Conquer Club

Interesting article. She's stating that religion has been blamed for many problems (e.g. wars) in the past; however, it was not religion alone that was the cause. The primary cause was the fusing of religion with the State, which granted a particular religion the capability to persecute people and wage wars.




Article, in full:

show

Question: Might it not be that the belief that your group has privileged knowledge about the universe, it's creator and that which is right and wrong will usually lead to the belief that things should be run according to this privileged knowledge and thus the desire to spread and impose this privileged knowledge even through the means of the state?

Sure, that's a primary cause, but if you lack the means (i.e. the State), then they can believe that as hard as they want, but they won't likely be capable of committing as much harm--compared to the harm created through using the State. (Legal immunity or having "impartial" judges on your side really helps).

Think of the State as a catalyst, or as a supplier of a religion's demand.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Question: Might it not be that the belief that your group has privileged knowledge about the universe, it's creator and that which is right and wrong will usually lead to the belief that things should be run according to this privileged knowledge and thus the desire to spread and impose this privileged knowledge even through the means of the state?

Perfect description of the Godless Heathen usergroup of CC

DangerBoy wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Question: Might it not be that the belief that your group has privileged knowledge about the universe, it's creator and that which is right and wrong will usually lead to the belief that things should be run according to this privileged knowledge and thus the desire to spread and impose this privileged knowledge even through the means of the state?

Perfect description of the Godless Heathen usergroup of CC

The Godless Heathen usergroup on CC is trying to impose it's privileged knowledge of the universe through the means of the state? Oh my, I think MDF has let me out of the loop on this one. Who knew we had that much power!

Anyway, please explain what we are imposing on the theists.
What rights of yours are we trying to infringe upon?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, that's a primary cause, but if you lack the means (i.e. the State), then they can believe that as hard as they want, but they won't likely be capable of committing as much harm--compared to the harm created through using the State. (Legal immunity or having "impartial" judges on your side really helps).

Think of the State as a catalyst, or as a supplier of a religion's demand.

Oh, sure, yeah. I just got the feeling from the letter that he was making a distinction between theists who try to impose their view through the state and those who don't. I was just wondering if the first isn't a natural consequence of theism itself, and something that the particular religion must think very carefully about if they wish to avoid.

Looking at it from the pov that the state shouldn't want to get involved with religion in the first place, then yeah, one would hope so.

Oh yeah, there's a distinction between the two: "you'll never hear of Baptists, Quakers, or Amish oppressing other religions,"

So, it can't be all that encompasses theism.

The answer may lie in the following:

Maybe the other religions are more warlike? There's a lot about fire and brimstone in the Bible and other works, but there's also forcing others to abide by whatever cherry-picked laws that are gleaned from the special book.

So if certain believers can cherry-pick, then maybe the primary cause is one of selective perception? Maybe, it takes a bad bigot to distort the Bible to his/her liking, in order to confirm his own preconceived notions? (should we ask jay and PS about this?)

DangerBoy wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Question: Might it not be that the belief that your group has privileged knowledge about the universe, it's creator and that which is right and wrong will usually lead to the belief that things should be run according to this privileged knowledge and thus the desire to spread and impose this privileged knowledge even through the means of the state?

Perfect description of the Godless Heathen usergroup of CC

Haggis posts a thoughtful and well considered question and this response is a perfect description of all that I find unpleasant about religion,good job DB..you should be embarrassed.

chang50 wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Question: Might it not be that the belief that your group has privileged knowledge about the universe, it's creator and that which is right and wrong will usually lead to the belief that things should be run according to this privileged knowledge and thus the desire to spread and impose this privileged knowledge even through the means of the state?

Perfect description of the Godless Heathen usergroup of CC

Haggis posts a thoughtful and well considered question and this response is a perfect description of all that I find unpleasant about religion,good job DB..you should be embarrassed.

All DangerBoy ever does is swoop in, post a one-liner bit of hit-and-run crap, and then disappear. This is nothing new.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh yeah, there's a distinction between the two: "you'll never hear of Baptists, Quakers, or Amish oppressing other religions."

