For example, in some cultures, stoning adulterers to death in the town square is still acceptable, in some, premarital sex is acceptable. Those two cultures do nbot "play well" with each other when they are introduced. Conflict invariably ensues, as each sees the other as "immoral".
Adultery (secretive infidelity to spouse) opens breaches in alliances, divides loyalties, etc. It's a losing strategy, so it falls into what Shiny called the "universal" (what I'd call the "function of living in a society") category. Premarital sex in the old days often meant no father for the kids, which often means troublesome hoodlums -- another losing strategy -- but today that's not so true in places where birth control is available (e.g., not Alaska or the American Southeast, apparently). That particular "moral" is therefore becoming obsolete in many places (unless you subscribe to Mario Puzo's theory that people who lose their virginity to one another are more loyal to each other than people who don't, a theory I personally find to be romantic wishful thinking).
What often happens is that two cultures arbitrarily assign vastly different weights to things (e.g., to most Western cultures, stoning someone to death -- i.e., murder -- is considered a lot worse than premarital sex on the overall scale of things).
|
Premarital sex in the old days often meant no father for the kids, which often means troublesome hoodlums -- another losing strategy -- but today that's not so true in places where birth control is available (e.g., not Alaska or the American Southeast, apparently).
Ok, i have to call you on this one. First of all, crime statistics STILL indicate that single mother homes produce an overwhelming number of our "hoodlems". This isn't an "old days" problem at all. Second, i'm assuming you're placing such paragons of enlightened thought such as Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington D.C., Cleveland, and Chicago above such "backwards" cities such as Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Juneau, Nashville, etc, all of which have LOWER murder rates than the above mentioned "enlightened" cities (and, for the most part, lower crime rates in general, excepting Houston's auto-theft rate, which has little to do with birth control and much to do with proximity to Mexico). Perhaps the former cities should encourage their citizens to USE said birth control, as availability apparently hasn't cut down on the impulse to kill one another...
(Seriously, Guiliani's best year, murder wise was 950 in 02. Lanier's best year was 250. Pretty much the same rate, per capita-wise.)
(EDIT: and no cashews for you next time, i'm going to make you eat hominy grits, pig's knuckles and sweet potato pie. NYAH :P)
(EDIT II: j/k)
Your point regarding past, vs. current problems is well taken.
As to "enlightened" cities, NYC does not qualify... I'm not sure if the people there are even human... and Houston isn't in Alaska! Seriously, though, let's compare murder rates in, say, Houston vs. Toronto (leaving out auto theft as you recommend). Both are North American cities with approximately equal populations; both have very large immigrant populations, in terms of both total numbers and in terms of % (so that variable is controlled as well); and both have easy availability of firearms (despite Canadian laws, guns in Toronto are as easy to obtain as a quick drive into Detroit). In short, the biggest differences between them are climate and societal norms (Toronto being very open regarding birth control in comparison to Houston).
Now, you could argue that climate is the deciding factor (Toronto hoolums are too busy shivering to commit crimes), or you could argue that they're more "enlightened." Teen pregnancy rates in Toronto are roughly half those in Houston, and murder rates are approximately 10 times lower.
This correspondence, as noted above, does not imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship, but it is food for thought.
|
|
Point taken regarding past, vs. current problems.
As to "enlightened" cities, NYC does not qualify... I'm not sure if the people there are even human... and Houston isn't in Alaska! Seriously, though, let's compare murder rates in, say, Houston vs. Toronto (leaving out auto theft as you recommend). Both are North American cities with approximately equal populations; both have very large immigrant populations, in terms of both total numbers and in terms of % (so that variable is controlled as well); and both have easy availability of firearms (despite Canadian laws, guns in Toronto are as easy to obtain as a quick drive into Detroit). Now, you could argue that climate is the deciding factor (Toronto hoolums are too busy shivering to commit crimes), or you could argue that they're more "enlightened." Teen pregnancy rates in Toronto are roughly half those in Houston, and murder rates are approximately 10 times lower.
This correspondence, as noted above, does not imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship, but it is food for thought.
That's just dirty pool. Dragging Canada into the discussion...
