Mor(m)ons

[natty dread]

I think you're confusing some concepts here. Of course individuals can do good things regardless of their beliefs. They can also do bad things regardless of their beliefs. However individuals can also do good or bad things because of their beliefs. Arguably, religious people do bad things more often because of their beliefs than atheists do. ?

But that is a disengenuous argument, not just for the reasons I gave above. In that context, atheists just won't refer to their religious beliefs, but they operate upon them.

Its similar to the concept that you cannot prove a negative. Atheists will not rally around the idea of "no God", BUT they will absolutely join in on conflicts against a particular religion or use other reasons to start wars, even if their major opposition is religion. In fact, as I noted above, many of those who claim to be using religion are, to those within the religion, not doing so.

Wars are caused by humanity, primarily by greed, but also by basic misunderstandings, fear and intolerance (which is really another aspect of fear in this context).

If the people in Israel & Palestine were all atheists, the conflict would already have been resolved.

[2dimes]

I think you're confusing some concepts here. Of course individuals can do good things regardless of their beliefs. They can also do bad things regardless of their beliefs. However individuals can also do good or bad things because of their beliefs. Arguably, religious people do bad things more often because of their beliefs than atheists do. ?

But that is a disengenuous argument, not just for the reasons I gave above. In that context, atheists just won't refer to their religious beliefs, but they operate upon them.

Its similar to the concept that you cannot prove a negative. Atheists will not rally around the idea of "no God", BUT they will absolutely join in on conflicts against a particular religion or use other reasons to start wars, even if their major opposition is religion. In fact, as I noted above, many of those who claim to be using religion are, to those within the religion, not doing so.

Wars are caused by humanity, primarily by greed, but also by basic misunderstandings, fear and intolerance (which is really another aspect of fear in this context).

If the people in Israel & Palestine were all atheists, the conflict would already have been resolved.

Yes, it would just be a smoldering crater.

[natty dread]

I think you're confusing some concepts here. Of course individuals can do good things regardless of their beliefs. They can also do bad things regardless of their beliefs. However individuals can also do good or bad things because of their beliefs. Arguably, religious people do bad things more often because of their beliefs than atheists do. ?

But that is a disengenuous argument, not just for the reasons I gave above. In that context, atheists just won't refer to their religious beliefs, but they operate upon them.

Its similar to the concept that you cannot prove a negative. Atheists will not rally around the idea of "no God", BUT they will absolutely join in on conflicts against a particular religion or use other reasons to start wars, even if their major opposition is religion. In fact, as I noted above, many of those who claim to be using religion are, to those within the religion, not doing so.

Wars are caused by humanity, primarily by greed, but also by basic misunderstandings, fear and intolerance (which is really another aspect of fear in this context).

If the people in Israel & Palestine were all atheists, the conflict would already have been resolved.

Yes, it would just be a smoldering crater.

No, they'd be both living there in peace and harmony. If neither party would think it's a "holy land" that they have a "divine obligation" to conquer, they could both just agree to split it fairly and be done with it.

[MeDeFe]

I think you're confusing some concepts here. Of course individuals can do good things regardless of their beliefs. They can also do bad things regardless of their beliefs. However individuals can also do good or bad things because of their beliefs. Arguably, religious people do bad things more often because of their beliefs than atheists do. ?

But that is a disengenuous argument, not just for the reasons I gave above. In that context, atheists just won't refer to their religious beliefs, but they operate upon them.

Its similar to the concept that you cannot prove a negative. Atheists will not rally around the idea of "no God", BUT they will absolutely join in on conflicts against a particular religion or use other reasons to start wars, even if their major opposition is religion. In fact, as I noted above, many of those who claim to be using religion are, to those within the religion, not doing so.

Wars are caused by humanity, primarily by greed, but also by basic misunderstandings, fear and intolerance (which is really another aspect of fear in this context).

If the people in Israel & Palestine were all atheists, the conflict would already have been resolved.

Yes, it would just be a smoldering crater.

No, they'd be both living there in peace and harmony. If neither party would think it's a "holy land" that they have a "divine obligation" to conquer, they could both just agree to split it fairly and be done with it.

