Religion Itself Is The Fount Of Most Evil

[supercanuk]

Religion itself is the fount of most evil

 

 

Muriel Gray argues that it

[Maverick]

Obviously.

[Lauren]

i have to say that it's not religion that's the problem, it's the people who partake in it

[heyrabbit]

i have to say that it's not religion that's the problem, it's the people who partake in it

No.you've missed the point. that's exactly what she was arguing against.

 

They are one in the same. Stupid people ARE religion and religion is stupid people. Religion is not an independant entity;quite to the contrary. it takes a great many people to make a religion viable.by the same token you cannot say "war is not the problem it's the people who partake in it". religion wouldn't exist without people to believe in it.And more importantly, fundamentalism wouldn't exist without religion.

 

Stupid actions are inherent in cultures with ideologies which encourage, breed and ultimately derive from stupidity.

 

This person is highly intelligent. Everyone should read this article.

[juanpe]

and I agree with that article: it is religion the one that is evil

[HoboFactory]

Evil is a concept that originates in religion, though. So logically religion decided what is and isn't evil.

[mrs jesus]

this is totally not in the right forum

[Mr. Chips]

You say that it's time to make a clear line between church and state?

 

This idea is retarded (sorry). They're many different cultures in the world than our own, and to think that everyone should play along by the same rules is rediculus.

Even so, if you were to follow through with this plan, it would cause more violence than you know. Many governments other than our own (North America, UK, parts of asia) are working because there's some form of church; There's no line between church and state in some areas of the world. The state is the church.

 

 

The story is heartfelt, but the message is unrealistic, untrue in the most sense, and there's alot of this to be picked apart; but, I guess the message and core of you story is to be taken, but again, the message (for the most) doesn't ring true, is unrealistic, or just out of tune to what most people believe, or feel. Most of the world's problems today result from money, and turning a profit. The war in Iraq is about oil, terrorism right now (whether you choose to believe or not) started out as flux of power, money, and oil (which translates into money and power). Religion is just a mask.

We've been told to associate terrorism with arabs, musilms, and the middle east. Most of the focus is on relgion because of the fact that many terrorist believe in god, and are willing to die for god.

 

All in all, relgion is not where it stems from.

 

Anyways, sorry for the interuption. Seems I can't be polite with this one.

Edited July 30, 2005 by Mr. Chips

[heyrabbit]

You say that it's time to make a clear line between church and state?

 

This idea is retarded (sorry). They're many different cultures in the world than our own, and to think that everyone should play along by the same rules is rediculus.

Even so, if you were to follow through with this plan, it would cause more violence than you know. Many governments other than our own (North America, UK, parts of asia) are working because there's some form of church; There's no line between church and state in some areas of the world. The state is the church.

 

 

The story is heartfelt, but the message is unrealistic, untrue in the most sense, and there's alot of this to be picked apart; but, I guess the message and core of you story is to be taken, but again, the message (for the most) doesn't ring true, is unrealistic, or just out of tune to what most people believe, or feel. Most of the world's problems today result from money, and turning a profit. The war in Iraq is about oil, terrorism right now (whether you choose to believe or not) started out as flux of power, money, and oil (which translates into money and power). Religion is just a mask.

We've been told to associate terrorism with arabs, musilms, and the middle east. Most of the focus is on relgion because of the fact that many terrorist believe in god, and are willing to die for god.

 

All in all, relgion is not where it stems from.

 

Anyways, sorry for the interuption. Seems I can't be polite with this one.

Your thesis statement is "rediculous".

With all due respect, your response was incoherent, vague and generalizing. Your opinions on the matter are conducive to the same silly pretentiousness and naiveness that causes religion. I suppose it's not suprising that someone who disagrees with this article such as yourself would be spouting baseless, socialist, and popular rhetoric.

 

Unlike your response, this author supports her opinions and she actually makes a lot of sense. It doesn't matter whether or not it was "in tune with how you feel". It's in tune with how I think aswell as anyone else who bothers to or who is capable of thinking. And ultimately that's the point that she was trying to make which you obviously missed; the evasion of thought by the religious have caused so much bloody unnecessary deaths. Terrorism is only a percentage of the deaths caused by mass ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evil is a concept that originates in religion, though. So logically religion decided what is and isn't evil.

Evil is a word. logically, she can use it in an article to express an idea.

