I don't hate Rs or even Teabaggers, but as I sat here with my morning coffee, I realized

who on the face of this planet I have learned to loathe most in my over 5 decades of existence. I'm usually a pretty forgiving person and have met very few people in this life for whom I can say that I honestly dislike them. However, there is a discontent within me now, an anger, a frustration arising from the what I see in this nation and the world, and I've been trying to identify exactly what it is and where specifically it comes from.

I've had the History Channel on and they've been telling me all about literal Hell (capital H) and the end of days. I watched a Southern Baptist minister give a hellfire & brimbstone diatribe to a small congregation full of people who had looks of mesmerized fear on their faces and no sense of personal efficacy. I heard a priest give the Catholic version of hell and damnation. I watched a historian go to a place in Scotland where she told us that this was one of the gates of hell and did not really treat it as a historical artifact of a culture.

I have literally come to loathe the priesthoods of the religions of the world. The spinners of myths and purveyors of superstition and fear. Their words shackle people. They contribute to the creation and enabling of the political priesthood of the modern nation state--politicians. Manipulators of power and wealth, they teach people to cower in submission to their view of the universe while directing the anger born of that fear against competing ideologies or groups.

There is a need in man for nurturing his spirit/soul, but when you look around you today, what we see is not nurturing, constructive or creative. We see destruction and fear sown in the name of any number of dieties and political ideologies. We see hatred encouraged and violence cynically fomented by politicians and religious powerbrokers who consider themselves to be kingmakers. Perhaps this is just the modern manifestation of tribalism and is as old as human existence. I don't know. I do know that if we do not find a way to rise above being manipulated and extorted, the literal Hell created on earth by these people and those who follow them will probably only end after much destruction.

Call me jaded and cyncial, but I have had enough. Just enough.

caring about our common good. I also think religion shackles the mind; ending free thought in favor of always asking somebody in 'authority' if what we do and think is 'right' or 'wrong'.

if only some people were not taught the golden rule, to turn the other cheek, to love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take care of those who are sick or in prison (Matthew 25) and to look after orphans and widows.

And I guess we would not want George W. Bush to ask the Pope, or any number of other religious leaders, if invading Iraq is right or wrong.

Actually, no, I don't understand what you are talking about at all. To me, it sounds ridiculous, like you just said "our snark is a boojum" or "twas brilling and the slithy toves".

unless you are full of doubt or something.

'bad' or 'immoral' without Jesus. That even the President of the United States should seek out advise from some Church leader. That the only source of wisdom or kindness or goodness is through belief.

As I said, religion of any stripe, shackles the human spirit and mind.

You haven't noticed a lot of murder, rape, child abuse, slavery, etc.?

My point was that the world would have been better off if Bush had consulted the Pope, who, you might remember, advised against invading Iraq. But you would rather see him be free to kill and destroy in order to create profits for KBR?

I don't think I said anything about "the only source" or "belief". I rather hate the whole notion of "belief", but the fact of the matter is that religion has been teaching wisdom and kindness and goodness, sometimes with some phlogiston mixed in and sometimes with jingoism or other barbaric bigotry, but probably, objectively pushing the boundaries. It was Jesus, after all, who made a focking SAMARITAN into a hero??!!! In Christ there is no east or west (okay, that is a hymn from 1908 rather than a scripture verse although sort of from Matthew 8; 11). For God so loved THE WORLD ... Not just my tribe or kinfolk, but the whole frigging world!!!

So I am not seeing this shackling of either spirit or mind, any more than learning the discipline of algebra is a shackling. In fact it is with religion that one becomes UNshackled from the bondage of sin (cue organ chords) http://www.unshackled.org/

don't believe in heaven or hell or the power of of something somewhere to forgive my 'sins', I'm not shackled by the bondage of sin. I'm free to live my life by my own internal compass (morals and trust in humankind).

And since George W. is such a big, born-again Christian, how come he opted to invade Iraq and kill and destroy?


