View Full Version : Why Religion Must End



Pages : [1] 2

HVAC Instructor
11-14-2009, 06:11 PM
Any chance for a reasonable discussion on this subject? Another thought provoking article. Enjoy:



Why Religion Must End: Interview with Sam Harris

A leading atheist says people must embrace rationalism, not faith--or they will never overcome their differences.



http://beliefnet.com/imgs/lede/samharris.jpg

Sam Harris is not your grandfather's atheist (http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2001/06/what-atheists-agnostics-believe.aspx). The award-winning writer practices Zen meditation and believes in the value of mystical experiences. But he's adamant in his belief that religion does more harm than good in the world, and has sparked controversy by suggesting that when it comes to faith-based violence, religious moderates are part of the problem, not the solution. Beliefnet (http://www.beliefnet.com/) editor Laura Sheahen spoke with him about his provocative book "The End of Faith" and his comments at the
World Congress of Secular Humanism (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/events/csh-2005.html) , where this interview was conducted.

You've said that nonbelievers must try to convince religious people "of the illegitimacy of their core beliefs." Why are these beliefs dangerous?


On the subject of religious belief, we relax standards of reasonableness and evidence that we rely on in every other area of our lives. We relax so totally that people believe the most ludicrous propositions, and are willing to organize their lives around them. Propositions like "Jesus is going to come back in the next fifty years and rectify every problem that human beings create"--or, in the Muslim (http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2001/06/what-muslims-believe.aspx) world, "death in the right circumstances leads directly to Paradise." These beliefs are not very contaminated with good evidence.

There are beliefs--like kids believing in the tooth fairy--that I wouldn't say are dangerous.


Right. Those are not as consequential. But this whole style of believing and talking about beliefs leaves us powerless to overcome our differences from one another. We have Christians against Muslims against Jews, and no matter how liberal your theology, merely identifying yourself as a Christian or a Jew lends tacit validity to this status quo. People have morally identified with a subset of humanity rather than with humanity as a whole.


You're saying we should be part of the human race, not part of any particular religious or national group?


Yeah. It is still fashionable to believe that how you organize yourself religiously in this life may matter for eternity. Unless we can erode the prestige of that kind of thinking, we're not going to be able to undermine these divisions in our world.


To speak specifically of our problem with the Muslim world, we are meandering into a genuine clash of civilizations, and we're deluding ourselves with euphemisms. We're talking about Islam (http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10004.html) being a religion of peace that's been hijacked by extremists. If ever there were a religion that's not a religion of peace, it is Islam (http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/islam/index.aspx).


If 9/11 hadn't happened, what would be the example atheists (http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10043.asp)would point to--another egregious, contemporary misuse of religion?


There are so many. Let's take the extreme case, honor killing in the Muslim world. Imagine the psychology of a man who, upon hearing that his daughter was raped, is inspired not to console her, not to seek immediate medical and psychological treatment for her, but to kill her. This is an honor-based, shame-based psychology. You cannot name a Muslim country to my knowledge where it doesn't happen. It even happens in the suburbs of Paris. It falls right out of the theology of Islam.


What are some problems with Judaism and Christianity?


There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Bible (http://bible.beliefnet.com/)--books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus. The Qur'an pales in comparison.


Richard Dawkins (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_1.html), a vocal atheist, has said the Old Testament God is a "psychotic monster."


Not only is the character of God diabolical in those books, but there are explicit prescriptions for how to live that are not metaphors; they are not open to theological judo. God just comes right out and says "stone people" for a list of offenses so preposterous and all-encompassing that the killing never stops. You have to kill people for working on the Sabbath. You kill people for fornication.

Doesn't the evidence show that people take their sacred texts with a grain of salt?


That's the point: in the West, we have delivered the salt. Obviously, people are no longer burning heretics alive in our public squares and that's a good thing. We in the West have suffered a sufficient confrontation with modernity, secular politics, and scientific culture so that even fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews can't really live by the letter of their religious texts.