Also, Canada's immigration laws are stricter than ours (as in, for the most part, you'd better have a skill they need...), and they don't have nearly the level of illegal immigration as the southwestern united states. Furthermore, Toronto isn't a major drug distribution hub for north america. Houston is THE distribution center for narcotics in north america (DEA estimate: 70% of hard narcotics in America pass through Houston).
(They seriously only have 35-40 murders a year in toronto? that's impressive!)
Keep the comparisons "apples to apples" not "apples to utopias" there, buddy ;)
Keep the comparisons "apples to apples" not "apples to utopias" there, buddy ;)
Heh, you wanted an "enlightened" city, I gave you one. But we really ought to be looking smaller, anyway, because bigger cities have greater transient population rates. I bet if we looked at very small U.S. towns with relatively similar populations and economic conditions, then compared absitance-only sex-ed ones against ones which teach proper contraceptive use, then compared teen pregnancy rates and crime rates... but that's starting to look like a Ph.D. dissertation. And we're too busy updating Paizo APs to the Beta to work on anything of that scale ;)
(They seriously only have 35-40 murders a year in toronto? that's impressive!)
In all of 2004, they had a total of 27 murders. 2005 was the infamaous "Year of the Gun," with 80 murders (out of something like 2.6 million people).
|
|
Pffft...
Writing a Doctoral Thesis is nothing compared to creating my uber-l337 roxxors rogue who will completely prove that your dming skillz are "made-of-fail", are "full-of-suck", and couldn't TPK a bunch of bound and gagged halfling commoners with a Balor (or something, this new gamer slang is such a PITA to master...).
Writing a Doctoral Thesis is nothing compared to creating my uber-l337 roxxors rogue who will completely prove that your dming skillz are "made-of-fail", are "full-of-suck", and couldn't TPK a bunch of bound and gagged halfling commoners with a Balor (or something, this new gamer slang is such a PITA to master...).
Yeah, until he gets eaten by a goblin's pet cougar.
I saw that too. The biggest problem I saw was that they compared the ancient DNA to a modern person living in Israel. As I understand it the best way to comparing would be to compare it with DNA extracted from the body of a person living in the region during the same general time as the historical Jesus. There is no way to know if the modern person's ancesters were in Palestine during the 1st century A.D. and therefore only proves that the Merevingian queen is not related to people in Israel today.
That may be, but there are some surprising studies going on with DNA analyses these days. I'll have to check around my National Geographic magazines, but I vaguely recall a recent study involving a few Mediterranean communities believed to be descended from the Phoenicians and the DNA links between similar locations, also settled by Phoenicians but contrasting with other locals from nearby hinterlands. I'll HAVE to look for that...
|
|
Writing a Doctoral Thesis is nothing compared to creating my uber-l337 roxxors rogue who will completely prove that your dming skillz are "made-of-fail", are "full-of-suck", and couldn't TPK a bunch of bound and gagged halfling commoners with a Balor (or something, this new gamer slang is such a PITA to master...).Yeah, until he gets eaten by a goblin's pet cougar.
Like I said, writing a thesis is nothing compared to...
Dude, how am I supposed to get "uber" if you keep throwing pets in ym way?
(They seriously only have 35-40 murders a year in toronto? that's impressive!)
In all of 2004, they had a total of 27 murders. 2005 was the infamaous "Year of the Gun," with 80 murders (out of something like 2.6 million people).
That's because bullets are worth more than Canadians -- nobody wants to waste them :P
|
|
(They seriously only have 35-40 murders a year in toronto? that's impressive!)In all of 2004, they had a total of 27 murders. 2005 was the infamaous "Year of the Gun," with 80 murders (out of something like 2.6 million people).That's because bullets are worth more than Canadians -- nobody wants to waste them :P
why didn't i think of that...
|
I would like to see a study that compares rates of violent crime with percentag of religious attendence. I tried to do my own briefly but I could not find the numbers I needed. All I could find was that the West had the highest rate of church attendence with 38% of people in "the west" attending church at least weekly.
I would like to see a study that compares rates of violent crime with percentag of religious attendence. I tried to do my own briefly but I could not find the numbers I needed. All I could find was that the West had the highest rate of church attendence with 38% of people in "the west" attending church at least weekly.
