Man Without Religion

[AVG-JOE]

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like if bees had developed the conveyor belt? We would all have free honey.

First off, the greeks did not give up their gods. Their religion simply morphed to fit their social setting. Nor did the greeks all develop democracy. A very few engaged for a time in a type of democracy which included only a small fraction of the actual population. All the people could vote, but only propertied men were people.

Finally, if you are going to approach this from a rational point of view, then you have to ask yourself why we have religion. Try to get past your personal belief system, which I can see is quite rigid, and look at our species as you would any other. Religion is an intregal part of every human society in recorded history. That is a universal statement. There are no exceptions short of small, isolated tribal groups and that is debatable. So please name me any other species which has a universal behavior that has evolved with them and point out how that behavior is negative to that species. That is not how evolution works and unless you are of the opinion that homo sapien is somehow special and not subject to the same evolutionary process as every other species on the planet, then perhaps you need to rethink your assumptions.

Indeed.

And religion has had plenty of positive influences on humanity. Beyond the politics and power behind religion, the stories themselves codify a certain definition of love amongst individuals in spite of religious leadership bent on power.

When humans began their ascent toward Sentience, which starts with an understanding of death, religion successfully answered the question of afterlife, which was necessary to keep those clever animals from falling into despair under the weight of this new found understanding if their own frailty.

Religion is THE reason that mankind learned to organize and work together toward common goals. A concept without which our modern World would not be possible.

Religion is a necessary tool used by evolution to sculpt a Sentient World from a living planet and Evolution hurts.


The bad news: In our quest for the Stars from which we came, religion was necessary.

The good news: It's just about run it's course.

The Stars await, Monkeys. Please don't fuck it up.​

 

[westwall]

An old, old argument. Modern atheist progressives have murdered more people in the last 100 years than all the religions of the world combined were able to murder in 2,000 years.

That's one hell of a claim and if you aren't prepared to back it up with evidence then I suggest you give up debating because you're doing it wrong.

Demographers have calculated 60 million for Stalin and over 100 million for Mao. More than all the PEOPLE that lived for most of that first thousand years.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's one hell of a claim and if you aren't prepared to back it up with evidence then I suggest you give up debating because you're doing it wrong.

Considering Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Stalin killed more people than lived on the earth for much of human history, it's not exactly a difficult claim to back up. Even if you disqualify Hitler for his study of the occult.

I was waiting for someone to say that. Yes I would disqualify Hitler in fact he evoked the Almighty as justification for his actions in several of his speeches. What you don't see is any of the other figures you mentioned evoking their atheism or lack of belief as justification for their actions. Their actions were motivated by essentially the same thing as any tyrant, Hitler included. Power. Control. Authority. And all the luxuries that come as a result. Violence is in our nature so I suppose it is not right to attribute causation to religion however justification is just as heinous. Also the evidence for Pol Pot even being an atheist is questionable.

Again, ignoring the obvious. To be fair, so was Avatar. None of those men killed anyone. Well, perhaps Mao during WWII and Pol Pot. But at most it would have been a hand full. It was the societies they led which did the killing. Other people, not them. Millions of people killing millions of people, yet we act as if they were lone gunmen. So whatever the motivations or the beliefs of those men might have been, it is irrelevant. They were not the ones doing it.

 

[westwall]

Considering Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Stalin killed more people than lived on the earth for much of human history, it's not exactly a difficult claim to back up. Even if you disqualify Hitler for his study of the occult.

I was waiting for someone to say that. Yes I would disqualify Hitler in fact he evoked the Almighty as justification for his actions in several of his speeches. What you don't see is any of the other figures you mentioned evoking their atheism or lack of belief as justification for their actions. Their actions were motivated by essentially the same thing as any tyrant, Hitler included. Power. Control. Authority. And all the luxuries that come as a result. Violence is in our nature so I suppose it is not right to attribute causation to religion however justification is just as heinous. Also the evidence for Pol Pot even being an atheist is questionable.

Again, ignoring the obvious. To be fair, so was Avatar. None of those men killed anyone. Well, perhaps Mao during WWII and Pol Pot. But at most it would have been a hand full. It was the societies they led which did the killing. Other people, not them. Millions of people killing millions of people, yet we act as if they were lone gunmen. So whatever the motivations or the beliefs of those men might have been, it is irrelevant. They were not the ones doing it.