Baptists oppress all kinds of people/religion and other aspects of life
and can't be compared to the Quakers and Amish. A Baptist's Sunday
convictions is no equivalent to the daily beliefs of the Q&A.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Interesting article. She's stating that religion has been blamed for many problems (e.g. wars) in the past; however, it was not religion alone that was the cause. The primary cause was the fusing of religion with the State, which granted a particular religion the capability to persecute people and wage wars.




Article, in full:

show

This is only a partially sound argument.

A religious terrorist operating outside the law can still have a massive negative affect. If this religion manage to take over the government, it will amplify their reach and power. So religion is the cause, and government is the enabler. If they take over any organization though with a per-established power, it can turn the organization evil. So this applies to business's/nonprofits/universities/political parties etc. It's almost like religion is a disease, which gains it's power by taking over other normally healthy systems, and turning them to negativity.

It makes sense that we need freedom FROM religion, keep it out of government, to prevent this from happening. Religious "States" are always bad. Doesn't matter if it's a jewish state, a christian state, a muslim state, a scientologist state, they are all harmful.

bedub1 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Interesting article. She's stating that religion has been blamed for many problems (e.g. wars) in the past; however, it was not religion alone that was the cause. The primary cause was the fusing of religion with the State, which granted a particular religion the capability to persecute people and wage wars.




Article, in full:

show

This is only a partially sound argument.

A religious terrorist operating outside the law can still have a massive negative affect. If this religion manage to take over the government, it will amplify their reach and power. So religion is the cause, and government is the enabler. If they take over any organization though with a per-established power, it can turn the organization evil. So this applies to business's/nonprofits/universities/political parties etc. It's almost like religion is a disease, which gains it's power by taking over other normally healthy systems, and turning them to negativity.

It makes sense that we need freedom FROM religion, keep it out of government, to prevent this from happening. Religious "States" are always bad. Doesn't matter if it's a jewish state, a christian state, a muslim state, a scientologist state, they are all harmful.

The mistake here is not that tying religion to the state causes oppression, it is that giving people with a sense of superiority for any reason power through the state creates significant temptation to abuse their power, to justify their abuse as "deserved".

BUT... that happens with any form of power. How is today's worship of capital better? In fact, I would argue it is, in many ways actually worse, becuase it claims to be based not just on faith and belief, but upon reason and work. The problem is that belief is really not much better than the idea that being born to a monarchy automatically made you a good ruler. Being born to priviliage tends to give you a better chance at not just education, but the all important connections that allow you to use your education, to have it considered of value. Similarly, a peasant under a monarchy might be a good horseman, even gain some skill in arms superior to many nobles, but aside from very few tournaments or other minor exceptions, has little opportunity to move up into the ranks of the nobility.

oVo wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh yeah, there's a distinction between the two: "you'll never hear of Baptists, Quakers, or Amish oppressing other religions."

Baptists oppress all kinds of people/religion and other aspects of life
and can't be compared to the Quakers and Amish. A Baptist's Sunday
convictions is no equivalent to the daily beliefs of the Q&A.

Your evidence is compelling.

I guess the only way to settle it is for you and Vince LaRue to jump into a pit with an 8 foot radius, and duke it to the death using only wet socks.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Interesting article. She's stating that religion has been blamed for many problems (e.g. wars) in the past; however, it was not religion alone that was the cause. The primary cause was the fusing of religion with the State, which granted a particular religion the capability to persecute people and wage wars.




Article, in full:

show

This is only a partially sound argument.

A religious terrorist operating outside the law can still have a massive negative affect. If this religion manage to take over the government, it will amplify their reach and power. So religion is the cause, and government is the enabler. If they take over any organization though with a per-established power, it can turn the organization evil. So this applies to business's/nonprofits/universities/political parties etc. It's almost like religion is a disease, which gains it's power by taking over other normally healthy systems, and turning them to negativity.

It makes sense that we need freedom FROM religion, keep it out of government, to prevent this from happening. Religious "States" are always bad. Doesn't matter if it's a jewish state, a christian state, a muslim state, a scientologist state, they are all harmful.

The mistake here is not that tying religion to the state causes oppression, it is that giving people with a sense of superiority for any reason power through the state creates significant temptation to abuse their power, to justify their abuse as "deserved".