Edited to insert word.

:thumbsup:

"Religion is used to shackle the human spirit and mind."

Gays are immoral and are evil
Woman need to believe they are not equal to men
Women that get abortions are evil
Birth control is evil
Protection of pedophiles is good(it protects the church)
Teaching of sex-ed is evil

And no, I do not think that asking any religious leader if attacking a country is right

So, are you saying that without your Bible and god that you would be a heathen and just
go out to rape and pillage??

People DO evil they do not BECOME evil.

I am still Presbyterian enough to think that Protestant churches are superior in many ways. However, I do not believe those are really the primary teachings of the Catholic church either. Some of them are left-over baggage from the past and need to be discarded, but there is still a baby in that bathwater.

A decade or so ago, I contemplated, tried to think about what difference religion has made in my life. It seemed to me, though, that religion was not something that was like a coat that I could take off, that it was deeply a part of me, something I grew up with and it helped to make me who I am. Even during the years I was an atheist I did not stop living like a Christian. If you took Christianity away from me, went back and put me up for adoption and raised me in a non-christian home, then I would really no longer be ME.

Which is not to say that you cannot learn the same, or essentially similar values in a non-christian home, but what is the source of those values? In the same way that Christianity is a part of me, Christianity is part of western civilization. Western civilization seems to be in the process of casting off Christianity, and that is celebrated here, but I wonder what replaces it? As Schumacher wrote in 1973 "That avarice, usury and precaution (i.e. economic security) should be our gods was merely a bright idea for Keynes. He surely had nobler gods. But ideas are the most powerful things on earth, and it is hardly an exxageration to say that by now the gods he recommended have been enthroned." Small is beautiful pp 100-101 Hence the current Republican Party, being motivated by greed and selfishness and our empty consumerist society.

Yet you assume that is what I was talking about.

You talk about casting off Christianity. I would ask you
who's Christianity??
Phelps's christianity??

Most people are not part of Phelps' Christianity, and never were.

I'm pretty happy with the secular one the Constitution envisioned, thank you.

But if you elminate an organization that does that, what is going to take its place?

What I argued was the virtue and benificence of an organization that teaches people to treat others the way they wish to be treated.

I have never been religious, yet I know I am a good person, with good values. Are you saying that can't be without some "organization" telling me to do so? I learned how to be a good person from my mother, who was not religious either. I guess I must be an anomaly.

since the first caveman put a feather on his head, and said he was a shaman. Religion is the curse of humanity.

Religion is the curse of humanity.


:thumbsup:

Had a giant awakening in HS/College along the lines of how, with each passing decade, it all seems to be used more as an instrument of fear rather than a means of spiritual enlightenment. And that is why I shunned church from the time I was in junior high and have stuck with that.

I don't ever remember a hellfire sermon, although I may have heard a few. I threw it off by the time I was 17, but for various reasons came back to it when I was 30. I don't think it is a bad thing at all, at least not the religion that I was taught in the Presbyterian Church. I see it as a positive thing to teach people to do the right thing, and also positive to teach them to fear the consequences of doing the wrong thing. Would my Republican Congresswoman be such a liar and so willing to aid the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us if she feared retribution from a creator who cared about the people she was harming for her own gain? Sure I would rather have people doing the right thing because they are motivated by love, but for those who have no love except for themself, it's not the worst thing to teach them to avoid doing the wrong things motivated by fear of retribution.

So, on balance, I think it does far more good than harm, but I can probably anticipate somebody jumping in to tell me about all the wars caused by religion. Like WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, etc., etc.

Your congresswoman feels perfectly righteous about lying to anyone she considers less devout than herself. That's the nature of religion and other irrational thinking. Contradictions don't count.

--imm

Maybe she considers it to be perfectly okay to lie to anyone she considers to be less intelligent than herself. Is that the nature of accounting? (She's a CPA).

She said it, so how else should one take it??

Does she have a different god than you??