Their philosophies were adopted by those who followed them. Had they not ordered the killing it would not have occurred. So yes, they ARE responsible.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Warrior 102 Religion 101 - for the imbeciles: How many "religions" are there?

Beliefs are like nipples - every Monkey has a set, and no two sets are identical.


Do you want to know how many different religions there are on Earth on any given day?

Get an accurate count of living humans.​

Even twins called to preach in the same church aren't going to agree on every detail of the unprovable subjects.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Finally, if you are going to approach this from a rational point of view, then you have to ask yourself why we have religion.

An excellent question. I have neither religion nor faith but I feel there must be positives about religion that outweigh the negatives. Here’s my $0.02.
Religion started as a way to control nature. Man wanted to cure an illness but he had no idea of the cause. Through trial and error some plants or techniques were found to be effective. Their use was passed down through generations as rituals. As the rituals increased in number and complexity it became an important but challenging job, going to the best and brightest, or at least the best connected. I think that tradition continued right thru the Middle Ages where it was the priests who were literate. In ancient cultures where opportunities for learning were limited, these educated men performed a valuable service and religions developed. The early polytheistic religions were inclusive, you could worship many gods, so they served to unite people and foster cultural interactions. It was not until Christianity and later Islam that religions became exclusive. They now show signs of being discarded so maybe the days of religion have passed.

I disagree.

Religion started as an answer to the most terrifying question to face a growing level of Sentience: "What is Death?"

The best argument against religion in general is that, 50,000 years later, not one of the unprovable questions facing each and every Monkey has been answered, sans 'have faith'.

Not one.​

 

[PratchettFan]

I was waiting for someone to say that. Yes I would disqualify Hitler in fact he evoked the Almighty as justification for his actions in several of his speeches. What you don't see is any of the other figures you mentioned evoking their atheism or lack of belief as justification for their actions. Their actions were motivated by essentially the same thing as any tyrant, Hitler included. Power. Control. Authority. And all the luxuries that come as a result. Violence is in our nature so I suppose it is not right to attribute causation to religion however justification is just as heinous. Also the evidence for Pol Pot even being an atheist is questionable.

Again, ignoring the obvious. To be fair, so was Avatar. None of those men killed anyone. Well, perhaps Mao during WWII and Pol Pot. But at most it would have been a hand full. It was the societies they led which did the killing. Other people, not them. Millions of people killing millions of people, yet we act as if they were lone gunmen. So whatever the motivations or the beliefs of those men might have been, it is irrelevant. They were not the ones doing it.

Their philosophies were adopted by those who followed them. Had they not ordered the killing it would not have occurred. So yes, they ARE responsible.

Nonsense. An order kills no one. A bullet does and that requires someone to pull the trigger. It was the person pulling the trigger who was responsible and there is never any problem finding people willing to do that. The "philosophy" is nothing more than the justification, but they would do it as willingly for one philosophy as for another. They would follow the order of anyone willing to give it. People kill because we are killers. All the rest is an excuse.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Finally, if you are going to approach this from a rational point of view, then you have to ask yourself why we have religion.

An excellent question. I have neither religion nor faith but I feel there must be positives about religion that outweigh the negatives. Here’s my $0.02.
Religion started as a way to control nature. Man wanted to cure an illness but he had no idea of the cause. Through trial and error some plants or techniques were found to be effective. Their use was passed down through generations as rituals. As the rituals increased in number and complexity it became an important but challenging job, going to the best and brightest, or at least the best connected. I think that tradition continued right thru the Middle Ages where it was the priests who were literate. In ancient cultures where opportunities for learning were limited, these educated men performed a valuable service and religions developed. The early polytheistic religions were inclusive, you could worship many gods, so they served to unite people and foster cultural interactions. It was not until Christianity and later Islam that religions became exclusive. They now show signs of being discarded so maybe the days of religion have passed.

My take is that religion provides cohesion to the society. It is the other half of government. Government provides the rules for the society while religion provides continuity and justification. It really doesn't matter if any given individual takes part in the religion, any more than it matters if one individual makes it to age 90 or dies at 5. What matters is the continuation of the species.

I think it is a mistake to focus on the workings of the religion itself, but rather focus on how humans interact within that structure. I think you will find it doesn't make any difference whether you are talking about the old Norse religions or the Southern Baptists. It all works pretty much the same. It's like a car. It boils down to a motor, wheels and a method to transfer power to the wheels. The rest is just window dressing.