BUT... that happens with any form of power. How is today's worship of capital better? In fact, I would argue it is, in many ways actually worse, becuase it claims to be based not just on faith and belief, but upon reason and work. The problem is that belief is really not much better than the idea that being born to a monarchy automatically made you a good ruler. Being born to priviliage tends to give you a better chance at not just education, but the all important connections that allow you to use your education, to have it considered of value. Similarly, a peasant under a monarchy might be a good horseman, even gain some skill in arms superior to many nobles, but aside from very few tournaments or other minor exceptions, has little opportunity to move up into the ranks of the nobility.

Off-topic. Make your own thread please.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Question: Might it not be that the belief that your group has privileged knowledge about the universe, it's creator and that which is right and wrong will usually lead to the belief that things should be run according to this privileged knowledge and thus the desire to spread and impose this privileged knowledge even through the means of the state?

Perfect description of the Godless Heathen usergroup of CC

The Godless Heathen usergroup on CC is trying to impose it's privileged knowledge of the universe through the means of the state? Oh my, I think MDF has let me out of the loop on this one. Who knew we had that much power!

Anyway, please explain what we are imposing on the theists.
What rights of yours are we trying to infringe upon?

Yeah, those in the Godless Heathen purport to have privileged knowledge of the universe by stating that they know that there is no God. They know that something came from nothing. They never present solid evidence of how that takes place, but rather mock those who disagree, acting as if anyone who would want evidence must be crazy. Give me a break, Haggis - you and the other GH vote for candidates to put them in a position of power to restrict individual liberties on the basis that all these inequalities must have social entitlement programs to rectify the unfairness. You're not personally coming over to peoples' houses and imposing your will on them - you're voting for people to use the power of government to do it for you in each other your respective countries.

In the US, your side is forcing people into crappy public schools, forcing us to pay for abortion practices through our taxes despite our ethical objections, not allowing us to be energy independent, and most recently - dissolving the direct doctor/patient relationship by forcing people into cooperatives (starts really rolling in 2014 though).

chang50 wrote:Haggis posts a thoughtful and well considered question and this response is a perfect description of all that I find unpleasant about religion,good job DB..you should be embarrassed.

Oh, stop it with the feigned disgust. I manage an entire department at work, and only have time to post once in awhile now. Somebody has to work to fund all these stupid entitlement programs that the utopians here want.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Interesting article. She's stating that religion has been blamed for many problems (e.g. wars) in the past; however, it was not religion alone that was the cause. The primary cause was the fusing of religion with the State, which granted a particular religion the capability to persecute people and wage wars.




Article, in full:

show

This is only a partially sound argument.

A religious terrorist operating outside the law can still have a massive negative affect. If this religion manage to take over the government, it will amplify their reach and power. So religion is the cause, and government is the enabler. If they take over any organization though with a per-established power, it can turn the organization evil. So this applies to business's/nonprofits/universities/political parties etc. It's almost like religion is a disease, which gains it's power by taking over other normally healthy systems, and turning them to negativity.

It makes sense that we need freedom FROM religion, keep it out of government, to prevent this from happening. Religious "States" are always bad. Doesn't matter if it's a jewish state, a christian state, a muslim state, a scientologist state, they are all harmful.

The mistake here is not that tying religion to the state causes oppression, it is that giving people with a sense of superiority for any reason power through the state creates significant temptation to abuse their power, to justify their abuse as "deserved".

BUT... that happens with any form of power. How is today's worship of capital better? In fact, I would argue it is, in many ways actually worse, becuase it claims to be based not just on faith and belief, but upon reason and work. The problem is that belief is really not much better than the idea that being born to a monarchy automatically made you a good ruler. Being born to priviliage tends to give you a better chance at not just education, but the all important connections that allow you to use your education, to have it considered of value. Similarly, a peasant under a monarchy might be a good horseman, even gain some skill in arms superior to many nobles, but aside from very few tournaments or other minor exceptions, has little opportunity to move up into the ranks of the nobility.

Off-topic. Make your own thread please.

Nice try...
once again, you just reject or belittle what you don't wish to answer.