The ceo of goldman sachs said in an interview in England that
he was doing "Gods' work" . How should I take that??

but I would take it as another lie, trying to win the voters who believe in god. I don't think she has any god at all, except mammon, although like the BTK killer she finds it convenient to use religion as an alibi.

The CEO of Goldman I don't know that much about what he thinks he is doing, or what he is actually doing. If he really does believe in God, then maybe he could be confronted with his evil actions, or maybe he has otherwise deluded himself beyond introspection. The rich often have their crowds of synchophants.

but there are so many out there using religion and god
to support their views.

How is one to know if these people are Christians or "chistians"??
Do we take them at their word??
Who can call them out??
This is the problem with letting religion invade politics.
Separation of church and state is the only answer.

They need to show it by their actions.

And when you say "separation of church and state" what I think you mean is "eliminating christianity" since you really have no other way to eliminate the free speech of myself or MLK or either Angle or George W. Bush, nor to eliminate the concerns of Christian voters that they be represented by somebody who shares their values.

Nowhere have I said to "eliminate christianity".
You really have a mixed bag of people there.
angle says that god told her to run for office
to fix this country.
bush said that god picked him to rid the world
of the un-godless.
MLK talked about how everyone had the right to
live free from oppression. Everyone had the same rights.
As for you, I am going to assume that you believe everyone
is equal.

Now it is up to you to define what a Christian is.

So liars aren't Christian but those that are righteous "believe in god." You do know the fallacy you are committing, right?

Religion is about psychology, not god.

--imm

Both attitudes suck.:eyes:

Irrational thinking, my ass...Strict empiricism is limited thinking.

Oh wait, don't tell me, you think atheists don't believe love or other emotions...talk about limited. :boring:

...does your Republican Congresswoman claim to be a believing Christian, or not? Most of them do. If she does, then please explain how it is that she is still "such a liar and so willing to aid the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us"??

But my question is not about what she says, it is about what she believes. I claim she would be a better person if she really did believe in a just and loving God. I do not claim she would be a better person if she SAID that she believes in a just and loving God. Nor am I saying that anybody who really does believe in a just and loving God is automatically better than somebody who does not, such as Isaac Asimov or myself at age 18 - 25. Heck, even now I am not sure if there really is a just and loving God. Because if there is, then why doesn't he/she get off his/her lazy a$$ and do something about this planet and this species? I am not asking for a lot. What if my uncle Charles' corporate jet could be struck by lightning and "ditto" (pun intended) to a certain radio bag of excrement. Is that too much to ask? Is it? Sheesh, I am working my tail off trying to fight the forces of evil and my pebbles are just bouncing off Goliath's face plate. Throw me a frigging bone here big guy. All I want is some Halloween candy and I am getting rocks instead (Matthew 7: 9 and "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown") All I want is for thy will to be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

My point is that I, apparently unlike my Congresswoman, was raised to be honest and compassionate, and that she might be motivated to become more honest and compassionate if she felt that someday she would have to answer, if not on this planet, where Uncle Charles and Rushbo seem to have been given carte blanche, but then in the life after her inevitable death, that then she will have to answer for her dishonesty and heartlessness.

Is there anything this god has done to deserve that acclamation?

She believes in her just and loving god, who loves her and forgives her lies, so she can cure us of "socialism."

--imm

Er, well, at least two out of three ain't bad - especially in baseball.

And we have sort of established that she does not believe in such a god. You, my good sir, are just making stuff up out of whole cloth.

Do you think you are a prophet or something?

so, yeah, I agree. Religion is dangerous for our species.

It was neither God nor Religion who murdered - it was Man.

so I think you make a good point.

So were WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam war and the Iraq war about religion somehow (and yes I know that Jews were involved and that Hitler was nominally Catholic) but it seems to me that there are some 100 million deaths involved in those wars and most other wars pale in comparison, and those wars were about nationalism and empire, not about religion.

so you bet your booties that religion was a factor in those prolonged US "police actions."