Or even *gasp* live together in the same nation with equal rights under the law and fair representation in the legislative, judiciary and executive bodies!

[chang50]

I think you're confusing some concepts here. Of course individuals can do good things regardless of their beliefs. They can also do bad things regardless of their beliefs. However individuals can also do good or bad things because of their beliefs. Arguably, religious people do bad things more often because of their beliefs than atheists do. ?

But that is a disengenuous argument, not just for the reasons I gave above. In that context, atheists just won't refer to their religious beliefs, but they operate upon them.

Its similar to the concept that you cannot prove a negative. Atheists will not rally around the idea of "no God", BUT they will absolutely join in on conflicts against a particular religion or use other reasons to start wars, even if their major opposition is religion. In fact, as I noted above, many of those who claim to be using religion are, to those within the religion, not doing so.

Wars are caused by humanity, primarily by greed, but also by basic misunderstandings, fear and intolerance (which is really another aspect of fear in this context).

If the people in Israel & Palestine were all atheists, the conflict would already have been resolved.

Yes, it would just be a smoldering crater.

No, they'd be both living there in peace and harmony. If neither party would think it's a "holy land" that they have a "divine obligation" to conquer, they could both just agree to split it fairly and be done with it.

If only it were that simple,I'm no fan of religion but it's obvious that if they couldn't argue over that they would find something else as an excuse.The problem,as ever,is human nature..

[2dimes]

That is how religion fails. You think everyone else will do the right thing once you explain how life works.

No, they'd be both living there in peace and harmony. If neither party would think it's a "holy land" that they have a "divine obligation" to conquer, they could both just agree to split it fairly and be done with it.

The "divine obligation" "the Prophet" assigned was to make everyone a follower or kill them. The middle east is not the holy land. It's the starting point.

Israel for the most part is a secular state.

If you go back and listen to John Lennon again, religion was ths last part mentioned.
Regardless "imagine" all you like it will never happen.

The LDS could probably sort out the region. Maybe once one is president he will.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think you're confusing some concepts here. Of course individuals can do good things regardless of their beliefs. They can also do bad things regardless of their beliefs. However individuals can also do good or bad things because of their beliefs. Arguably, religious people do bad things more often because of their beliefs than atheists do. ?

But that is a disengenuous argument, not just for the reasons I gave above. In that context, atheists just won't refer to their religious beliefs, but they operate upon them.

Its similar to the concept that you cannot prove a negative. Atheists will not rally around the idea of "no God", BUT they will absolutely join in on conflicts against a particular religion or use other reasons to start wars, even if their major opposition is religion. In fact, as I noted above, many of those who claim to be using religion are, to those within the religion, not doing so.

Wars are caused by humanity, primarily by greed, but also by basic misunderstandings, fear and intolerance (which is really another aspect of fear in this context).

If the people in Israel & Palestine were all atheists, the conflict would already have been resolved.

Yes, it would just be a smoldering crater.

No, they'd be both living there in peace and harmony. If neither party would think it's a "holy land" that they have a "divine obligation" to conquer, they could both just agree to split it fairly and be done with it.

Since that conflict is not only about religion, then what would prevent it from still being an ethnic issue?

[Crazyirishman]

If everybody in Israel and Palestine were atheists, they wouldn't prancing peacefully through the meadows singing Kumbaya. Religion is just another means for people to beat the shit out of each other with sticks and stones, not the sole cause. If religion was removed from the equation, the human race would still have had plenty of wars, just with slightly different justifications i.e. "those fuckers are left handed" or "why do they get to live in a geographic location with better resources? We should be able to exploit those resources for our personal betterment. Kill them!!!"

[BigBallinStalin]

If everybody in Israel and Palestine were atheists, they wouldn't prancing peacefully through the meadows singing Kumbaya. Religion is just another means for people to beat the shit out of each other with sticks and stones, not the sole cause. If religion was removed from the equation, the human race would still have had plenty of wars, just with slightly different justifications i.e. "those fuckers are left handed" or "why do they get to live in a geographic location with better resources? We should be able to exploit those resources for our personal betterment. Kill them!!!"