NYC, in the bad years of rampant murder, still had high attendance rates (especially Catholic churches and synagogues). Canada has lower attendance and lower crime, but Derek said I'm not allowed to mention them. Of course, we might find that, in places with higher crime, people are more likely to attend religious services so they can get their affairs in order, so to speak, before being murdered...
Science is based on evidence, while religion is based on faith, which are two opposing concepts.
I wouldn't say opposing, just applicable in different situations. :-)
You can't always rely on science, because some things are unknowable. And you can't always rely on faith, because what is known is changing.|
|
I wonder what the church attendance rate of murderers, rapists and armed robbers are? (that is, before they go to prison and "find god", then miraculously "forget god" two seconds after release...)Ask the guy that went around blowing abortion clinics in the 90's he might know.
ok, so your answer is "one"?
|
I wonder what the church attendance rate of murderers, rapists and armed robbers are? (that is, before they go to prison and "find god", then miraculously "forget god" two seconds after release...)Ask the guy that went around blowing abortion clinics in the 90's he might know.
That's a little unfair, to say the least...
Anyways, I doubt a real argument could be made making a correlation between increased crime and rates of church attendance. There are so many other factors that influence crime rates A LOT more, I would think, like say, poverty rates, the availability of weapons, general culture, etc. However, I do see a correlation between FANATICAL religion and increased violence, but the same can be said about any fanatical belief, such as fanatical communists, fascists, anarchists, environmentalists, abortion activists, and any other group that has a possibility of dogmatic fervor. I would say that dangerous religious fanaticism is more common, though, because religion has control over people's most core beliefs about life and existence.
|
|
ok, so your answer is "one"?I wonder what the church attendance rate of murderers, rapists and armed robbers are? (that is, before they go to prison and "find god", then miraculously "forget god" two seconds after release...)Ask the guy that went around blowing abortion clinics in the 90's he might know.
And all the priests that raped little boys, Al quada members, The Koo Kluks Klan. etc.
|
|
And all the priests that raped little boys, Al quada members, The Koo Kluks Klan. etc.
Actually, the Ku Klux Klan is not a religously motivated group. It is a racially motivated group. The burning cross is not a religious symbol, it actually is a corruption of an ancient Scottish tradition that was used to call the various clans to action. Originally the burning cross, called in Scots Gaelic Crann Tara, was intended as a decleration of war and to call all Scotsmen to defense of their land. Most Christians see cross burning as desicration of the cross and as blasphmy.
|
|
Actually, the Ku Klux Klan is not a religously motivated group. It is a racially motivated group. The burning cross is not a religious symbol, it actually is a corruption of an ancient Scottish tradition that was used to call the various clans to action. Originally the burning cross, called in Scots Gaelic Crann Tara, was intended as a decleration of war and to call all Scotsmen to defense of their land. Most Christians see cross burning as desicration of the cross and as blasphmy.
And all the priests that raped little boys, Al quada members, The Koo Kluks Klan. etc.
They also claim they are doing gods will. O yeah and then there was David Kresh leader of the waco texas cult.
|
|
Actually, the Ku Klux Klan is not a religously motivated group. It is a racially motivated group. The burning cross is not a religious symbol, it actually is a corruption of an ancient Scottish tradition that was used to call the various clans to action. Originally the burning cross, called in Scots Gaelic Crann Tara, was intended as a decleration of war and to call all Scotsmen to defense of their land. Most Christians see cross burning as desicration of the cross and as blasphmy.
And all the priests that raped little boys, Al quada members, The Koo Kluks Klan. etc.
Specifically the KKK b believe that people of another color are descendants of Noahs son Ham whom Noah cursed that all his descendants would be servants and slaves. The exception to that is the Jewish people who they believe god cursed for forsaking christ.
|
|
Specifically the KKK b believe that people of another color are descendants of Noahs son Ham whom Noah cursed that all his descendants would be servants and slaves. The exception to that is the Jewish people who they believe god cursed for forsaking christ.Actually, the Ku Klux Klan is not a religously motivated group. It is a racially motivated group. The burning cross is not a religious symbol, it actually is a corruption of an ancient Scottish tradition that was used to call the various clans to action. Originally the burning cross, called in Scots Gaelic Crann Tara, was intended as a decleration of war and to call all Scotsmen to defense of their land. Most Christians see cross burning as desicration of the cross and as blasphmy.
