Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 control of resources, including Human resources. Religion is just a tool of that control because of the power created by the fear of death.
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 pack.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
True, we may indeed play at war... Probably always have. But, it takes a wealthy Monkey to hire and arm troops, and wealthy Monkeys do very little that doesn't feed an appetite or have a potential pay-off.
O.k., so there is a certain percentage of war that can be attributed to feeding the appetite of psychopathology, but most are funded in pursuit of more resources.
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.
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.
For religious freedom to flourish, Civil Law MUST keep all religions in check. Failure here is the ONLY righteous reason for war.
I agree and also thoroughly support the ideas of freedom from religion and the separation between church and state because historically wherever government and religion go hand in hand, persecution and death often follows.
Really I just want to live in a world where religion is the option and not the expectation.
You ever hear Captain Kirk on the Star Ship Enterprise talk about Jesus? That's because Jesus is a myth legend of the past in the future.
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.
In other words, you were demanding someone provide documentation for something you already know as if there is no evidence whatsoever.
That seems pretty dishonest to me. Aren't you trying to claim atheists are more moral, and if so why the need for deception?
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.
What gives validity to civil laws? "We hold these truths as self-evident... are endowed by their creator..." Civil law comes from government and government does not exist without religion. Point to a single human society above the level of small clan in all of human history where it did. Show me just one where the two institutions did not exist side by side.
Rules of behavior are not "enforceable" at a societal level. The group must consent to be governed. The governors must be able to justify their power. If that fails.... ask Louis XVI how that works out.
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.
True, we may indeed play at war... Probably always have. But, it takes a wealthy Monkey to hire and arm troops, and wealthy Monkeys do very little that doesn't feed an appetite or have a potential pay-off.
O.k., so there is a certain percentage of war that can be attributed to feeding the appetite of psychopathology, but most are funded in pursuit of more resources.
Certainly the wealthy monkeys will take advantage. But they aren't the ones doing the real fighting. The troops do that and they pretty much get none of the pay-off. Yet they flock to the banners. That isn't psychopathology because that implies abnormal behavior. This is extremely normal behavior for our species.
Without the mass of humanity willing to butcher each other with abandon, the leaders have nothing. They exist only because of our behavior, our behavior does not exist because of them.
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 begins 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.
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.
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.
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.
Nonsense.The rule of law is necessary for a stable society, the acknowledgment and codification man's inalienable rights neither taken nor bestowed by any government, religion, constitution, or man.
In the United States the Constitution and its case law establishes the legal framework defining the relationship between government and citizen, where government is authorized by the Constitution to enact laws and measures both necessary and proper to maintain a stable society, while affording citizens the means by which to petition the Government for a*redress*of grievances.
And in far too many cases, when citizens are seeking relief form government overreach, religion is at odds with citizens' civil liberties.
Indeed, if anything religion is a source of instability.
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.
What gives validity to civil laws? "We hold these truths as self-evident... are endowed by their creator..." Civil law comes from government and government does not exist without religion. Point to a single human society above the level of small clan in all of human history where it did. Show me just one where the two institutions did not exist side by side.
Rules of behavior are not "enforceable" at a societal level. The group must consent to be governed. The governors must be able to justify their power. If that fails.... ask Louis XVI how that works out.
That, my friend is the crux of freedom.
We do.
With a capital 'W' for "We, The People".
We have to be willing to invest treasure and blood in protecting the rights of the minorities.
An endeavor that I would give the United States a grade no better than C- in thus far, in spite of the grade A document We have in The Constitution.
If you read it, The Constitution expressly forbids slavery and discrimination against gay Americans, but We The Peeps were unwilling to enforce it.
Black Americans didn't need to change The Constitution in either the 1860's or the 1960's to claim their piece of the American Pie and neither will gay Americans as this century continues to unfold. The document works as well as We are willing to enforce it.
As it turns out the pen IS mightier than the sword.
True, we may indeed play at war... Probably always have. But, it takes a wealthy Monkey to hire and arm troops, and wealthy Monkeys do very little that doesn't feed an appetite or have a potential pay-off.
O.k., so there is a certain percentage of war that can be attributed to feeding the appetite of psychopathology, but most are funded in pursuit of more resources.
Certainly the wealthy monkeys will take advantage. But they aren't the ones doing the real fighting. The troops do that and they pretty much get none of the pay-off. Yet they flock to the banners. That isn't psychopathology because that implies abnormal behavior. This is extremely normal behavior for our species.
Without the mass of humanity willing to butcher each other with abandon, the leaders have nothing. They exist only because of our behavior, our behavior does not exist because of them.
^ Weird, eh?
What if they started a war and nobody came?
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.
Nonsense.
The rule of law is necessary for a stable society, the acknowledgment and codification man's inalienable rights neither taken nor bestowed by any government, religion, constitution, or man.
In the United States the Constitution and its case law establishes the legal framework defining the relationship between government and citizen, where government is authorized by the Constitution to enact laws and measures both necessary and proper to maintain a stable society, while affording citizens the means by which to petition the Government for a*redress*of grievances.
And in far too many cases, when citizens are seeking relief form government overreach, religion is at odds with citizens' civil liberties.
Indeed, if anything religion is a source of instability.