The basic thesis you put forward is wrong. Its not tying religion to the state that causes the problems, its tying too much group or individual power to the state. That is why our leaders are supposed to relected every 4 -8 years. Of course, that has been subverted by massive quantities of money and the idea that more money = more correct.

DangerBoy wrote:

chang50 wrote:Haggis posts a thoughtful and well considered question and this response is a perfect description of all that I find unpleasant about religion,good job DB..you should be embarrassed.

Oh, stop it with the feigned disgust. I manage an entire department at work, and only have time to post once in awhile now. Somebody has to work to fund all these stupid entitlement programs that the utopians here want.

Really?

Too bad most of us are not getting paid more than base wages for that work.. maybe THAT is what all this supposed fight for "entitlements" is really about. But, this IS another topic...

It is quite a jump from "matter cannot be created from nothing" to "my morality is better than yours, and everyone must follow it regardless of the consequences."

Isn't it? Am I think only one who sees this?

GreecePwns wrote:It is quite a jump from "matter cannot be created from nothing" to "my morality is better than yours, and everyone must follow it regardless of the consequences."

Isn't it? Am I think only one who sees this?

Well, jay is about the only one I have seen to post such an argument here, though. Are you debating jay? Otherwise, the point is irrelevant.

Well in the political arena, that is what social conservatism is. It is also what Islamism/Zionism/whatever you call Christian theocracy is. You can see the consequences of that belief I've described when taken to various extremes:

When taken to a political extreme inside a country's borders, we get social conservatism. "My morality says homosexuality is bad and my morality is better than yours, so I will use my political power to ensure gays can't marry/live in this country/live at all."

When taken to a violent political extreme, we the things mentioned in the OP.

Government provides the opportunity (not the only opportunity but the most prominently used one) for things like social conservatism and other, more violent religious movements to take hold.

And the "matter cannot be created from nothing" premise leads to a whole host of conclusions many of which specifically contradict the claim "my morality is better than yours, and everyone must follow it."

So we can say it is both the fault of the person who believes these things and the government providing opportunities to express these beliefs in a coercive way. You need both a pro-coercion movement and an opportunity to coerce for coercion to happen.

DangerBoy wrote:Yeah, those in the Godless Heathen purport to have privileged knowledge of the universe by stating that they know that there is no God.

Name one GH member who actually claims this.
I would like to talk about the nature of knowledge with them, because that is a ridiculous position. Afaik all GH members claim that they either lack belief in God or that they BELIEVE god doesn't exist (i'm the latter).

DangerBoy wrote:They know that something came from nothing. They never present solid evidence of how that takes place, but rather mock those who disagree, acting as if anyone who would want evidence must be crazy.

Again, who exactly claims to know this?
What I know is that I don't know how the big bang came around. And that it's not really important for the god debate, it's more of a red herring.

I think it's mostly a particular brand of theists who have the unbelievable gall to claim they know exactly how the universe started when the best physicists can make no such claim.

DangerBoy wrote:Give me a break, Haggis - you and the other GH vote for candidates to put them in a position of power to restrict individual liberties on the basis that all these inequalities must have social entitlement programs to rectify the unfairness. You're not personally coming over to peoples' houses and imposing your will on them - you're voting for people to use the power of government to do it for you in each other your respective countries.

1. I have never voted
2. So our oppression consists in casting a democratic ballot. THE HORROR. I guess it's a compliment. The OP talks about "the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the treason against the Waldensians, the purges in England, and the oppression in Geneva, to name but a few" and the best oppression you can come up for the atheists is voting? Damn, we must be doing real good.

DangerBoy wrote:In the US, your side is forcing people into crappy public schools, forcing us to pay for abortion practices through our taxes despite our ethical objections, not allowing us to be energy independent, and most recently - dissolving the direct doctor/patient relationship by forcing people into cooperatives (starts really rolling in 2014 though).

1. Really, atheists are doing all of these? That's weird since we're what? 10% of the population and simply admitting to being an atheist is probably still considered political suicide in the US.
2. I take it you don't really believe in democracy if you view democratically elected officials you don't like as being a form of oppression upon your group.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh yeah, there's a distinction between the two: "you'll never hear of Baptists, Quakers, or Amish oppressing other religions,"

So, it can't be all that encompasses theism.

