What Makes People NOT believe In God? (Atheists Come!)

Dauer, I like you and think you're a fantastic debater. I really enjoy reading your posts, so please understand this isn't an attempt to insult you but just point something out so try to look at it without getting angry or offended.

I think you are being INCREDIBLY hypocritical and I'd like to suggest that you take a step backwards from the situation for a moment and try to get an objective view of what you're saying without whatever prejudice is driving you about the Jewish religion.

Your knowledge of christianity appears to be even more minimal than my knowledge of Judaism (except I have the valid excuse that judaism with only 14 million believers is quite a small and insignificant religion, made famous only by its link with christianity and the persecution that relationship has caused).

You make statements like "christians are trinitarians"... I invite you to research the matter a bit more thoroughly, perhaps by typing christian and trinity into google and seeing how much raging debate there is over that exact point.

There is no such thing as "a christian", they are a diverse branch with many beliefs. If you compare a Jehovah's witness with a Christian Science Reading Room practitioner the difference between the two of them would probably exceed the difference between a catholic and a jew.

Your use of the word Christian to represent all of these (very different) religious denominations is a complete violation of your argument. That they themselves use the term is neither relevant nor entirely accurate. I invite you to look at intra-christian debate and see how often they exclude one another from the term. Fundamentalists commonly exclude catholics from the term christian. They almost all exclude mormons, jehovah's witnesses and christian reading room practitioners.

Whatever relationship you have with judaism is clearly clouding your judgement on these issues. Step back for a moment and attempt to look at the issue objectively.

Christianity evolved from Judaism, hence in classification there is a family term used to describe the entire family of religions. This group classification does get misused. A LOT. I'll be the first to admit that, and complaining about the misuse is entirely valid. That does not mean that the term does not exist or is not relevant. If you wish to complain that the title excludes islam, then that too is a valid point.

So if the next time someone says Judeo-christian, you say "excuse me, you should be including islam in that title" then that's certainly reasonable. If the next time somone says the judeo-christian belief of heaven, you say "excuse me, but the jewish belief doesn't include heaven so you perhaps should use the term 'christian' instead." then that too is reasonable.

But if the next time someone says judeo-christian you say "the two religions are unrelated, that term shouldn't exist". Then no. I can not agree with you there.

Now, here are some specific points of yours that I'm adressing.

dauer wrote:

There's a difference between asserting some basic understanding (or lack of understanding) the universe and contradicting science.

A religion makes statements about the world. These statements are either correct or incorrect. Since these statements are made with minimal scientific method they rarely conform to science. (Though there are amusing examples of random coincidences. For example the hindus picked a huge number to be the age of the universe and were almost exactly right).

Quote:

And if the Sumerians never wrote the epics the Inquisition would never have occurred. What's your point?

Yes. The sumerian epics, jewish myths and christian mythology are all related and although the link between sumerian myths and jewish myths has been established they are usually placed in different (yet still closely related family). Was my point somehow unclear? Did I mumble?

Quote:

Christianity broke away from Judaism. If it had remained a part of Judaism, its understanding of morality would have continued to evolve as Judaism's understanding did. But they broke off and were stuck with a very old text that did not continue to grow.

Lol, I guess it's your turn to be the religious bigot.

Quote:

I wrote:
They invented many of the specific sins which people were tried and punished for.
Show me an example.

Hmmm... okay, how about THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

Quote:

antibuddha wrote:
Yet remember that a jew, a christian and a muslim can all sit around discussing religion. They can talk about God,
No they can't, because a Christian believes in a Trinity while a Jew believes in a One immaterial, genderless, transcendant God or a panentheist God. A Jew could more easily relate to a Hindu or a Buddhist about God than a Christian.

You mean, A) the non-existant god that Buddhists don't even think in terms of or B) the system of avatars by which the Hindu pantheon self-incarnate? Dude, if you think they're even vaguely similar to the abrahamic concepts of deity then you're deluding yourself.