There's nothing wrong with religion acting as a government and/or rule maker, as long as the enforceability of such rules remains only among active participants and believers.

This is why, whenever the two conflict, Civil Law with a goal of protecting the minorities MUST trump any and all Religious Law.

If you want to live under Sharia Law or other similar nonsense, knock yourself out - just keep it to yourself and those who agree with you. Push it on me and you can expect a push back.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The only human activity as old as religion might be warfare. Warfare might be the “natural selection” process of human societal evolution. The competition between groups accelerated the development of technology morality of those that survived. Pagan religions didn’t tend to isolate groups but Christianity and Islam do. You can’t fight unless you have someone to fight that’s not you. Maybe todays religions enable the competitive process to continue?

I'm certain it does. I am certain it has always enabled it. Just as government has always enabled it. Technology has always enabled it. The only predator homo sapien has is homo sapien. Saying religion aids in warfare is much like saying pack behavior in lions aids in the killing of gazelles.

As to fighting, religion is only one of any number of excuses we use. The key is to understand that an excuse is not a cause. The cause is that it is homo sapien's nature to resort to violence as the reaction of choice to anything it deems as outside of its immediate group. The expansion of modern religion and modern government has, in fact, reduced that level of violence by making immediate violence unacceptable in most situations. It is when you have a breakdown of government and religion (such as what you currently see in Iraq) that our true nature becomes apparent.

I don't know...

I see war as an endeavor to acquire resources, and religion as just one of the many methods used to organize that endeavor and maintain discipline.

 

[PratchettFan]

An excellent question. I have neither religion nor faith but I feel there must be positives about religion that outweigh the negatives. Here’s my $0.02.
Religion started as a way to control nature. Man wanted to cure an illness but he had no idea of the cause. Through trial and error some plants or techniques were found to be effective. Their use was passed down through generations as rituals. As the rituals increased in number and complexity it became an important but challenging job, going to the best and brightest, or at least the best connected. I think that tradition continued right thru the Middle Ages where it was the priests who were literate. In ancient cultures where opportunities for learning were limited, these educated men performed a valuable service and religions developed. The early polytheistic religions were inclusive, you could worship many gods, so they served to unite people and foster cultural interactions. It was not until Christianity and later Islam that religions became exclusive. They now show signs of being discarded so maybe the days of religion have passed.

My take is that religion provides cohesion to the society. It is the other half of government. Government provides the rules for the society while religion provides continuity and justification. It really doesn't matter if any given individual takes part in the religion, any more than it matters if one individual makes it to age 90 or dies at 5. What matters is the continuation of the species.

I think it is a mistake to focus on the workings of the religion itself, but rather focus on how humans interact within that structure. I think you will find it doesn't make any difference whether you are talking about the old Norse religions or the Southern Baptists. It all works pretty much the same. It's like a car. It boils down to a motor, wheels and a method to transfer power to the wheels. The rest is just window dressing.

There's nothing wrong with religion acting as a government and/or rule maker, as long as the enforceability of such rules remains only among active participants and believers.

This is why, whenever the two conflict, Civil Law with a goal of protecting the minorities MUST trump any and all Religious Law.

If you want to live under Sharia Law or other similar nonsense, knock yourself out - just keep it to yourself and those who agree with you. Push it on me and expect a push back.

The problem is when religion and government combine, when you push back you are crushed. It is difficult to express your objections when your head is on a spike. I think the best situation is when the two institutions are engaged in a fragile truce.

 

[AVG-JOE]

An old, old argument. Modern atheist progressives have murdered more people in the last 100 years than all the religions of the world combined were able to murder in 2,000 years.

That's one hell of a claim and if you aren't prepared to back it up with evidence then I suggest you give up debating because you're doing it wrong.

Considering Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Stalin killed more people than lived on the earth for much of human history, it's not exactly a difficult claim to back up. Even if you disqualify Hitler for his study of the occult.

Does it really matter? Religion doesn't kill Monkeys any more than guns kill Monkeys.

Monkeys kill Monkeys​

The reasons WHY usually boil down to the control of resources, including Human resources.
Religion is just a tool of that control because of the power created by the fear of death.

 

[PratchettFan]

The only human activity as old as religion might be warfare. Warfare might be the “natural selection” process of human societal evolution. The competition between groups accelerated the development of technology morality of those that survived. Pagan religions didn’t tend to isolate groups but Christianity and Islam do. You can’t fight unless you have someone to fight that’s not you. Maybe todays religions enable the competitive process to continue?