And please remember that the British Empire sanctioned the Church of England.

In WWI and II, while not dominated by religion, it was most definitely a factor, on ALL sides.

All you are saying is that government powers, who are not motivated by religion, use religious rhetoric to stir up a population which is religious. Lots of English, French and Germans went to church, so automatically any war they are involved in is about religion? Might as well blame it on water too then, since they all drink water.

kill the other. THAT, my friend, is silly.

You know what else is silly? Building an institution around a fairy tale. That is out-and-out insane. But, hey, knock yourself out.

but that does not make the war into something that is CAUSED by religion.

Uhm yeah, I didn't build the institution. It was almost 2000 years old when I was born. It seems to me that it has done a lot of good, both in my own life, in my own society (just today some needy people asked me directions to the Salvation Army - I, being a good liberal first wanted to give them directions to the Atheist Army, then I remembered, there is no such institution built around the fairy tale that humans are basically decent, or would be if only they were not being taught the golden rule and the ten commandments).

If you feel like the most important thing in life is to tear down that institution, then you can knock yourself out, but expect neither assistance, nor sympathy from me.

symbols of several cultures. The Japanese worship of the Emporer as god had much to do with the political decision to wage war. More often than not empires grow from a sense of divine favor brought on by leaders who see themselves a superhuman.

Yes, more people who ever lived on this planet were killed in the name of religion than for any other reason.

Joe said it, I believe it, that settles it.

I have just listed something like 100 million who were killed in wars having almost nothing to do with religion, but I guess your statement trumps that.

It's impossible to argue with people so committed to a point of view.

The irony is that they believe themselves to be "different" than many non-atheists in that regard.

My "indepth" study has shown me that more people were killed by atheists and under atheistic dictators than in all religious wars combined in all of human history.

since it shows so well precisely what you mean.

:rofl:

OH NOES! ITs....its......its........



militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl:

militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl:

militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl:

militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl:

militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl:

militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl:

militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl: militant atheists :rofl:

:thumbsup:


The religion haters here tend to forget that.:eyes:

History will back us up.

You have "faith" in that?:rofl:

of the last priest." - Denis Diderot

I understand the perspective. And that actually could explain why only a few understand the posts.


I also don't like the hell teachings, since to be honest doing something to avoid hell or get into heaven is just a selfish act anyways. What ever realities exist :shrug: going to be what I choose to be, knowing that that other stuff is someone elses decision.

Religion only exists to provide its leaders with power, with minions to do their bidding and provide them wealth (and other "services.") Manipulation is all it is. Scare the poor buggers to death with tales of hideous unending torture, then offer them an out for the "mere" cost of a lifetime of servitude. And then call it "love." Makes me want to vomit just thinking about it.

I wonder if he thought "religion" provided the chains...

it seems like the founding prophets of most religions were usually pretty wise people who focussed primarily on helping the poor and other worthy issues.

Soon after they die, there's a power struggle as to who will lead their followers. Regardless of what factions do or don't win out, a bureaucracy springs up, and all kinds of new rules are imposed that displace attention from things like helping the poor and focus instead on obedience to church authority.

I think it's partly a matter of scale, too -- that once any organization, whether it's a religion, government, corporation, union, or even charitable org, reaches a certain size and/or age, it's likely to stop working the way it was supposed to, because the many in the middle and along the bottom of the org tend to lose the access/ability to hold in check the few at the top, because of increased specialization and diminished transparency and accountability, and/or because people's memories or applications of the system's axiomatic principles become corrupted. In short, once an org gets big, it's more vulnerable to being hijacked by parasites/vultures.

Religion is just the prod to get those who will not profit to participate.

We now can induce the killing of many for a variety of excuses. Religion remains a handy tool for stoking fires but is no longer even pretended to be the principle motivation for our conflicts.