Quote:

In Judaism HaSatan is not evil and is just doing the will of God by testing us. But he plays a very minor role and is rarely discussed, if ever. There is no duality, no "evil God." God makes peace and creates evil.

A belief which exists within certain factions of christians I might add... and gosh, there is a character with the same name and similar function within the two religions, but the two religions are ENTIRELY dissimilar and unrelated. I guess I see your point Wink

Quote:

Angels in Judaism do not have free will. They simply do the will of God. They don't have wings and harps. People don't become angels when they die. On one level it can be understood that there are no angels and they are just man's attempt to put a face on the forces that come from God, as God Himself is beyond such representations (although not beyond metaphorical anthropomorphisms.)

Dude, despite the fact that you're unaware of the diversity of opinion on the matter amongst christians you could easily have that debate with a christian without any difficulty in communication (and if you did you'd find that a few christians hold that same belief). Imagine trying to discuss angels with a buddhist for example who could only liken them to bodhisvata.

True the LACK of similarity may make it easier to explain since buddhism being unrelated to abrahamic beliefs has no preconceptions on the matter, yet that is proof against the relationship.

(and even then buddhism consists of numerous VERY different forms all of which are refered to in the bracket description "buddhism". Something which is conceivable for you to apply to OTHER religions, just not Judaism)

Quote:

demons,

Well the Jews would obviously have to deny the concept since they're not dualists but the Christians and Muslims could discuss that. To be honest though I forgot about the lack of demonic forces in Jewish religion when I mentioned that. Yet it is a good example of the common ground between islam and christianity.

Quote:

heaven...

The details of the afterlife in Judaism are aggadic (non-legal) and so even among the Orthodox there's no real enforced belief, although there are some general ideas. There may be a place like heaven, but we really can't know anything about it and it's not worth talking about because this life is the one we are living.

Quote:

I wrote:
hell? (not too sure on Jewish stance there, can you enlighten me?)...
No hell in Judaism. According to one possible understanding there is a place like purgatory where people go before they go to a place like heaven, but this is not a bad place as it is a place of personal transformation.

Thanks. It has been way too long since I've read anything on Judaism. I appreciate the information.

Quote:

There is no parallel in Judaism for the Christian concept of messiah. In Judaism a person could not be a thing to worship, or serve as an offering. God could not be llimited in time or space. HaMoshiach according to the traditional view will be a person, a great leader who will bring world peace. There's a little more to it that, but basically this is just a person. More modern views would say that it's really just an ideal or that it's something that man can achieve by working together or that it's entirely incorrect.

Lol, I say the christian term messiah and you can recognize and discuss its existance in the jewish religion. Of course the two are unrelated Wink

Quote:

More in common! I think I'll start calling these overlaps "Judeo-Buddhism."

Lol, delightfully put but your parody is based on equivocation. The term Judeo-christian refers to common origin, not common belief. However if you wish to use the term Judeo-Buddhism to represent the commonalities between the two religions I would be delighted, particularly to see the faces of people the first time they encounter that term. Yet technically speaking it's not really a correct usage of the convention.

Quote:

[quote="I]stuff about David, Abraham, Moses et al.

These are all trivial things. A Jew doesn't even need to believe in any of them.[/quote]That's good since historical evidence suggests they may be largely mythological.

Quote:

I'm denying it. Christianity has more in common with Mithraism than it does with Judaism.

Well that's certainly true. Mithras worship and several other religions of the time appear to have played a heavy part in influencing the development of christianity.

Yet, according to current belief, christianity developed from a jewish messianic cult. Hence the commonality of origin. Like most cults it perverts the concepts of the original religion by taking passages from the holy text out of context and adding new concepts out of other religions.

Quote:

Not at all. They call themselves Christians. It's Christianity. Jews don't call themselves Judeo-Christians.

Nor do people commonly refer to themselves as hominadae, yet they are.