And all the priests that raped little boys, Al quada members, The Koo Kluks Klan. etc.
That's one of the racist philosophies, yes. I believe that most white power groups use some kind of faith underpinning, but to generalize all faith groups by noting a few very, very nasty examples is a bit unfair. At the same time, I agree that it is very easy to corrupt seemingly benign religious beliefs into something much more sinister. Religion is often the most powerful force in people's lives and people usually look to others for guidance, creating an extremely powerful elite at the helm of most faiths. And they do say that power corrupts...
I'm no fan of organized religion. Catholic school and living in Utah will do that to a person. But I have also seen some very good examples of organized religion. The local Episcopal diocese in Utah is very open to everyone, no matter what kind of background they have and is has excellent programs to help those in need. What really impressed me was that their community service programs had no religious fluff attached. There was no preaching to the homeless coming in to get food, no bibles handed out. If they asked for it, of course it was provided, but I was always glad that getting a sermon was not a prerequisite for receiving help.
My point is, yes religious beliefs are easily abused by those in power to great ill effect, but that religion can also do good things. That's not to say I don't think an ideal world would have no organized religion (think John Lennon's "Imagine"), but we don't live in an ideal world.
Bill Maher has some gigantic grapefruits for making this movie. Thats all I'm gonna say about it.
Finally saw it on Netflix. I find Bill Maher amiable and funny, and found the movie pretty much devoid of value. Dawkins' The God Delusion covers much the same ground except more thoroughly, and with an eye to how religion is a nearly inescapable by-product of traits that would be naturally selected for in humans -- a standpoint I'd never seen before, and one that's pretty convincing. His endless hand-waving and ignoring of arguments he finds incovenient as "absurd" is really annoying, though.
So far, the best treatment of all of this I've seen has been in A Flock of Dodos, which depicts scientists as argumentative, annoying, overly-brainy super-dorks who can't coherently get a point across to laymen -- and then contrasts them with calm, mannered, down-to-earth, folksy creationists who do everything but offer you a mint julep while they tell you how simple everything is, and how you should ignore all this complex rubbish. As a scientist, that one hit me pretty close to home.
Personal anectode follows, which may offend some -- read only if interested. If not, no hard feelings -- you didn't miss anything of importance.
Later in the discussion, I quoted a number of passages from scripture in support of some point or other; he told me I was misinterpreting it, and needed to find someone to explain to me how to read it correctly. I asked, if Scripture is God's instruction manual, so to speak, shouldn't the meaning be clear to anyone who reads it carefully and really studies it? I was told, basically, that no, the Bible is just a tiny hint of the Truth, and that God reserves the real evidence for certain people to whom he reveals the "contextual significance," and only they can understand it. If anyone else reads it and still doesn't believe, it's because they haven't sought out one of these luminaries to tell them the real deal. So I'm now looking for one of these gifted folks, if anyone here fits the bill.
|
Kirth:
Wicht, thanks for the reply.
|
|
Kirth:
Firstly, just because a the Bible contains the account of a man's actions does not mean that the Bible condones that action. There are many examples, especially in the Old Testament, where the Bible recounts a historical event but does not within the passage either condemn or condone the event. The event thus has to be understood in the larger context of the scriptures. For instance, the book of Genesis contains an account of Noah's drunkeness. That particular passage does not condemn the actions of Noah but when one reads in Proverbs that drunkeness is inadvisable and then in the New Testament that drunkeness is itself a sin, we can then put Noah's actions into a larger context and condemn them. Likewise, the book of Judges is filled with similar events. In fact a theme of the second half of Judges is that "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. (Judges 21:25)"
Secondly, the primary purpose of the passage in question (Judges 19) is to demonstrate the reasons for a war in which eleven tribes nearly destroyed the twelfth tribe, Benjamin. In a larger context this helps us better understand the character of King Saul, who was the first king of Israel and a Benjaminite. In a similar vein the book of Ruth gives some background for King David, Saul's successor. The whole episode though is to show the degeneracy of the Benjaminites who would not punish the town that raped and killed the concubine.