We now cherry-pick the good parts. That's easier to do with the Bible because the Bible is such a big book and it's so self-contradictory; you can use parts of it to repudiate other parts of it. Unfortunately, the Qur'an is a much shorter and more unified message.


But you ask me what the scariest things are in Christianity (http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/index.aspx): this infatuation with biblical prophecy and this notion that Jesus is going to come back as an avenging savior to kill all the bad people.


Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Christians believe that Jesus is going to come back, period? They don't necessarily believe that he's going to come back as an avenging person to kill people.


One of the things that is overlooked by many Christians is that there is a wrathful Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus comes out and condemns whole towns to fates worse than Sodom and Gomorrah for not liking his preaching. You can find Jesus in some very foul moods.


Look at the theology of the "Left Behind" series of novels and all the religious extremists in our culture who describe a Jesus coming back with a sword and punishing those who haven't lived in his name.


Cherry-picking is a good thing and it's to be hoped that Muslims will eventually cherry-pick as well. But the Qur'an, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. I invite readers of your website who haven't read the Qur'an to simply read the book. Take out a highlighter and highlight those lines that counsel the believer to despise infidels, and you will find a book that is just covered with highlighter.


Let's return to your idea that people must be convinced of the "danger and illegitimacy" of their core beliefs. How can they be convinced?


It's a difficult problem because people are highly indisposed to having their core beliefs challenged. But we need to lift the taboos that currently prevent us from criticizing religious irrationality.


How do you bring it up, and in what context? At a party?


I'm not advocating that people challenge everyone's religious beliefs wherever they appear. In a crowded elevator, if someone mentions Jesus and you start barking at them, that's not really the front line of discourse.

Whenever you're standing at a podium or publishing a book or article or an op-ed, that's when it's time to be really rigorous about the standards of evidence.


Interpersonally, we don't challenge everyone's crazy beliefs about medical therapies or alien abduction or astrology (http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/) or anything else. Yet if the president of the U.S. started talking about how Saturn was coming into the wrong quadrant and is therefore not a good time to launch a war, one would hope that the whole White House press corps would descend on him with a straitjacket. This would be terrifying--to hear somebody with so much power basing any part of his decision-making process on something as disreputable as astrology. Yet we don't have the same response when he's clearly basing some part of his deliberation on faith.


Many people consider America to have been founded as a Christian nation. They think many of the Founding Fathers were specifically Christian and very religious, whereas many secularists argue they weren't. You've said the issue is a dead end.


I just think that it's the wrong battle to fight. Even if the [Founding Fathers] were as religious or deranged by their religiosity as the Taliban, their beliefs now are illegitimate. Secularists are on the right side of the debate and fundamentalists in our culture are distorting history. The Founding Fathers--many believed that slavery was a justifiable practice; we now agree that it's an abomination. Anyone trying to resurrect slavery because Thomas Jefferson, that brilliant man, didn't free the slaves--that's an argument that would be so appalling to us now, in terms of 20th-century morality.


You've said the First Amendment is insufficient to protect against encroachments of religion. What would you do to supplement what the First Amendment does?


I'm not eager to monkey with the Constitution. It has to happen at the level of popular, grassroots expectations of what it means to be a rational, well-educated human being.


You've said that people perceive the word "atheist" as along the lines of "child molester." How should atheists present themselves?


I'm very distrustful of finding the right label because labels are ultimately sloganeering. You had the label the "brights," which is stillborn. I think atheism and secularism are also names that ultimately we don't need. We don't need a name for disbelief in astrology. I don't think we need anything other that rationality and reason and intellectual honesty.

In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. You cannot have presidential aspirations without being willing to pretend to be certain that God exists. You have to pander to the similar convictions of 90% of the American population. 70% of Americans claim to feel that it is important that their president be strongly religious. No aspiring politician can fly in the face of those numbers now, so we are rewarding people for false certainty, false conviction.


Clearly, anyone who claims to be certain that Jesus was literally born of a virgin is lying. He's either lying to himself or he's lying to others. There's no experience you have praying in church that can deliver certainty on that specific point.


You're saying it's not verifiable.