I'd bet other excuses have surpassed religion over the last 150+ years. The volume of people and the devastating power of our weaponry has rendered the old maxim overrated, if not moot.
It is now just something anti-religious people like to spout as truthiness.

That said from someone who hasn't been in a church in 25 or more years other than for a wedding, funeral, or to admire the architecture.

and justifies atrocity".

So does Love, unfortunatley...So does Conservative Economics...even withOUT the use of "God".

If getting rid of religion were the "key" to everything, communism would have flourished.

Can you point to that?

> Religion is an excuse not a reason. Wars are almost (always?) about resources and avarice
>
> Religion is just the prod to get those who will not profit to participate.
>
> We now can induce the killing of many for a variety of excuses. Religion remains
> a handy tool for stoking fires but is no longer even pretended to be the principle
> motivation for our conflicts.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :toast:

Men in funny hats, taking your money and fondling your children. Angry hermits, convincing the fearful and desperate to kill for them. Vicious racists and misogynists, justifying their insanity on the basis of a dusty book cut and pasted from other dusty books that largely weren't true when they were written in the first place. The gobsmacking inanity of relying on the most unlikely stories about alien beings with magical powers ... to ridicule and attack rational scientific inquiry.

I'm sticking with tolerance, with the caveat that my tolerance ends where religions' intolerance begins.

And I also think it's time to pull religion's free tickets on a couple of things. For religious groups wielding enormous political power, no more tax breaks. And no more polite silence about the nakedly fictitious nature of religious beliefs overall.

If you want to collect millions to wield in the public debate on, say, civil rights, let's have an open discussion on the viability of your thoughts on, say, blessed undergarments. If your organization purports to be an authority on the sanctity of human life, let's discuss your belief in an omnipotent alien who enjoys animal sacrifice and condones slavery, rape and infanticide.

Philosophy is philosophy. But we need a more open discussion about whether or not we are going to actually make decisions about our laws and society based on a literal belief in mythology.


edited for speling and the grammars.

"The spinners of myths and purveyors of superstition and fear. Their words shackle people."

No. You hate those who do such things. Some spin fear. Others do not. To paint with such a broad stroke is not fair. There are places where you can find nurturing of man's spirit/soul. Not everywhere, but they are there. You must just look harder to find them than what you see on TV.

And many stand by and give strength to the lie by their silence.

That often works here, unfortunately.:eyes:

I doubt it was worth much.:evilgrin:

Modern science has shown us many amazing things about the natural world, things that a religious text could never come close to explaining. Religion truly does shackle the mind, and it is disturbing how sure people are about god, when there is not a single shred of anything resembling evidence to support his existence. Religion is a huge roadblock in the way of progress and I can only hope that it becomes irrelevant soon.

I recently rediscovered the works of Rudolf Bultmann, German theologian.
I had read some of his work in my survey course of Nature & Function of Religion many decades ago, in college.

He said that nothing in the NT is now miraculous. Jesus was shown to do miracles to make him a god.

I think that Bultmann hit on a really important concept.

That said, religion is not necessary for morality.

Secular humanists know that people working together can do great and wonderful things, without any gods involved.

Stuff like rescuing the miners in Chile, or landing men on the moon and returning them to Earth safely. Those accomplishments were NOT miracles. They were the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of smart people.

and if you're only argument is that such millions are comprised of "the ignorant", you would yourself be ignorant, not to mention arrogant in the extreme.

Modern science is indeed wonderful...but not so much that it can, by it's own admission, confirm or deny the existence of God.

The human mind has a fantastic ability to hold mythos and logos in tension. We can and do function quite well with both fact and fantasy. The problem is when fantasy is regarded as fact and then used as a means of oppressive hierarchical power rather than affirmative transactional power.

My personal opinion is that the narrow definition of religion in terms of monotheism and creedal requirements has no place in modern society.