[Mr. Chips]

I'm glad you support it. The point although plainly there to see is about perspective and for those capable of thought. (Ha-ha, I loved that line you used ;) )

 

"Your opinions on the matter are conducive to the same silly pretentiousness and naiveness that causes religion."

 

Pretentiousness and naive ness that causes religion? It seems that there's obviously something more to this, something that, though altogether blind, just goes to show where the single minded hatred for religion stems from. Because, in saying that pretentiousness and naive ness are at most, the causes for religion, are in turn saying that religion itself is for the pretentious and naive.

 

"I suppose it's not surprising that someone who disagrees with this article such as yourself would be spouting baseless, socialist, and popular rhetoric."

 

'Baseless', although when used by you is plain ignorance to the place and manner in which I speak from, is in someway true. Even though having lived most of my life in places where even people of your seemingly high intelligence would not consider popular, I can assure you it is neither baseless nor socialist (I'm sure you pulled that out of your ass as sounding good measure).

 

"It doesn't matter whether or not it was 'in tune with how you feel'."

 

Well for the most part it doesn't; in fact, if you had made a direct quote, maybe you would've seen exactly what I was saying.

 

 

"Terrorism is only a percentage of the deaths caused by mass ignorance."

 

As, religion is only a small percentage of the troubles that we see in the world today.

 

 

Evil is a concept that originates in religion, though. So logically religion decided what is and isn't evil.

 

Evil is a word. logically, she can use it in an article to express an idea.

 

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with absolute confidence.

Edited July 30, 2005 by Mr. Chips

[Lauren]

i want to point out that in order for all this evil stuff to happen, the country needs to agree to it to some extent. i want to say that its not just the relgious people who are giving the okay. and not all religious people do agree with what happens, so to say that the blame for most evil falls upon them is very unfair. for example. all my beliefs are against the bush administration (aside form abortion, but i am against it for scientific reasons) and so i disagree with everything he does. why do i have to take the blame for all this evil when i'm against it just like many anthiests? i blieve that yes, a lot of people do support these evil going-ons, butits simply a coincidence that the majority of them are religious.

[supercanuk]

butits simply a coincidence that the majority of them are religious.

I have to disagree with you here bud. Its not quite a coincidence that the people who are causing a lot evil are themselves religious. Its that they use the name of their god to do evil, its how they sometimes gain the power to do this evil (i.e. Bush), and defend what they are doing with this religion. If there was no religion, Bush would not be able to defend what he's doing as "gods work" etc which he has thrown around. He would be somewhat accountable ( although this is a hypothetical and if there wasnt religion he'd and many others would simply find another scapegoat). The problem is, for me at least, religion offers authority where there should be none. Prime example, a priest is sometimes " the pillar of the community" i dont really believe this is right. I think that a secular leader in the community doing good for the community should be that pillar. Of course this cannot always be the case because not all towns, citys, etc have much more then a church and a city hall. But Religion, gives these priests authority and power politcally which is compltetly wrong. In a secular government this should not be. Not to mention that a lot of religion keeps and creates these social "norms" for lack of a better term that i also feel is totally wrong. For example, most religions maintain this patriarchial bullshit. Women who want to be priests are barred from doing so legitamatly by the catholic religion. This again is not all churches, but they still reinforce (generally speaking) these nonsensical rules which they determine is right or wrong. I dont believe anyone should create morality for me, i create it for myself, and think all people are capable of doing so. Anyway these are just a few of my peet peeves with religion and thought id chim in. I am really glad to see that this thread has developed some meaningful discussion.

[Lauren]

pillars of the community don't become that way because they think they should. the community thinks they should, and who are the rest of us who aren't parts of these communities to say otherwise? and the way you explained bush, it sounds like he is really just using religion as a mask. i have always thought that he was the poorest representation of christianity. it's a shame to let a few bad people ruin it for the rest of us. (i do agree that a lot of wars are called in the name of religion, but that is the way that that culture is. it takes 2 to have a war, rememeber. i think we can all see this latest war is not about relgion. sometimes it looks like it is, but anyone can look farther into any war and see that it's just a guise.)

Edited July 30, 2005 by Lauren

[no yu begin wher i end]

Somehow, I think that people like Bush and Bin Laden would find other excuses to justify their actions if they didn't have religion.

[supercanuk]

it's a shame to let a few bad people ruin it for the rest of us. (i do agree that a lot of wars are called in the name of religion, but that is the way that that culture is. it takes 2 to have a war, rememeber. i think we can all see this latest war is not about relgion. sometimes it looks like it is, but anyone can look farther into any war and see that it's just a guise.)