Quote:

So call it Judeo-Christian-Islamic or Abrahamic. Judeo-Christian suggests a special relationship between judaism and Christianity that does not exist.

A fair recommendation. Judeo-christian-islamic is probably more apt than judeo-christian and abrahamic is certainly much less of a mouthful.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

You make statements like "christians are trinitarians"... I invite you to research the matter a bit more thoroughly, perhaps by typing christian and trinity into google and seeing how much raging debate there is over that exact point.

I am actually aware of the differences and did think I ought to edit my post after I made the statement, but the fact remains that the majority of Christianity raises a being of time and space to a level of divinity exclusive of everything else, whether this be as an intermediary or as an actual part of the Godhead, it makes no difference. It is a huge violation of Torah and creates a gigantic theological gulf.

Quote:

Your use of the word Christian to represent all of these (very different) religious denominations is a complete violation of your argument. That they themselves use the term is neither relevant nor entirely accurate.

How is it irrelevant? Whether they consider themselves exclusively Christian to other groups, they are still all considered Christians. They make the claim.

Quote:

Whatever relationship you have with judaism is clearly clouding your judgement on these issues. Step back for a moment and attempt to look at the issue objectively.

You mean I can't just stand here and look objectively?

Quote:

Christianity evolved from Judaism, hence in classification there is a family term used to describe the entire family of religions. This group classification does get misused. A LOT. I'll be the first to admit that, and complaining about the misuse is entirely valid. That does not mean that the term does not exist or is not relevant. If you wish to complain that the title excludes islam, then that too is a valid point.

So who created the term and why? Are you sure you read the wikipedia entry?

Quote:

But if the next time someone says judeo-christian you say "the two religions are unrelated, that term shouldn't exist". Then no. I can not agree with you there.

I'm not making the claim they're unrelated. I am making the claim Christianity has more in common with the religions of Rome such as Mithraism and the Dionysians.

Quote:

dauer wrote:
There's a difference between asserting some basic understanding (or lack of understanding) the universe and contradicting science.

A religion makes statements about the world. These statements are either correct or incorrect. Since these statements are made with minimal scientific method they rarely conform to science. (Though there are amusing examples of random coincidences. For example the hindus picked a huge number to be the age of the universe and were almost exactly right).

Not if the religion's views of the world continue to evolve with new information about the world.

Quote:

Quote:
And if the Sumerians never wrote the epics the Inquisition would never have occurred. What's your point?

Yes. The sumerian epics, jewish myths and christian mythology are all related and although the link between sumerian myths and jewish myths has been established they are usually placed in different (yet still closely related family). Was my point somehow unclear? Did I mumble?

My point is that you were linking Christianity to Judaism via these myths. Why not take it a step further? Why does it begin with Christianity and end with Judaism? I suggest from now on this entire area be called "Judeo-Christian-Mormonism" in order to take into account that Christianity is not the end of the line.

Quote:

Quote:
Christianity broke away from Judaism. If it had remained a part of Judaism, its understanding of morality would have continued to evolve as Judaism's understanding did. But they broke off and were stuck with a very old text that did not continue to grow.

Lol, I guess it's your turn to be the religious bigot.

I didn't mean it that way. Jewish law has changed over time. It was different even in the time of Jesus than it is quoted in the Gospels. Linking Christianity to Judaism in such a manner as you have is saying, "Christianity got a hold of some old documents. These documents were being amended and reinterpreted from the day they were put on parchment. Christianity rejected this development of understanding and just took the old stuff. But we can still blame Judaism for having written a document that reflected the morality of an era."

Quote:

Quote:
I wrote:
They invented many of the specific sins which people were tried and punished for.
Show me an example.

Hmmm... okay, how about THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

Well, they're not called the ten commandments anywhere in the bible. They're called the ten sayings or things or words (all the same ambiguous word.) They don't get the same emphasis in Judaism because there are 613 mitzvot that get emphasis. They serve as categories. My point, however, is that take any specific mitzvah and show me how the Christians dealt with it and I'll show you how many times they violated Jewish law, including directly from the Torah.