It's just not the kind of thing that spiritual experience validates. You can pray in a room to Jesus and even have an experience of Jesus being bodily present. Jesus shows up with a whole halo and the beard and the robes and it's the best experience of your life. What does that prove? You wouldn't even be in the position to know whether the historical Jesus actually had a beard on the basis of that experience.


Yet one thing I argue in my book is that experiences like that are very interesting and worth exploring. There's no doubt that people have visionary experiences. There's no doubt that praying to Jesus for 18 hours a day will transform your psychology--and in many ways, transform it for the better.


I just think that we don't have to believe anything preposterous in order to understand that. [We can] value the example of Jesus, at least in half his moods, and we should want to discover if there's a way to love your neighbor as yourself and generate the kind of moral psychology that Jesus was talking about.

What is your response to people who like science, who agree with it, but who say "It's not enough, it doesn't satisfy me, I need more?"


With religious moderates, you have people talking about just wanting meaning in their lives, which I argue is a total non-sequitur when it comes down to justifying your belief in God.


If I told you that I thought there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard, and you asked me, why do you think that? I say, this belief gives my life meaning, or my family draws a lot of joy from this belief, and we dig for this diamond every Sunday and we have this gigantic pit in our lawn. I would start to sound like a lunatic to you. You can't believe there really is a diamond in your backyard because it gives your life meaning. If that's possible, that's self-deception that nobody wants.

What if people prefer self-deception to despair and chaos?


I would argue that is really not the alternative.


What is the alternative? If there's no God who orders things, some people would say there's chaos, it's all random, their life is meaningless. There really is despair out there--especially about evolution.


You don't have to believe in God to have the most extraordinary, mystical experience. Personally, I've spent two years on meditation retreats just meditating in silence for 12-18 hours a day.


You can try to be a mystic, like Meister Eckhart in the Christian tradition, without believing Jesus was born of a virgin. You can realize the value of community and compassion and love of your neighbor without ever presupposing anything on insufficient evidence.


There are many ironies here. The [sacred texts] themselves are very poor guides to morality. The only way you find goodness in good books is because you recognize it. They're based on your own ethical intuitions. In the New Testament, Jesus is talking about the Golden Rule--a great, wise, compassionate distillation of ethics. You're doing that based on your intuition.


Hopefully, also, you recognize that stoning someone to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night, or beating your child with a rod (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16021_1.html), as it recommends in Proverbs, and which millions of Christians do in our country, that's not a good thing. You know that based on your own intuitions and the evolving human conversation about what is ethical and most conducive to human happiness.


You're saying that we can figure out moral, ethical behavior on our own, without benefit of religious concepts.


All we have is human conversation to do this with. Either you can be held hostage by the human conversation that occurred 2,000 years ago and has been enshrined in these books, or you can be open to the human conversation of the 21st century. And if there's something good in those books, then it is admissible in the 21st century conversation on morality.


Some people say the good that religion does outweighs the bad things they get away with because they're religions.


We can do all that good--and we are doing all that good--without any affiliation with religion. It's true there are Christian missionaries doing very fine work in Africa. There are secular groups like Doctors Without Borders doing the same work. They don't need to believe in Jesus coming out of the clouds in order to do that work.


It's not that people don't do good and heroic things on the basis of their dogma, it's just those things aren't best done on the basis of religious dogma. We can agree that famine in Africa is intolerable to us for perfectly compassionate and rational and modern reasons that have nothing to do with beliefs. We just have to believe that it is unethical that people are starving to death while we are throwing out half of our meals.

ronronnie1
11-14-2009, 06:51 PM
Religion is a cancer on society. And Sam Harris is right. Religious moderates are part of the problem. To me, those Westboro crazy christians are just as christian as any. How can it be argued otherwise? There is nothing NOTHING good about religion.

buckt
11-14-2009, 09:05 PM
Religion is a cancer on society. And Sam Harris is right. Religious moderates are part of the problem. To me, those Westboro crazy christians are just as christian as any. How can it be argued otherwise? There is nothing NOTHING good about religion.

