

 

I believe what you are suggesting would only work if the issues that you see stemming from religion were a result of it and not the result of a deeper seeded issue with humanity.

 

Also you don't seem to understand that religion is not only bad, it is a spectrum of beliefs across cultures and countries, to claim it is only bad is ignorant. there are just as many people who use an organised religion as the outlet for there desire to help humanity as there are who use it as a tool to promote war.

[OlekKing]

I believe what you are suggesting would only work if the issues that you see stemming from religion were a result of it and not the result of a deeper seeded issue with humanity.

 

Also you don't seem to understand that religion is not only bad, it is a spectrum of beliefs across cultures and countries, to claim it is only bad is ignorant. there are just as many people who use an organised religion as the outlet for there desire to help humanity as there are who use it as a tool to promote war.

There are compelling studies which show that we might have a predisposition to be gullible and superstitious as a result of our long primitive past, but that's no reason to simply submit to it. Just like other bad predispositions, we can overcome it. And it is done via good education, via the promotion of science, via critical thinking.

 

As for your last statement, all i can say is so what? How is that relevant, we do not need superstition in order to be willing to help the fellow human being. The people who use religion for good are a non issue, they are irrelevant, there's still an enormous amount who use it for despicable acts, and that's where our focus should be.

Culture and tradition IS NOT above the well being of your fellow man. We need to learn to throw that away and work as one.

[mr moose]

There are compelling studies which show that we might have a predisposition to be gullible and superstitious as a result of our long primitive past, but that's no reason to simply submit to it. Just like other bad predispositions, we can overcome it. And it is done via good education, via the promotion of science, via critical thinking.

 

As for your last statement, all i can say is so what? How is that relevant, we do not need superstition in order to be willing to help the fellow human being. The people who use religion for good are a non issue, they are irrelevant, there's still an enormous amount who use it for despicable acts, and that's where our focus should be.

Culture and tradition IS NOT above the well being of your fellow man. We need to learn to throw that away and work as one.

 

It is relevant, because until humanity learns to accept each other and not force our own ideals onto others, there is no educating or moving forward.  Culture and tradition may be just as important to the survival of humanity as war and greed.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest life can only improve if religion is eradicated.   The key to moving forward is acceptance of others.  Accepting that some people like to do things different, accepting that some people like to avoid walking under ladders accepting that some people only eat red nuts for fear of developing cancer.  As nutty as it sounds to you or I, it is very relevant to others and unless those quirks do some kind of physical damage to another person then the only positive thing humanity can do is to accept.  Otherwise we will all end up back in the dark ages long before education has a chance to have an effect.