Quote:

You mean, A) the non-existant god that Buddhists don't even think in terms of

Ayn Sof means No End. When a Jewish mystic speaks of the concept of ex nihilo, they're talking about God creating from Himself, which is the All or Nothing depending on how you look at it. Ayn Sof has the one attribute (only) of not ending, which corresponds with the mystic experience. At an even higher level of understanding God, there aren't even negative attributes. But Ayn Sof is the highest man can grasp. I've spoken with a Buddhist about this who said it is similar, protested my calling Buddhism an atheist religion, and said that they don't call Ultimate Reality God because the name has been taken over, basically, by the Christian idea and it becomes confusing. But he did not consider himself an atheist.

Quote:

or B) the system of avatars by which the Hindu pantheon self-incarnate?

No, I'm thinking of Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. Saguna brahman is parallel to God in either the normal sense or understood as the emanating Sefirot. Nirguna Brahman is parallel to Ayn Sof. We do not have pantheism, but we do have panentheism. These are not perfect parallels, but are far closer than anything found in Christianity.

Quote:

Dude, if you think they're even vaguely similar to the abrahamic concepts of deity then you're deluding yourself.

Again you confuse "Christian" for Abrahamic. Perhaps now you are realizing some of my issues with the term "Judeo-Christian?"

Quote:

Quote:
In Judaism HaSatan is not evil and is just doing the will of God by testing us. But he plays a very minor role and is rarely discussed, if ever. There is no duality, no "evil God." God makes peace and creates evil.

A belief which exists within certain factions of christians I might add... and gosh, there is a character with the same name and similar function within the two religions, but the two religions are ENTIRELY dissimilar and unrelated. I guess I see your point

Okay, yes, I made a strong statement that included a few too many words. This is an issue of shared scripture. But I still assert that HaSatan gets no emphasis in Judaism as more emphasis would be placed on the yetzer hara and yetzer tov (evil and good inclination, which correspond with the base drives and the ability to overcome them, the evil inclination not actually being evil unless we become slaves to it, and being potentially used as a tool for good.)

Quote:

Quote:
Angels in Judaism do not have free will. They simply do the will of God. They don't have wings and harps. People don't become angels when they die. On one level it can be understood that there are no angels and they are just man's attempt to put a face on the forces that come from God, as God Himself is beyond such representations (although not beyond metaphorical anthropomorphisms.)

Dude, despite the fact that you're unaware of the diversity of opinion on the matter amongst christians you could easily have that debate with a christian without any difficulty in communication (and if you did you'd find that a few christians hold that same belief). Imagine trying to discuss angels with a buddhist for example who could only liken them to bodhisvata.

Not if it was Tibetan Buddhism. Angels play a very very small role in Judaism, and are barely spoken of.

Quote:

(and even then buddhism consists of numerous VERY different forms all of which are refered to in the bracket description "buddhism". Something which is conceivable for you to apply to OTHER religions, just not Judaism)

I have no problem dividing Judaism into Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal, Humanist, etc. Orthodox can then be divided quite a bit into Hasidim, Haredim, Modern Orthodox. I have no problem with that at all. Perhaps you are thinking of Judaism as monolithc.

Quote:

Quote:
There is no parallel in Judaism for the Christian concept of messiah. In Judaism a person could not be a thing to worship, or serve as an offering. God could not be llimited in time or space. HaMoshiach according to the traditional view will be a person, a great leader who will bring world peace. There's a little more to it that, but basically this is just a person. More modern views would say that it's really just an ideal or that it's something that man can achieve by working together or that it's entirely incorrect.

Lol, I say the christian term messiah and you can recognize and discuss its existance in the jewish religion. Of course the two are unrelated

There are parallel names, but no parallel figures. They are actually completely different.

Quote:

Quote:
More in common! I think I'll start calling these overlaps "Judeo-Buddhism."