Having said that, the actions of both the Levite and the Benjaminites fit the theme of Judges, each man doing as he saw fit. The act of having a concubine, as opposed to a wife, was itself a departure from God's will. Likewise, sacrificing the concubine in order to save himself was most assuredly not an act of love. So there is not much to commend us to the levite. Likewise the men of Gibeah showed themselves to be degenerates and the Benjaminites showed themselves poorly by refusing to bring their brethren to task.
To try and say that any of the characters in this tragedy were to be emulated is to miss the whole point of this section of Judges - when men depart from God's will, there are no good results. The passage, when understood in this context, is really pretty simple to understand and explain, IMO. :)
An extremely useful and well-written summary
Wicht: It occurs to me that we should probably adjourn to the Civil Religious Discussion thread, rather than continue to jack this one! In case that link fails:
A more telling one: in the New Testament, I read what are supposedly the actual teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the gosel according to John, Mark, Fred, or whomever) and find no fault in them; they're all empirically useful behaviors when living in a community. Indeed, when Jesus says, "There is no way to the Father save through me" (paraphrased for brevity), that seems clear to me that he's saying (a) ignore the earlier stuff, (b) ignore the teachings of other people who claim to be "in the know," and (c) these teachings here are the "real deal." But I'm told, no, a Christian should want to follow those teachings, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with his message, and are nothing but an elaborate distractor -- he's telling you you just have to "join the club," so to speak, to be saved. Try as I might, though, I cannot in good conscience interpret it that way.
Okay, My friend tells me that I'm obviously wrong to interpret things the way I do, so differently from the mainstream, and therefore I need the "higher level" of understanding -- which he attempted to supply in the form of saying, "obviously you're wrong, just accept it." But that's not obvious to me at all -- quite the contrary. And as far as a consensus indicating Truth, I pointed out that there are an awful lot of Muslims in the world (to which he replied, "They all know the Quoran is false and just choose to be evil"). Okay, so here's the rub -- what's crystal clear from the New Testament to me is not what the mainstream religion gets out of it (and is actually, I'm reading, quite close to what Thomas Jefferson got out of it, so I guess I'm not totally alone). Consensus alone doesn't spell truth. Nor am I being willfully evil. If the mainstream view is "logically and obviously correct," then why does the New Testament beguile and confuse and lead astray people like TJ and myself? (My answer: I don't think it does. Yours may differ).
I see nothing in the Bible that leads me to reject scientific evidence (much of which I've seen firsthand) of an old Earth, and of evolution of life over geologic time. I see nothing that truly requires a "brand name" recognition of Jesus, as opposed to a following of his teachings (which, by the way, are remarkably similar to the Buddha's in some aspects). I see nothing that leads me to logically conclude that Heaven and Hell are real, physical places, rather than metaphors. I reject the doctrine of original sin, as many do. But most importantly, I see nothing to lead me to the conclusion that I'm forced to accept the mainsteam view over the dictates of my own conscience and reason.
|
|
Wicht, Kirth -- what is this discussion doing here? I almost missed it.
Regarding Noah -- while the passage doesn't specifically condemn Noah for his actions, it was apparently bad enough that his son was punished (rather severely) for seeing the condition and reporting it to his brothers.
Kirth -- I am finding that there really seem to be a good number of passages (especially in the Old Testament) that just say what happened and aren't really meant to make much of a point on morality. (Elijah makes an axehead float because some guy dropped it in the river and it was borrowed. Where's the "lesson" in that?)
One thing to consider was that Abraham was well before "the Law".
The main point of the Lot passage (as I understand it) is basically the decadence of society and how bad things got. The further point might be that the grass is not always greener on the other side. (Lot and Abraham split because they both were getting too wealthy and Lot chose to go where the "grass was greener" and ended up getting into all kinds of trouble because of the local communities.) I do feel that your friend may be right to some degree -- in that it was simply the culture of the time. The ease with which it was brought up as an option (to me) implies that practice was not terribly uncommon. I also wonder if Lot didn't understand more of what was really going on. The guests were perfectly willing to sleep in the courtyard, but Lot insisted that they stay with him. I wonder if he knew who these people really were and was scared of some serious consequences.