Yes, I'm a non-theist and I am religious. Go figure. ;-)

although I'm more "unsure" of what I'm sure of, even in regard to "modern society"..It's too bad so many here do not

Cheers for mutual humility! :toast:

Cheers back at you!:toast:

I hate them from the bottom of my heart and I will NEVER apologize for it! I hate them because they are power-crazy and evil. Most toxic of all are the Christian Reconstructionists, who are pretty far advanced in their scheme to take "dominion" over the entire world. And that's NOT an exaggeration! Who wouldn't hate people like this?

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/10/30/125847/61

Scary stuff!

but hate is what they do and I refuse to sink to their level. Distain yes, Hate no.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

over the past half-century and now there is so little that separates it from the reactionaries - about the very last shred of "left" credentials some people have is opposition to fundamentalist religion. (I don't consider the "green" movement as leftist in any way, since it is entirely devoid of any concept of social justice.)

Of course, when one considers that the "left" is perfectly comfortable with finance parasitism, usury, corporatism, imperialism, chauvinism of one kind or another, not to mention its utter indifference to the fate of working people and thralldom to corporate dollars, one must be thankful for the (few) leftist principles it continues to adhere to.

This will no doubt grate, but part of the reason for the present resurgence of the right-wing is the lack of genuine opposition. The present day "left" is too diluted a version of its former self, too corrupt and too weak to offer much by way of resistance.

Edited to add: Lest I be misunderstood, this comment is about the general state of affairs in what passes for the left these days, and not about the OP.

from religion and rise to be the "supermen" we could be. After all, getting rid of religion's bonds on us helped the Germans and the Russians reach their potential.

Why not us?

Always felt they were doing "God's work". It was a perversion of course....but they were always DEVOUT in their belief.

can do every bit as much harm as religious idealogues...Though many here seem not to want to hear it.

Related question: Why do so many church signs I see involve awful, facepalm-worthy wordplay?

I believe if you research the Germans and the Russians further, you will find that religion played a LARGE role in getting both countries to go to war. Catholicism and its anti-Semitism helped spur normal Germans to back and join the Reich. Orthodox Christianity was used to convince masses of Russians that they were fighting a just and righteous cause.

Religion is a tool, just like a hammer, and like said hammer it has very few constructive uses, and myriad destructive ones. Also just like the hammer, many people find ways of doing everything they need to without religion.

And Marx and Hitler were devoutly religious, I'm sure.

It was, s I previously stated - a perversion....but he was INDEED devout. He described himself as a catholic.

snip - Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.

I did a quick google search - "hitler, catholic"

I found it greatly interesting - that it was only AFTER his death, that the roman catholic church disowned him.

The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.... The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed.... It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie.
-Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party (quoted from John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope"

Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1934

No, it is not we that have deserted Christianity, it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine (Lehre ) of the Confessions or with their religious freedom (Bekenntnisfreiheit ), nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends....
National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26 Aug. 1934

You referenced the Germans and the Russians as examples of "getting rid of religion." (Nicely broad-brushed, BTW. I had to assume which Germans and which Russians you meant.)

It is obvious to even the most shallow student of history that religion was used by both the Germans of WWII and the Russians under Stalin whenever they saw it as an effective tool to meet their needs. Therefore, whether Marx or Hitler themselves were devoutly religious (no and yes, respectively, BTW) has no bearing on your examples, because the Germans and Russians did not, in fact, get rid of religion.

Before you spout off in the future about how evil a world without religion would be, I suggest you study more closely the motivational capacities of religion and atheism.

LOL.

Nothing to study there.

People do evil things. They will do evil things whether they are atheists or religious. Some people do good things. They would probably do them regardless of religion or it's lack.

Religion at its core is about philosophy, and the major religions universally decry selfishness and uphold the virtues of coexistence in social fabrics.

Both whites and blacks in south were religious, and most of them were varieties of Christian, and the whites tore the blacks to pieces. Why? Socio-economic reasons having to do with the loss of racial privilege. Had nothing to do with religion, but pinheads will look at the fact that the whites used scripture to "justify" what they did and say, "See! It's all religions' fault!!!"