Lol, delightfully put but your parody is based on equivocation. The term Judeo-christian refers to common origin, not common belief. However if you wish to use the term Judeo-Buddhism to represent the commonalities between the two religions I would be delighted, particularly to see the faces of people the first time they encounter that term. Yet technically speaking it's not really a correct usage of the convention.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just attempting to bring in a little levity.

Quote:

Quote:
[quote="I]stuff about David, Abraham, Moses et al.
These are all trivial things. A Jew doesn't even need to believe in any of them.

That's good since historical evidence suggests they may be largely mythological.[/quote]

Historical evidence does not suggest David was mythical. Now you are generalizing. Abraham however, means Great Father so that is very suspect.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm denying it. Christianity has more in common with Mithraism than it does with Judaism.

Well that's certainly true. Mithras worship and several other religions of the time appear to have played a heavy part in influencing the development of christianity.

Yet, according to current belief, christianity developed from a jewish messianic cult. Hence the commonality of origin. Like most cults it perverts the concepts of the original religion by taking passages from the holy text out of context and adding new concepts out of other religions.

So why did it take these passages out of context? What sort of beliefs were they trying to assert and where there any similarities between these assertions and the beliefs of the followers of certain Roman religions? Looks more like they took the shell of a turtle and tried to fit it on a hamster properly (that was an attempt to avoid suggestive animals.) And then they realized the mistake and got a turtle, but the hamster was stuck in the shell.

Quote:

Quote:
Not at all. They call themselves Christians. It's Christianity. Jews don't call themselves Judeo-Christians.

Nor do people commonly refer to themselves as hominadae, yet they are.

Yeah, but they wouldn't reject the classification. I'm not Judeo-Christian as Christianity has no relation to me. Judaism did not come from Christianity. It's a flaud name for Jews (or Muslims.)

Quote:

Quote:
So call it Judeo-Christian-Islamic or Abrahamic. Judeo-Christian suggests a special relationship between judaism and Christianity that does not exist.

A fair recommendation. Judeo-christian-islamic is probably more apt than judeo-christian and abrahamic is certainly much less of a mouthful.

[/quote]

Hah! Now I know why I should read these things before replying to them.

Dauer

0 Replies

Dauer.

I apologise if I implied your knowledge of christianity was smaller than it actually was. Though I will point out that on an equal degree of evidence you condemned my knowledge of judaism and my allegation was almost completely reciprocal in intent rather than factual.

As much as I respect the Wikkipedia as a source of information, it is neither definitive nor unbiased. Yet even assuming every word within that article in question is the unblemished truth I still find nothing objectionable in the term. Whatsoever. I can only assume that you are reading more into that article than I am able to.

With all due respect to Cohen. The three religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam are closely related. Both Christianity and Islam are descended from the Jewish faith. Christianity directly and Islam far more indirectly (in fact I would be inclined to say that Islam has Judaic influnces rather than calling it a direct descent).

That over the course of 2000 years the two (still existing) religions have substantially differentiated is hardly surprising. That a newly forming christianity incorporated elements from religions other than that on which the cult is originally based is not surprising either.

Of course Judaists object to Christianity. As much as Christians would object to Heaven's Gate. Christianity is not Judaism, it is a cult which emerged from Judaism. Like many such offshoots it warps the original purpose of the religion. Also by being taught to gentiles it was explained (in most cases verbally) to people lacking a Jewish cultural background for a century before it was written. Thus the concepts were again warped moreso than even most offshoot religions would be.

Yet the two religions share a common background and a term has been invented to indicate the two of them. The term is both useful and a part of the english language.

As much as I respect you, I will not alter the fashion in which I speak my language, particularly when it is a useful term for adressing the relationship between two religions that most certainly are related. Even if they differ in various fashions.

[/quote]Hah! Now I know why I should read these things before replying to them.[/quote]

I do the same thing.