Sometimes it's hard to find true "morality" in a lot of things from the Old Testament. Jesus came from Judah -- whose son had died without an heir and who didn't do what he was supposed to do to fix it. Judah, who was walking along the road, saw a "random" woman, said "come with me tonight", sleeps with her and finds out the next day or two that it was actually his daughter in law. And the passage only really implies that what he did wrong was give his daughter in law to the next person in line.
There are a number of places in the Old Testament especially that are difficult to fully understand the "morality" of the passage or the time.
|
|
Kirth
When Jesus, In John 14 says that he is the way, the truth and the life and there is no way to the Father except through him, I know of no other way to interpret that then how Peter does in Acts 4:12 that there is no other name given under heaven for the salvation of men. To accept this statement is to reject Bhudda or Mohammed or any other.* In point of fact, when Jesus is transfigured on the mountain with Elijah (representing the prophets) and Moses (representing the Law), Peter wants to build three monuments, in his mind elevating Jesus to the level of Moses the lawgiver and Elijah, the greatest of the prophets. The statement from heaven that is heard is that Jesus is the son (and hence greater than a servant c.f. Hebrews 3:1-6) and He is to be listened to above that which came before.
*This is not to say that other men besides Jesus have not taught truth. It is to say that 1) the truth Christ teaches must supercede the teachings of other men and 2) only Jesus provides spiritual salvation. It is not enough to get this life right. The goal of Christianity is to make it to the next life intact and Jesus is saying that only he can deliver in this regards. Jesus accepted heaven and hell as real places and his followers should too.
As far as what you accept, that is your own choice. Each man must make his own. While I disagree on some of your conclusions, especially as regards the teachings of Christ, I agree with you that one cannot base one's opinions on majority rules.
One final note regarding the Old and New Testament. The New Testament teaches that Law of Christ has replaced the Law of Moses (I veiw it as similar to the way that the US Constitution replaced British Law -there are similarities but they are two different Laws nonetheless) (c.f Romans 7:1-4, 8:2; Ephesians 2:15; Hebrews 8:8). Nevertheless, a student of the New Testament understands that the things written in the Old Testament help us better understand the New. And nothing that Jesus taught of morality in any way condradicts the morality that was taught under the old. That is to say, the New Testament does not make things confusing, to the contrary it can be understood to help us clarify some of the events of the Old Testament in a larger context.
Kirth, just saw your other comment - feel free to respond in the other thread. Edit: if its still there.
|
|
Finally saw it on Netflix. I find Bill Maher amiable and funny, and found the movie pretty much devoid of value. Dawkins' The God Delusion covers much the same ground except more thoroughly, and with an eye to how religion is a nearly inescapable by-product of traits that would be naturally selected for in humans -- a standpoint I'd never seen before, and one that's pretty convincing. His endless hand-waving and ignoring of arguments he finds incovenient as "absurd" is really annoying, though.
So far, the best treatment of all of this I've seen has been in A Flock of Dodos, which depicts scientists as argumentative, annoying, overly-brainy super-dorks who can't coherently get a point across to laymen -- and then contrasts them with calm, mannered, down-to-earth, folksy creationists who do everything but offer you a mint julep while they tell you how simple everything is, and how you should ignore all this complex rubbish. As a scientist, that one hit me pretty close to home.
An interesting point behind this. I was helping a fellow grad student awhile back dealing with psychology and the origins of religion. The thought was thatt religion developed as we evolved and our brains evolved. For example as we learned to use tools as apes and got more sophisticated with the process we began to view things as having a purpose. I. E. *looks at sharp*be Thinks why stones are sharp like that and how can they can be used. Then fashions sharp stones into spear. Somewhere along the line we started seeing things as having a purpose and therefore using them in some purpose. Add purpose into need for survival and meaning mix for 250 000 years and you get religion.
|
|
So, this 'documentary'; Is it worth seeing if you are fairly well set into a particular religious view? It was my understanding by experience and rumor that Bill Maher is terribly contemptuous of all religions and their adherents. If there are some valid issues discussed in his interviews, I might take the time to consider them. I'm quite willing to hear ideas that conflict with my own beliefs, but I do ask for reciprocity or at least civility in return.
|
|
He tries to be a proselytizing atheist. He also tries to be funny while doing, so it does come across as being patronizing. As an atheist myself I found it amusing but I could see religious people getting easily offended by it.