It doesnt take two to make war ;) it takes one that decides its going to invade the other and the one being invaded defends or sits there and takes it. Yes Bush is a poor representation of Christianity. However, what I was refering too about pillars of the community are those many many catholic priests who were found to be molesting little boys. That is some f-ed up stuff, and in fact, collectivly how many wars have been fought over religion? Lots of them. It is epistemically irresponsible to believe in a religion which causes so much trouble for humanity. IF we were truly religious we'd live the way our collective dieties want us to, but we don't. So really whats the point? Here's also my next question, how can one be a soldier and be a christian? Is that not going directly against everything that this religion teaches?

 

IF you kill a man, whether it be in war or otherwise that is considered a sin, you have murdered somebody this is probably one of the worst of sins. You cannot justify it with you being apart of the military, those are mans laws. Gods laws are suppose to supercede those correct? Therefore, either a lot of people are going to hell, or religion is just excess human baggage that we may be better off without.

 

I dont mean to be attacking anyones point of view, this is not my intent, what is my intent is to get people thinking, and wondering why if we believe in one thing, we do another. WE cannot simply follow along like sheep and allow others to tell us how to live. Especially in terms of law, religion and law needs to be heavily seperated, religion is taking away the rights of women in the U.S., how fair is that? I am not completely condemning religion im just saying we need to be progressive in our mindsets and not regressive in a time when we can actually see some sort of equality.

[Mr. Chips]

Who's following like sheep?

 

I believe you're not looking at this deep enough. Many terrorist networks/groups recruit people on the basis of religion and God; in fact, that's there main basis for recruitment for suicide bombings... It in itself is contradictory to what most religions teach: don't kill, be kind to your neighbor, etc... Many groups only use religion as a means to get people to join and commit to a cause, not because they truely believe it themselves.

 

Now as far as President Bush goes, I've never seen him defend or justify something (war) with God. I'm against him as much as everyone else is, but I've never heard of this tactic being used by him, maybe I don't listen to him enough I don't know.

 

SuperCanuck, although I greatly disagree with him, has a good point (or just a knack for pointing out the obvious). Many wars, deaths, and troubles in the world have been helped along because of religion. But that's not to say other things haven't helped it along: bad politics, whacked ideas, crazy people, guns, bombs, etc.

To argue to get rid of something like religion is ridiculous. It has done for the better. Turned drug attics the other way, given comfort in times of need, alowed for a sense of community, belonging, and friendship. Religion has, and continues to better the world. Now back to ridiculous part, why get rid of something fundamentally scripted to help, comfort, and guide people? Why not get rid of guns, bombs, militaries.

I think these are indeed, much better, realistic questions.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Mr. Chips

[no yu begin wher i end]

Just wanted to say something on the subject of recruitment for terrorist organizations.

 

In some countries (Pakistan particularily, mainly because that's the one talked about in the article in Time a few years ago) where terror groups are active, they don't use religion as a recruiting tool; instead they can offer food, clothing, and shelter whereas the government cannot. Who do you think they're (the recruits) going to side with when it comes to helping the Americans? It's almost like a Stockholm Syndrome of sorts.

[Mr. Chips]

[heyrabbit]

The majority of your reply didn't make any grammatical sense whatsoever but I'll respond as well as I can.

 

Because, in saying that pretentiousness and naive ness are at most, the causes for religion, are in turn saying that religion itself is for the pretentious and naive. 

 

You're supposed to deduct things that don't make sense in deductive reasoning. Nice try, though. religion IS for the pretentious and naive.

 

'Baseless', although when used by you is plain ignorance to the place and manner in which I speak from, is in someway true. Even though having lived most of my life in places where even people of your seemingly high intelligence would not consider popular, I can assure you it is neither baseless nor socialist (I'm sure you pulled that out of your ass as sounding good measure).

(Most of the world's problems today result from money, and turning a profit. The war in Iraq is about oil, terrorism right now (whether you choose to believe or not) started out as flux of power, money, and oil (which translates into money and power

These ARE baseless, rhetorical comments.Inspite of the fact that you didn't support your opinions, it really doesnt matter anyway. There's a reason why you didn't bother supporting your comments; you can't. Not stating your rationale does not make me ignorant but it makes you look ignorant.

 

Well for the most part it doesn't; in fact, if you had made a direct quote, maybe you would've seen exactly what I was saying.

Nah. I knew what you were saying.