"If we were all godless atheists, we'd all get along!"

What bullshit. The French were mostly Catholic. The Germans were mostly Lutheran. Both Christian faiths. Was WWI the result of religion or an idiotic system of arcane alliances that were outmoded and a sense of German insecurity? Religion had just about nothing to do with it. Was WWII the result of Germans wanting to get their hands on Jews in Poland and having to go to war with Poland to get them? Or was it about the injustices of the Versaille treaty and the fact that the world had been plunged into a massive depression and the highly nationalistic Germans couldn't see a way out of it? Did Hitler exploit religious differences? Sure. Would Germany have gone to war anyway? Sure.

Study more closely. God, how arrogant atheists are.

You made a ridiculous and baseless claim that you had no way of backing, and then you get mad at me when I point that out?

And yes, you SHOULD study how those two different ideologies, religion and atheism, can be used to motivate people. You will find that while one of them can motivate people to great goods or great evils, the other is fairly useless as a motivator.

As for the rest of your straw man arguments, I care nothing for them. You are attributing words to me that I never posted.

who doesn't even know he's doing it.

Religion isn't much of a motivator. People hate for all kinds of reasons. Take religion out of it, and they hate just as strongly.

Selling atheism as some kind of peaceful alternative to religion is bunk.

You're still flaming at straw men.

Take religion out of it and they'll find another reason to hate or kill.

Besides, how do you know hate is wrong? Or that killing is wrong? Or that there is any value to any of this stuff we do without some kind of philosophical underpinning of a higher meaning or purpose?

That philosophical underpinning is a religion, whether it posits the existence of a divine being or not. Because taken purely at face value, there's nothing wrong with blowing someone's head off if we are all going to die anyway and there's nothing beyond our mortal existence except an endless series of deaths until our end as a species.

Hell, under that breed of atheism, you'd be doing him a favor. If you think that you would NOT be doing him a favor by ending his pointless existence, then you have to concede a POINT to existence. Then the beliefs that follow from that concession become your code or rules or whatever.

Voila, you have created a religion. And the people who adopt your set of beliefs, based on the simple credo that is nothing more than "there is a point to existence" become your church.

That was the shittiest definition of a religion, or of atheism, that I've read in a long time.

just for good measure.

As a species, with the deeply inrooted, and universal desire to survive, man has learned that there is a social benefit to not blow off someones head just because we feel like it. That person could help us someday perhaps - gather food, provide for the tribe. We learned a VERY long time ago that to cooperate with each other would help our own survival. That has nothing to do with religion - of any kind. Has nothing to do with an unearthly life after death, or higher purpose....it is the social benefit of getting along, working together on a common cause and not making enemies.

Do not bother to question or study or even ENQUIRE about the motivationial capacities of religion or atheism.....

If people do good things or evil things REGARDLESS of faith, religion, belief of, or lack of belief in God - then.....WHAT IS THE POINT?

You ask a good question - Would Germany have gone to war even if Hitler did NOT exploit religious differences? Perhaps he would have. BUT - and here is the key point - the Holocaust would not of occured if Hitler did not make the jews enemies of Germany. And THAT did happen as a direct result of religious intolerance, bias, bigotry, racism, anti-semitism....and the Church did nothing about it. In fact, Hitler maintains that his beliefs regarding jews CAME from the church.

Of course, it is understandable that Christianity would seek to distance itself from the fanaticsm that Hitler represented. BUT HE BELIEVED. And for him, IT WAS A SOURCE OF STRENGTH. He was an utter complete total monster, and his FAITH propelled him, Germany and the entire world down a path that has probably touched the lives of every single living individual on this planet.

So....is it arrogent to question the motivations of religion? No it isn't. It is myopic to ignore the dangers, the EXCUSES that the faithful do to each other....in the name of God.