I would add that if you are well grounded and you go into the film knowing that Mr. Maher has an agenda then it can be an enlightening look into how some atheists view religious people.
|
|
Key word "Some" atheists. I am an atheist but besides that I am comfortable saying if you have a religious belief that makes you happy and doesn't interfere with other peoples lives and beliefs than great, all the power to you, thats awesome that you found something that keeps you happy. However those that propogate hate, violence, and intolerance need to be stopped and shut down they have no place in a civil society. In fact they are a drain and destructor of society.
|
|
Since Communists are generally regarded as atheists (even though most people living in communist nations are/were probably no more or less religious than they were before the nations became so), I would like to point out that atheists probably killed more people in the 20th Century than all of the religious groups combined.
Just saying.
Of course, Mr. Maher is as likely to point that out as Mr. Moore is to point out the culpability unions share with management in the auto industry fiasco...
|
|
Since Communists are generally regarded as atheists (even though most people living in communist nations are/were probably no more or less religious than they were before the nations became so), I would like to point out that atheists probably killed more people in the 20th Century than all of the religious groups combined.
Just saying.
Of course, Mr. Maher is as likely to point that out as Mr. Moore is to point out the culpability unions share with management in the auto industry fiasco...
You know, if you want to go down that road, we can blame religion for the evils of the crusades, 9/11, holy wars, the inquisition etc etc.
Or one could look at the intensive usage of religious mechanisms in the establishment of the cults of personality surrounding Stalin and Mao, something that enabled them and their fanatical followers to commit horrific acts, all the name of an ideology.
Now, Athiesm has (probably) not killed anyone. Extreme, fanatical devotion to an ideology, be it political or religious, certainly has.
|
|
Since Communists are generally regarded as atheists (even though most people living in communist nations are/were probably no more or less religious than they were before the nations became so), I would like to point out that atheists probably killed more people in the 20th Century than all of the religious groups combined.
Just saying.
Of course, Mr. Maher is as likely to point that out as Mr. Moore is to point out the culpability unions share with management in the auto industry fiasco...
Actually the major causes for the deaths where psychotic people leading it such as Stalin. He was the one in command and ordered the deaths just as Hitler did in Germany.
|
|
Since Communists are generally regarded as atheists (even though most people living in communist nations are/were probably no more or less religious than they were before the nations became so), I would like to point out that atheists probably killed more people in the 20th Century than all of the religious groups combined.
Just saying.
Of course, Mr. Maher is as likely to point that out as Mr. Moore is to point out the culpability unions share with management in the auto industry fiasco...
You know, if you want to go down that road, we can blame religion for the evils of the crusades, 9/11, holy wars, the inquisition etc etc.
Or one could look at the intensive usage of religious mechanisms in the establishment of the cults of personality surrounding Stalin and Mao, something that enabled them and their fanatical followers to commit horrific acts, all the name of an ideology.
Now, Athiesm has (probably) not killed anyone. Extreme, fanatical devotion to an ideology, be it political or religious, certainly has.
No, Uzzy, I wasn't trying to go down any road, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of "atheists" claiming it's all religion's fault.
People are a f*#@ed up breed, doesn't matter what their beliefs are.