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. Religion is just another means of social control, which can be manipulated to produce intended outcomes. If it weren't for religion, there would be other forms of social control which would lead to similar outcomes (e.g. nationalism, the false left-right dichotomy, etc.).

[john9blue]

The Crusades are the most overrated thing in history.

except for nirvana

[Symmetry]

The Crusades are the most overrated thing in history.

except for nirvana

Heaven is overrated

Now over to the Train boys:

[2dimes]

If everybody in Israel and Palestine were atheists, they wouldn't prancing peacefully through the meadows singing Kumbaya. Religion is just another means for people to beat the shit out of each other with sticks and stones, not the sole cause. If religion was removed from the equation, the human race would still have had plenty of wars, just with slightly different justifications i.e. "those fuckers are left handed" or "why do they get to live in a geographic location with better resources? We should be able to exploit those resources for our personal betterment. Kill them!!!"

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. Religion is just another means of social control, which can be manipulated to produce intended outcomes. If it weren't for religion, there would be other forms of social control which would lead to similar outcomes (e.g. nationalism, the false left-right dichotomy, etc.).

~high five jump~

The bonus in the past was if you paid off the pope he'd get the priests to tell the parents, "We need your sons to fight this war for god." It was a solid way to get young men interested in fighting wars they might have passed on otherwise.

[Timminz]

The Crusades are the most overrated thing in history.

except for nirvana

Buddha ain't shit, motherfucker!

[Army of GOD]

BUT TEH MORMANZ

[Phatscotty]

Mormon's domm

[Lootifer]

If everybody in Israel and Palestine were atheists, they wouldn't prancing peacefully through the meadows singing Kumbaya. Religion is just another means for people to beat the shit out of each other with sticks and stones, not the sole cause. If religion was removed from the equation, the human race would still have had plenty of wars, just with slightly different justifications i.e. "those fuckers are left handed" or "why do they get to live in a geographic location with better resources? We should be able to exploit those resources for our personal betterment. Kill them!!!"

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. Religion is just another means of social control, which can be manipulated to produce intended outcomes. If it weren't for religion, there would be other forms of social control which would lead to similar outcomes (e.g. nationalism, the false left-right dichotomy, etc.).

I dunno, I just dont think nationalism and other things are conducive to modern warfare (incl. Terrorism), where as religion stands the test of time.

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; where as you can quite easily convince an impressionable young bloke that there really does exist a place where you get endless virgins and strapping a bunch of C4 to your self and blowing the f*ck outta some infidels is a good way of getting there.

Religion is aimed (by design or because god made it so, take your pick) at answering some of the most fundamental questions involved in life; nationalism doesnt tell you why you exist. By supplying answers to these questions, you can get people to do things they otherwise wouldnt.

[saxitoxin]

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance;

The Nazi successor, the National Democratic Party, got 2% of the vote in the last German elections, almost as much (2.8%) as the Nazi predecessor party got in the 1924 German elections. Germany is never more than ten years away from a complete Nazi takeover.




Annnnyway, the cause of almost all war is real estate. The only purpose of government is to regulate real estate thereby preventing war. Anything else, like feeding the homeless or wiping your kids ass, is superfluous. When government is stripped down to its most basic, the only function left before anarchy is the regulation of real estate. The six constitutional officers of American counties in the west, for instance, are all connected with regulation of real estate, a holdover of the semi-anarchy of the wild west (a Clerk to register land deeds, a Surveyor to establish land boundaries, a Sheriff to enforce court orders in land disputes, an Assessor to establish property values, a Treasurer to collect property taxes and a Coroner to initiate the probate of estates).

[BigBallinStalin]

If everybody in Israel and Palestine were atheists, they wouldn't prancing peacefully through the meadows singing Kumbaya. Religion is just another means for people to beat the shit out of each other with sticks and stones, not the sole cause. If religion was removed from the equation, the human race would still have had plenty of wars, just with slightly different justifications i.e. "those fuckers are left handed" or "why do they get to live in a geographic location with better resources? We should be able to exploit those resources for our personal betterment. Kill them!!!"