I was addressing the nexus between religion and politics and historically this partnership has manipulated whole population across the ideological spectrum and cultures.

That perhaps the most influencial invention of mankind was fire. I mean - that is a really big deal. Who wants to eat raw meat after all...and it keeps you warm...you can keep away predators....Fire is great. It marked a huge leap in mankinds evolution.

And the tangible thing about fire - is once you know how to make it - YOU KNOW. And the proof of which is in your campsite - flickering happily....or not.

Now, I am thinking that Fire lost out to God. I think the invention of God, or, if you would prefer, recognition of God or Gods has been the most influencial on the history of mankind. Entire civilizations rose AND FELL - their successes and failures laid out at the feet of their own deities, instead of the stupidity or wisdom or fortune of its leaders.

Think about it....how many brain cells over the millenia have given up their lives over the paradox of God? Is he? Isn't he? Does he favour me? If we sacrifice animals, people, live a certain way, will God favour us? Whole industries arose out of the God question. Volumes upon volumes of scripture, in a grand variety of disciplines all deal with the God question - and how we "should" live our lives. If ever there was a fantastic campaign to capitalize off of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" - it is organized religion. If you want proof - you only have to gaze upon the opulance of any of the great churches, cathedrals, The Vatican, any of the great temples, mosques, synagogues, etc. etc.

It has been so ingrained in our perspective of history, that the very first words uttered of an alien deity have been lost to the test of time. Who was that man or woman? You know...the one who blamed his failure on some other "thing" that was greater than he, wiser than he, more powerful than he?

For all we know, it might of been a leader of a tribe, who was trying to make fire, and his dog happily jumped into the process and ruined his efforts....causing him to exclaim in a fit of bitter cold fingered dislexia - "OH GOD!"....when he meant "Oh DOG!" It could be that he loved his dog dearly, and when the other elders looked to him in dismay he quickly came up with some lame scenario that it was .....er.....A GOD that caused him to fail making fire....yeah....that was it. And that little escapade worked so well at saving his dog.....he cleverly figured out this was possibly the very best thing that could of happened. He could get the other members to do just about ANYTHING to gain Gods favour. It helped cement his leadership. And perhaps, because of this, his tribe prospered and thrived. Best part was, if the tribe struggled....he could always blame it on their failings to gain favour of God....but never himself.

Poor fire.....it had so much to offer....but its simple worth and pleasure lost out to mankind's dishonesty.

do not as yet have. God is a metaphor for our aspirations and failures alike. Perhaps some day we will learn enough about ourselves and the universe around us to evolve to another level of understanding and existence. Perhaps we will find it within ourselves to live peace.

but "he" may also be a reality, one we've not yet even imagined.

to waste so much energy digesting our food, and our digestive system diminished while our brains expanded.

Fire was responsible for our imaginations, which are responsible for God.

They are often related and you can argue for both.

Our curiosity and imagination are responsible for many things -- scienfific inquiry included.

man created god in their minds and projected that idea onto the world.

One or more persons arrived at the idea of god in his or her own mind and then was able to achieve consensus on it.

Find me two believers who agree entirely on their idea of God. I'll wait.

Consensus...:rofl:

Considering that every culture on earth, before integration into other cultures, all had the idea that the unexplainable and unknown was some type of a god. Hardly a few people getting an idea and convincing others of it. The idea of god, IMO based on anthropological evidence, is that the idea of god was born in the mind of men out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.

make the point that not EVERYONE who believes/believed in God got it from the "projection" of someone else. Obviously, there was a first cause, i.e. a person or people assuming the idea of a supreme being or beings who were able to find "consensus" or "agreement" with others on the issue.

Clearly, much of what people attributed to a supernatural being has since been explained by science and that makes many people think that eventually, science WILL be able to "explain everything"....That requires an absolute "faith" in science that may or may not bear out. Science, in any case, is not there yet, and that is why, by self-admission, it can't prove or disprove the existence of God.