|
|
Tue enough. That being said preaching that all people of notr white skin are the descendants Of Ham son of Noah who's descendants were cursed to be slaves and servants for all eternity is completely fine and healthy yup for sure :). What also is fine and not prejudice at all is saying that all none believers in Islam are infidels and must die in fact you will have a greater reward in Heaven for killing as many as you can. Another thing that is just great is saying that Homosexuals are an abomination unto god so we must do everything we can to stop them at every turn since we can't lynch and kill them like we used to and get away with it. Yup religions great and has no problems and it's atheists who started it all :)
|
|
Tue enough. That being said preaching that all people of notr white skin are the descendants Of Ham son of Noah who's descendants were cursed to be slaves and servants for all eternity is completely fine and healthy yup for sure :). What also is fine and not prejudice at all is saying that all none believers in Islam are infidels and must die in fact you will have a greater reward in Heaven for killing as many as you can. Another thing that is just great is saying that Homosexuals are an abomination unto god so we must do everything we can to stop them at every turn since we can't lynch and kill them like we used to and get away with it. Yup religions great and has no problems and it's atheists who started it all :)
Look, can we just accept that there are bastards and a@@&@@#$s in all walks of life and all organisations and give it a rest? There have been a&#&~%@+s who have been religious and a+!%%$%*s who have been atheists. Any moron who believes more in their cause than in the worth of their fellow human beings will do horrible things in the name of that cause, whether it be God, country, racial purity, animal welfare, or anything else. They are all a##$&*@*s and they are the ones that need to be stopped, not the vast majority who have things in proportion.
|
|
Tue enough. That being said preaching that all people of notr white skin are the descendants Of Ham son of Noah who's descendants were cursed to be slaves and servants for all eternity is completely fine and healthy yup for sure :). What also is fine and not prejudice at all is saying that all none believers in Islam are infidels and must die in fact you will have a greater reward in Heaven for killing as many as you can. Another thing that is just great is saying that Homosexuals are an abomination unto god so we must do everything we can to stop them at every turn since we can't lynch and kill them like we used to and get away with it. Yup religions great and has no problems and it's atheists who started it all :)
No, Jeremy, you're missing a major point here. First off, I'm not religious, definitely not "Christian" (I use quotes because most "Christians" are clueless about anything their greatest prophet said or meant), and couldn't give a s+~% less about offending people who believe whatever.
What pisses ME off is hypocrisy. Frankly, the "anti-Christian" or "anti-religious" crowd are just as intolerant, just as unwilling to see anyone else's perspective, and just as likely to violently suppress opposing views as anyone else. Or, even worse, they'll suppress the views and not care about offending one religious group, but will gleefully allow another group to just say whatever they want because they are, somehow, victims.
You can sit there and gleefully cap on Christians all you want, make fun, condemn, whatever, but remember, you're just as petty, shallow and, ultimately, meaningless in any conversation that might help people find common ground as extremists on the other side. You are a bigot, but your bigotry is politically acceptable at the moment, so you can take comfort in that, I suppose.
|
|
Tue enough. That being said preaching that all people of notr white skin are the descendants Of Ham son of Noah who's descendants were cursed to be slaves and servants for all eternity is completely fine and healthy yup for sure :). What also is fine and not prejudice at all is saying that all none believers in Islam are infidels and must die in fact you will have a greater reward in Heaven for killing as many as you can. Another thing that is just great is saying that Homosexuals are an abomination unto god so we must do everything we can to stop them at every turn since we can't lynch and kill them like we used to and get away with it. Yup religions great and has no problems and it's atheists who started it all :)Look, can we just accept that there are bastards and a@#@~%@*s in all walks of life and all organisations and give it a rest? There have been a@#@~%@*s who have been religious and a@#@~%@*s who have been atheists. Any moron who believes more in their cause than in the worth of their fellow human beings will do horrible things in the name of that cause, whether it be God, country, racial purity, animal welfare, or anything else. They are all a@#@~%@*s and they are the ones that need to be stopped, not the vast majority who have things in proportion.
I agree 100%. A@%$%$%s come in every stripe and belief system. Some of them just don't see it when they look in the mirror, self righteousness is just another form of self delusion.
|
|
I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.
I love hypocrites, y'all are fun!
Atheism is no more responsible for those deaths then Theism is for the deaths suffered during the Inquisition. It's like saying that any murders caused by tall people are done in the name of tall people. Utter nonsense. (And by the way, I never blamed Religion for the other stuff, but I enjoyed your strawman.)
Further, most Atheists I know would be entirely happy with Religion if they kept to teaching in the privacy of their church and their own homes. However, it doesn't, does it? Religious people try to enforce their own views upon countries. Views that say I can't marry my best friend. Or that women should wear vail's, and not be in control of their own bodies. And that people should be taught about Creationism as if it's a legitimate scientific pursuit.