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. Religion is just another means of social control, which can be manipulated to produce intended outcomes. If it weren't for religion, there would be other forms of social control which would lead to similar outcomes (e.g. nationalism, the false left-right dichotomy, etc.).

I dunno, I just dont think nationalism and other things are conducive to modern warfare (incl. Terrorism), where as religion stands the test of time.

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; where as you can quite easily convince an impressionable young bloke that there really does exist a place where you get endless virgins and strapping a bunch of C4 to your self and blowing the f*ck outta some infidels is a good way of getting there.

Religion is aimed (by design or because god made it so, take your pick) at answering some of the most fundamental questions involved in life; nationalism doesnt tell you why you exist. By supplying answers to these questions, you can get people to do things they otherwise wouldnt.

I agree that religion has a comparative advantage in some areas compared to nationalism, but without religion, my point is that substitutes could be found; therefore, in a world without religion, I wouldn't expect much of a difference. (However, this entire argument, spurned on by natty, is silly because "a world without religion" would be extremely unlikely).

How would you explain the American Congress and its terrorist acts against civilians who were loyal to the Brits? Nationalism. So, it has worked before, and it works today. The Irgun were very nationalist, and were a terrorist organization which worked alongside the Israelis in the 1940s, 50s, and eventually died out (at the request of the Israeli government). Nationalism has provided a lasting cause for terrorism.

It also provides a justification for state terrorism. When the US bombs military targets, just as many terrorists bomb military and government targets, they both kill civilians. Essentially, both commit acts of terrorism. So, with this in mind, we see that nationalism still provides the fuel for terrorism today. The radical Muslims simply use what means are available.

[PLAYER57832]

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; .

Maybe not in Germany, but a slight change in wording and a lot of the rhetoric in the US can seem not so different from that of Germany at the time.

Except.. its not "dirty jews" its "dirty liberals" that are "ruining society"

[saxitoxin]

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; .

Maybe not in Germany, but a slight change in wording and a lot of the rhetoric in the US can seem not so different from that of Germany at the time.

Except.. its not "dirty jews" its "dirty liberals" that are "ruining society"

This is a ludicrous minimizing of the potency of National Socialism. To say the Republican Party is two steps away from launching a global holocaust is the same kind of rhetoric you're screeching about.

[natty dread]

However, this entire argument, spurned on by natty, is silly because "a world without religion" would be extremely unlikely

y

[PLAYER57832]

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; .

Maybe not in Germany, but a slight change in wording and a lot of the rhetoric in the US can seem not so different from that of Germany at the time.

Except.. its not "dirty jews" its "dirty liberals" that are "ruining society"

This is a ludicrous minimizing of the potency of National Socialism. To say the Republican Party is two steps away from launching a global holocaust is the same kind of rhetoric you're screeching about.

I see.. and where, exactly, did I mention Republicans in the above quoted post?

[saxitoxin]

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; .

Maybe not in Germany, but a slight change in wording and a lot of the rhetoric in the US can seem not so different from that of Germany at the time.

Except.. its not "dirty jews" its "dirty liberals" that are "ruining society"

This is a ludicrous minimizing of the potency of National Socialism. To say the Republican Party is two steps away from launching a global holocaust is the same kind of rhetoric you're screeching about.

I see.. and where, exactly, did I mention Republicans in the above quoted post?

To whom were you referring? The Shriners?

[BigBallinStalin]

However, this entire argument, spurned on by natty, is silly because "a world without religion" would be extremely unlikely

y

What benefits do the many religions provide to their adherents, and can such benefits be perfectly substituted by non-religious groups/organizations?


Also, even if science were to somehow answer the most fundamental questions, I doubt everyone would find them satisfying; therefore, they'd still seek substitutes, e.g. religion.

[natty dread]

However, this entire argument, spurned on by natty, is silly because "a world without religion" would be extremely unlikely

y

What benefits do the many religions provide to their adherents, and can such benefits be perfectly substituted by non-religious groups/organizations?


Also, even if science were to somehow answer the most fundamental questions, I doubt everyone would find them satisfying; therefore, they'd still seek substitutes, e.g. religion.

But what if in the future when we live in a post-scarcity society, and we can upload education to peoples brains, and then everyone would be too smart to be religious?