 

As, religion is only a small percentage of the troubles that we see in the world today.

Nevermind Iraq, Chechnya,Israel,North Ireland and sudan - the admittedly religious disputes - take a look at every other territorial dispute or totalitarian government. You'll find that the majority of the authorities in these disputes are religious. Hence, their decisions are largely influenced by their naiveness.

 

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with absolute confidence.[/i]

Atleast you admit you have no idea what logic is, not that I didn't know that already.

[Mr. Chips]

I hoped you'd be coming back.

 

Nice try, though. religion IS for the pretentious and naive.

Oh dear.

Good job for me you don't have to be religious to be pretentious or naive; that's evident in your case.

 

As, religion is only a small percentage of the troubles that we see in the world today.

Nevermind Iraq, Chechnya,Israel,North Ireland and sudan - the admittedly religious disputes - take a look at every other territorial dispute or totalitarian government. You'll find that the majority of the authorities in these disputes are religious. Hence, their decisions are largely influenced by their naive ness.

 

The Iraq war has as little to do with religion as the United States have to do with Iraqi sovereignty. IT'S ABOUT SECUREING NATURAL RESOURCES. The insurgents have even less to do with religion. As I said before in an earlier quote:

Edited August 2, 2005 by Mr. Chips

[guitarchick]

Most religions tell people how to live their lives, how to think, how to believe. If anything, all of this should be figured out on your own through living and learning.

[heyrabbit]

I hoped you'd be coming back.

 

Nice try, though. religion IS for the pretentious and naive.

Oh dear.

Good job for me you don't have to be religious to be pretentious or naive; that's evident in your case.

 

As, religion is only a small percentage of the troubles that we see in the world today.

Nevermind Iraq, Chechnya,Israel,North Ireland and sudan - the admittedly religious disputes - take a look at every other territorial dispute or totalitarian government. You'll find that the majority of the authorities in these disputes are religious. Hence, their decisions are largely influenced by their naive ness.

 

The Iraq war has as little to do with religion as the United States have to do with Iraqi sovereignty. IT'S ABOUT SECUREING NATURAL RESOURCES. The insurgents have even less to do with religion. As I said before in an earlier quote:

[Lauren]

i wouldn't do that sort of thing. to pin all this on religious people is absolutely ridiculous. and just because people have different beliefs then you doesn't make them stupid.

[ecnarf]

This thread is the fount of all evil.

 

P.S. Yes, Lauren, it does.

[chadmann]

I just started reading Harold Bloom's "The American Religion." One thing he points out that is quintessentially American in religious thought is the belief that individuals have a "personal relationship" with God. In this, I believe is the problem with evangelical fundamentalism in America. I see narcissism at the center of the problem. Christiantiy as practiced in other parts of the world would view this idea of a personal relationship with God as heretical. How Americans practice Christianity is distinct. This personal relationship theology is what causes people to pick and choose what they believe especially among the strongest fundamentalists who "demand a literal interpretation of the Scriptures." Funny, most of those who demand a literal interpretation of Scripture would be stoned before they finsished said demand because the cotton poly blend t-shirt being worn by most of us is strictly forbidden in Leviticus. (I cannot remember the chapter and verse right now but when I get home from my vacation I will try to remember to look it up.) This personal relationship for many is what allows them to pick and choose because the individual and God "have an understanding." In other words, it is all right for the goose but not the gander. This popular belief system is what seems most problematic and leads many to condemn the hypocrisy of religious belief (not religion).

 

As a philosopher I see the problem as one existentialists have popularized and struggled with since Kierkegaard. I see much of Dostoyevsky's philosophy in the problem of religious belief because it gives one a great excuse for not taking responsibility for their lives and doing what they are told to believe to be true. When you mix religion and politics it is as dangerous as intoxication and driving but neither guarantee death they only enhance the risks. Ideology without religion can be just as dangerous. Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Castro, and countless others have supported this analogy. Religion is just the easiest way to get enlistment.

 

Essentially the problem is just that people do not know how to handle the witness of "the other." Our conviction that what we believe is right is right, our willingness to kill to eliminate those challenge our (micro)cosmology, these are the narcisistic motives that religion is used to justify. However, these things become political because religion is used to govern. This desire to govern (i.e. tell others how to live) is the real problem. The fact that some people have more latitude in doing so is the problem. How we as humans resolve that is beyond me and will take quite a bit of evolution to resolve.

Edited August 4, 2005 by chadmann