I'm certain it does. I am certain it has always enabled it. Just as government has always enabled it. Technology has always enabled it. The only predator homo sapien has is homo sapien. Saying religion aids in warfare is much like saying pack behavior in lions aids in the killing of gazelles.

As to fighting, religion is only one of any number of excuses we use. The key is to understand that an excuse is not a cause. The cause is that it is homo sapien's nature to resort to violence as the reaction of choice to anything it deems as outside of its immediate group. The expansion of modern religion and modern government has, in fact, reduced that level of violence by making immediate violence unacceptable in most situations. It is when you have a breakdown of government and religion (such as what you currently see in Iraq) that our true nature becomes apparent.

I don't know...

I see war as an endeavor to acquire resources, and religion as just one of the many methods used to organize that endeavor and maintain discipline.

Resources can be acquired without war. War is an expression of our innate animosity toward outsiders. We play war, dream of it, glorify it. It might well be the ultimate expression of human nature. All of our institutions - government, religion, law - exist soley to keep us from cutting each other's throats long enough to create the next generation.

I'm always amused by people who keep saying we need to get rid of government. A week after that happens they would be either dead or under the thumb of some auto mechanic transitioned into a war lord. Human beings are not nice animals.

 

[westwall]

Again, ignoring the obvious. To be fair, so was Avatar. None of those men killed anyone. Well, perhaps Mao during WWII and Pol Pot. But at most it would have been a hand full. It was the societies they led which did the killing. Other people, not them. Millions of people killing millions of people, yet we act as if they were lone gunmen. So whatever the motivations or the beliefs of those men might have been, it is irrelevant. They were not the ones doing it.

Their philosophies were adopted by those who followed them. Had they not ordered the killing it would not have occurred. So yes, they ARE responsible.

Nonsense. An order kills no one. A bullet does and that requires someone to pull the trigger. It was the person pulling the trigger who was responsible and there is never any problem finding people willing to do that. The "philosophy" is nothing more than the justification, but they would do it as willingly for one philosophy as for another. They would follow the order of anyone willing to give it. People kill because we are killers. All the rest is an excuse.

That's funny. The last I had heard good ol' Charlie Manson never killed anyone either.....yet there he sits in prison for ORDERING the killings.

Looks like the judicial system thinks you're wrong.

 

[PratchettFan]

Their philosophies were adopted by those who followed them. Had they not ordered the killing it would not have occurred. So yes, they ARE responsible.

Nonsense. An order kills no one. A bullet does and that requires someone to pull the trigger. It was the person pulling the trigger who was responsible and there is never any problem finding people willing to do that. The "philosophy" is nothing more than the justification, but they would do it as willingly for one philosophy as for another. They would follow the order of anyone willing to give it. People kill because we are killers. All the rest is an excuse.

That's funny. The last I had heard good ol' Charlie Manson never killed anyone either.....yet there he sits in prison for ORDERING the killings.

Looks like the judicial system thinks you're wrong.

And if the people he ordered refused, would those people be dead?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Warrior 102 Religion 101 - for the imbeciles: How many "religions" are there? Hundreds of thousands? Jesus Christ created Christianity - i.e Catholicism - had Peter take the helm. Peter and Paul took it out of Jerusalem into Rome. Wa-lah: Roman Catholics. Things went along great until the protestants came along and fucked things up (reformation). Then came along all these snake worshipping, televangilist heathens, healing, gimme-your money, scumbag Muslims, Islams, Koolks, Bible Thumpers, etc. Then of course we have those damned agnostics. There's only one religion. The one founded by Christ. The rest of the discussion is man-made bullshit.

Next?

[MENTION=30094]Warrior102[/MENTION]

Really weird that someone like you, who hates christians and christianity and Jesus and "god" would write this.

For people like you, being "christian" is your excuse to lie about yourself and others. Its your excuse to harm others.

In all fairness, that's what its used for by a lot of you "christans".

 

[westwall]

I'm certain it does. I am certain it has always enabled it. Just as government has always enabled it. Technology has always enabled it. The only predator homo sapien has is homo sapien. Saying religion aids in warfare is much like saying pack behavior in lions aids in the killing of gazelles.