0 Replies

Wow, this exchange has been much more interesting than the theme of this thread. But then again, these threads are a dime-a-dozen here on A2K. The subject of your exchange isn't treated half as often as that of this thread's.

Thanks for pursuing this tangent.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Wow, this exchange has been much more interesting than the theme of this thread. But then again, these threads are a dime-a-dozen here on A2K. The subject of your exchange isn't treated half as often as that of this thread's.

Thanks for pursuing this tangent.

Yeah, but our exchange will be buried within another thread that no one will look at thus leaving people completely in the dark that it even occurred... still at least it gives us some privacy without gungasnake or the wonder squirrel leaping in with the dogmatic christian opinion.

0 Replies

But there are others listening, thinking about what is said, and pondering questions and comments. I have not posted for quite a few days because the back-and-forth conversation was between two posters, and I wanted to let them finish their dialogue.

Because there are so few participants here, the exhanges have been reasonable, calm, and interesting.

0 Replies

Oops, dys is reading along, so goes the reasonable, calm and interesting!

0 Replies

I just want to clarify my position because it seems it's gotten muddled. I'm not denying the connection between Judaism and Christianity. I simply disagree that a term should be used that emphasizes the relationship and de-emphasizes other relationships. It's also an innaccurate term because there are so many differences and have been so many differences from the earliest days of the Church. A better question[s] I think would be; what is judeo-christianity? What qualifies? Would it be accurate to refer to something taking place in the Muslim world as Judeo-Christian?

I respect your position, ab, but I just think somewhere along the line I may have emphasized a minor point and thus de-emphasized a major one.

On the current discussion, it would be nice if there were a few more threads that got away from the typical (Is there a God? Do you believe in angels? Christianity is a sham and you're all ignorant fools. The god of the bible is a bloodthirsty ogre. Science proves the Quran is true. Have you ever seen a ghost? How many fingers does God have? etc) and touched on some less touched upon stuff. Like how science proves the book of Mormon is true.

Dauer

0 Replies

dauer wrote:

I just want to clarify my position because it seems it's gotten muddled.

Don't worry. I do that so frequently I assume that it'll happen at least once in any conversation thread I'm in.

Quote:

I'm not denying the connection between Judaism and Christianity.

Cool, me either.

Quote:

I simply disagree that a term should be used that emphasizes the relationship and de-emphasizes other relationships.

Well, it's one term amongst a thousand... it just gets used more frequently than it should and in ways it shouldn't.

Quote:

A better question[s] I think would be; what is judeo-christianity?

Judeo-christianity is a religious family group consisting of Judaism, christianity and related religions. Example of use. Islam was heavily influenced in its development by judeo-christian influences... Or... Buddhism is not a judeo-christian religion.

Quote:

What qualifies? Would it be accurate to refer to something taking place in the Muslim world as Judeo-Christian?

Possibly.

Quote:

On the current discussion, it would be nice if there were a few more threads that got away from the typical

Yes.

0 Replies

dauer wrote:

A better question[s] I think would be; what is judeo-christianity? What qualifies?

To be honest with you the term really has no use outside of historical studies or theological research. There is NO way it should be used in everyday conversation. It's really more of a scientific term than something that should be used in political speeches.

0 Replies

I drop in occasionally, just don't interfere with the flow.

0 Replies

I'm a dyslexic agnostic with insomnia. I lie awake at night wondering if there really is a dog...

(OK, so I nicked that.)

0 Replies

Actually, I get tired of arguing religion. It's just not fun like it used to be when I was young.

0 Replies

I skipped pages, and people already answered the question, but I think an equally worthwhile question is why do some atheists go so far to be hostile to the concept of God that they have to use the words satanic or whatever in their piece of literature? A case of semantics gone wrong or simply wreckless reverse psychology in action? In fact, there are a lot of literature that blames religion for practically every bad things (I'm exaggerating but it's their argument).

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

In fact, there are a lot of literature that blames religion for practically every bad thing (I'm exaggerating but it's their argument).