The answer may lie in the following:

Maybe the other religions are more warlike? There's a lot about fire and brimstone in the Bible and other works, but there's also forcing others to abide by whatever cherry-picked laws that are gleaned from the special book.

So if certain believers can cherry-pick, then maybe the primary cause is one of selective perception? Maybe, it takes a bad bigot to distort the Bible to his/her liking, in order to confirm his own preconceived notions? (should we ask jay and PS about this?)

Hmm, yeah, I dunno what the relevant difference between "Baptists, Quakers, or Amish" and the major religions might be.

I don't think it's necessary for the religion to be particularly war-like for oppression to happen. What I was trying to get at is that the belief itself that you have privileged knowledge seems to me to naturalle lead to problems because it places you on a perceived higher plane.

For instance, I have some religious friends. I wonder sometimes how they deal with the fact that they're supposed to believe I shall suffer eternal torture after I die. If they REALLY believed this as fact, should they not be constantly trying to save me from this fate, even though this would probably lead to the distruction of our friendship ?
There must be something intervening that stops them from that, perhaps they aren't completely sure, perhaps it's just manners, or the social contract or something or perhaps they just avoid the thought. Dunno

Maybe they are not your friends and are rooting for the day that you are roasting on spit being turned by a fork-tailed being.
No, seriously, most people are just really shy about it. It takes a certain amount of nerve to do the whole door-to-door thing.

The relevant difference? They are pacifists. All the other ones that go on binges of killing at some level don't have a problem with war/killing, they just think that usually it has to be in self-defense. And like most humans eventually you will find someone who will take a point to excess.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Interesting article. She's stating that religion has been blamed for many problems (e.g. wars) in the past; however, it was not religion alone that was the cause. The primary cause was the fusing of religion with the State, which granted a particular religion the capability to persecute people and wage wars.




Article, in full:

show

This is only a partially sound argument.

A religious terrorist operating outside the law can still have a massive negative affect. If this religion manage to take over the government, it will amplify their reach and power. So religion is the cause, and government is the enabler. If they take over any organization though with a per-established power, it can turn the organization evil. So this applies to business's/nonprofits/universities/political parties etc. It's almost like religion is a disease, which gains it's power by taking over other normally healthy systems, and turning them to negativity.

It makes sense that we need freedom FROM religion, keep it out of government, to prevent this from happening. Religious "States" are always bad. Doesn't matter if it's a jewish state, a christian state, a muslim state, a scientologist state, they are all harmful.

The mistake here is not that tying religion to the state causes oppression, it is that giving people with a sense of superiority for any reason power through the state creates significant temptation to abuse their power, to justify their abuse as "deserved".

BUT... that happens with any form of power. How is today's worship of capital better? In fact, I would argue it is, in many ways actually worse, becuase it claims to be based not just on faith and belief, but upon reason and work. The problem is that belief is really not much better than the idea that being born to a monarchy automatically made you a good ruler. Being born to priviliage tends to give you a better chance at not just education, but the all important connections that allow you to use your education, to have it considered of value. Similarly, a peasant under a monarchy might be a good horseman, even gain some skill in arms superior to many nobles, but aside from very few tournaments or other minor exceptions, has little opportunity to move up into the ranks of the nobility.

Off-topic. Make your own thread please.

Nice try...
once again, you just reject or belittle what you don't wish to answer.

The basic thesis you put forward is wrong. Its not tying religion to the state that causes the problems, its tying too much group or individual power to the state. That is why our leaders are supposed to relected every 4 -8 years. Of course, that has been subverted by massive quantities of money and the idea that more money = more correct.

(1) Player, if you don't explain exactly how your post is relevant (e.g. that tangent on capital followed by guesswork on life of the noble followed by wtf am I reading.jpg), it will remain off-topic.

(2) If a religion was not "tied to the State," would it be more likely for that religion to be more destructive or less destructive to the heretics/non-believers?

(3) "...its tying too much group or individual power to the state." Right. No countervailing force, and things could get worse. That's obvious, but it doesn't refute the primary cause--which is the State's supply of power to the religious demand for power. Why doesn't it refute this? Because the fundamental cause which can lead to destructive public policies fueled by religion is the State's capacity to do so.