As to fighting, religion is only one of any number of excuses we use. The key is to understand that an excuse is not a cause. The cause is that it is homo sapien's nature to resort to violence as the reaction of choice to anything it deems as outside of its immediate group. The expansion of modern religion and modern government has, in fact, reduced that level of violence by making immediate violence unacceptable in most situations. It is when you have a breakdown of government and religion (such as what you currently see in Iraq) that our true nature becomes apparent.

I don't know...

I see war as an endeavor to acquire resources, and religion as just one of the many methods used to organize that endeavor and maintain discipline.

Resources can be acquired without war. War is an expression of our innate animosity toward outsiders. We play war, dream of it, glorify it. It might well be the ultimate expression of human nature. All of our institutions - government, religion, law - exist soley to keep us from cutting each other's throats long enough to create the next generation.

I'm always amused by people who keep saying we need to get rid of government. A week after that happens they would be either dead or under the thumb of some auto mechanic transitioned into a war lord. Human beings are not nice animals.

Resources are acquired through either purchase or theft. War being the ultimate form of theft. If someone has a product that you desire and is not willing to sell it to you then you have no other option than to make it.

That means you need resources. When two States are vying for the same resources war occurs. There are multitudinous other "causes" but that is the basics. One group wants what you have and because you won't just give it to them they decide to take it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Violence is curtailed by stable societies and religion is necessary for stable societies.

I disagree. What's necessary for a stable society is enforceable rules of behavior.

It matters not what a Monkey believes, as long he behaves himself according to Civil Laws. Without this concept, "American Freedom" is a moot point.

 

[westwall]

Nonsense. An order kills no one. A bullet does and that requires someone to pull the trigger. It was the person pulling the trigger who was responsible and there is never any problem finding people willing to do that. The "philosophy" is nothing more than the justification, but they would do it as willingly for one philosophy as for another. They would follow the order of anyone willing to give it. People kill because we are killers. All the rest is an excuse.

That's funny. The last I had heard good ol' Charlie Manson never killed anyone either.....yet there he sits in prison for ORDERING the killings.

Looks like the judicial system thinks you're wrong.

And if the people he ordered refused, would those people be dead?

Nope. They wouldn't. They would still be alive. That's the point. He ordered the killings, they did the killings. Had he not ordered the killings they likewise would not have died.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Religion when it works exactly as it is supposed to causes violence and persecution. Throughout European history Catholics tortured and murdered Protestants in droves especially in France and England. The Protestants did the same when they had the chance during King Henry VIII's reign. And during the Spanish Inquisition many were tortured and killed as well for being of a different faith or culture. That is not war, it is not progression of a society through conflict it is just evil. When the Jews arrived in the promised land it was already inhabited and the Jews massacred those natives. Then they said that it was God's will and vilified those people. Religion, at least in the case of Western religion is extremely violent and murderous at its very core. Eastern religion has sparked violence but it is normally localized because their is not the same marriage of church and state in the East. The Daimyo of Japan observed the religion of their people but when the monks took to killing each other over it they did not join in.

No, it doesn't. Religion causing nothing. It has never picked up a sword or wielded a gun. Religion is nothing but a word we use to describe a human behavior. All the things you talk about were done by people, and other people did exactly the same things for reasons other than religion. People kill because we are killers and to try and blame that on religion is to simply ignore reality.

Violence is curtailed by stable societies and religion is necessary for stable societies.

I disagree. What's necessary for a stable society is enforceable rules on behavior.

It matters not what a Monkey believes, as long he behaves himself according to Civil Laws. Without this concept, "American Freedom" is a moot point.

I agree. As far as laws saying what we can and can't do or say is concerned there should only be two criteria. Does what the person is doing or saying cause either physical or physiological harm to others? If not, then it is permissible under the law. So if two consenting adults of the same gender want to have sex in a private place for example then that should be perfectly admissible under the law because no one is harmed physically or psychologically by this event. You shouldn't make laws to restrict the behavior or others based only on what offends you. We have the right in this country to offend one another and I for one hold that right sacred.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The problem is when religion and government combine, when you push back you are crushed. It is difficult to express your objections when your head is on a spike. I think the best situation is when the two institutions are engaged in a fragile truce.

My first observation in the scenario above is that Civil Law failed to protect the minorities.

Whose fault is that?​

For religious freedom to flourish, Civil Law MUST keep all religions in check. Failure here is the ONLY righteous reason for war.