Have you ever considered the possibility that religion is responsible for every bad thing?

IMHO it's not. But it's responsible for a lot of them. Nationalism and politics are the other three parts of the triumverate of trouble. Just about any negative event (on a large scale. Not a small individual-individual level) can be traced back to nationalism, politics or religion.

0 Replies

I think it's self defensive to acuse atheists of blaming religion for every bad thing, an attempt to make us seem blind and unreasoning in our arguments. This may not be a conscious thing, but still something to consider.

0 Replies

Quote:

Have you ever considered the possibility that religion is responsible for every bad thing?

No, and I know you know that's playing the scapegoat card.

Quote:

IMHO it's not. But it's responsible for a lot of them. Nationalism and politics are the other three parts of the triumverate of trouble. Just about any negative event (on a large scale.

Let's see. Slavery: religion? no.
The purges: religion? no, more like sociopathy.
Genghis Khan? greed.
Alexander? greed.
Hitler? greed, hatred.
Napoleon? greed.
WWI? Imperialism

You can not possibly tell me that you are willing to blame most of humanity's large scale mistakes on religion.

What major religious institutions such as the Catholic institutions are guilty of however, is to make a portion of the people into fanatics, and abuse their power. Some other religions such as the Aztecs' are guilty of the killing of people and that religion is born out of fear.

It is some people's delusions, greed, hatred, or inconsideration that is the root cause of the mistakes.

I agree with you that it is dangerous for people to just accept a certain religion without thinking about it rationally. However, Christians today are mostly moral people believing in the Golden Rule and all ( I hope anyways).

0 Replies

I still don't understand some extreme atheist's obsessions with the word satanic or anti-christ. Don't they see they're trying to attach their own meaning to a word that a society has found to mean bad? It's a play on semantics.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Quote:
Have you ever considered the possibility that religion is responsible for every bad thing?

No, and I know you know that's playing the scapegoat card.

Quote:
IMHO it's not. But it's responsible for a lot of them. Nationalism and politics are the other three parts of the triumverate of trouble. Just about any negative event (on a large scale.

Let's see. Slavery: religion? no.
The purges: religion? no, more like sociopathy.
Genghis Khan? greed.
Alexander? greed.
Hitler? greed, hatred.
Napoleon? greed.
WWI? Imperialism

You can not possibly tell me that you are willing to blame most of humanity's large scale mistakes on religion.

Actually, the greatest example of mass murder and carnage which history offers, i.e. the 90,000,000 deaths due to the banning of DDT, was caused by junk science and out-of-control yuppyism in government agencies.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39091&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Quote:
Have you ever considered the possibility that religion is responsible for every bad thing?
No, and I know you know that's playing the scapegoat card.

How appropriate given that a scapegoat is a jewish religious ritual Wink

Quote:

Let's see. Slavery: religion? no.

Capitalism. Not that religion did anything to fix it. That's off topic though.

Quote:

The purges: religion? no, more like sociopathy.

Which purge? There have been so many.

Quote:

Genghis Khan? greed.

Revenge and nationalism.

Quote:

Alexander? greed.

Nationalism, living up to daddy.

Quote:

Hitler? greed, hatred.

Nationalism, scapegoat, repressed national anger over prior defeat, repressive peace treaty, economics.

Quote:

Napoleon? greed.

Nationalism, Repressed anger over being short. Razz

Quote:

WWI? Imperialism

Naitonalism, Fear.

Quote:

You can not possibly tell me that you are willing to blame most of humanity's large scale mistakes on religion.

Not really, nationalism takes the cake. Though your examples reminded me that greed holds its fair share of the blame as well.

Quote:

I agree with you that it is dangerous for people to just accept a certain religion without thinking about it rationally. However, Christians today are mostly moral people believing in the Golden Rule and all ( I hope anyways).

Whoever has the gold makes the rules?

0 Replies

What Makes People NOT believe In God? (Atheists Come!)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know