Please, please pay attention. No one with half a brain would place the nuts from Westboro under the heading of Christain! To think that the title "Christian" would be given to someone like Mother Teresa AND the Westboro nuts - doesn't make sense. I just wish some people would pull their head out long enough to make a fair and just evaluation without lumping everyone under the same title. Sheesshh....come on...I know you can do it!

ronronnie1
11-14-2009, 09:22 PM
I understand what you're saying, buckt, TOTALLY. I was being a bit sarcastic in equating the Westboros with every other christain, but they do fall under the umbrella of "christain." They aren't jewish, they aren't muslim... They aren't agnostic. The Westboro crazies represent the worst of religion. They use "religion" to back up their bile, just as "Islamic terrorists" use religion to back up theirs. The 45 carat Hope Diamond is no more and no less a diamond as that lab created crap they sell at WalMart. And thus my case is made.

Religion is a cancer on society.

buckt
11-14-2009, 09:27 PM
I understand what you're saying, buckt, TOTALLY. I was being a bit sarcastic in equating the Westboros with every other christain, but they do fall under the umbrella of "christain." They aren't jewish, they aren't muslim... They aren't agnostic. The Westboro crazies represent the worst of religion. They use "religion" to back up their bile, just as "Islamic terrorists" use religion to back up theirs. The 45 carat Hope diamond is no more and no less a diamond as that lab created crap they sell at WalMart. And thus my case is made.

Religion is a cancer on society.

My apologies - I totally missed your point. While I might agree, in some part, with your issue with 'religion' - I must confess I've known many, many people who are followers of Christ and who freely admit their relationship with Him and trying to live as best as they can to follow His teachings -are incredible people. I would not say they are 'religious'. But I would say their live represents good things that contribute to the good of their fellow man. I could give many details how they contribute but I'll save it for another time. Thank you for sharing your thoughts...

Caboose
11-17-2009, 07:06 PM
I understand what you're saying, buckt, TOTALLY. I was being a bit sarcastic in equating the Westboros with every other christain, but they do fall under the umbrella of "christain." They aren't jewish, they aren't muslim... They aren't agnostic. The Westboro crazies represent the worst of religion. They use "religion" to back up their bile, just as "Islamic terrorists" use religion to back up theirs. The 45 carat Hope Diamond is no more and no less a diamond as that lab created crap they sell at WalMart. And thus my case is made.

Religion is a cancer on society.

Kind of like how you represent the worst of political ideology. You use your ideology to back up your bile just as the Westboro crazies use religion to back up theirs. In all honesty, your ideology is no different than religion.

decepticobra
11-18-2009, 02:51 AM
religion ends when the world ends. only then theres nothing more to believe, only facts and results for various souls.

until then, believe what you will.

kevinpate
11-18-2009, 03:45 AM
A rather long winding path for the author to travel, to basically only say
'you're different, and that's bad.'

Caboose
11-18-2009, 07:42 AM
A rather long winding path for the author to travel, to basically only say
'you're different, and that's bad.'

No.

ronronnie1
11-18-2009, 12:56 PM
Kind of like how you represent the worst of political ideology. You use your ideology to back up your bile just as the Westboro crazies use religion to back up theirs. In all honesty, your ideology is no different than religion.


The difference is that I don't believe in Santa Clause... I mean Jesus. Keep up, silly.

Caboose
11-18-2009, 01:41 PM
[/B]


The difference is that I don't believe in Santa Clause... I mean Jesus. Keep up, silly.

Which makes it even worse. Your vitriol, hatred, and intolerance just come naturally, as opposed to being from fear of some imaginary supernatural being.

mugofbeer
11-18-2009, 03:36 PM
Considering there are probably 5 billion people on the planet of one religion or another, it ain't gonna end. Especially in our lifetimes, unless the apocolypse comes.

HVAC Instructor
11-18-2009, 03:40 PM
Which makes it even worse. Your vitriol, hatred, and intolerance just come naturally, as opposed to being from fear of some imaginary supernatural being.

Caboosey, you can be pretty nasty and hateful yourself. Chill out dude.

Anybody care to discuss the OP?

Bunty
11-19-2009, 11:02 AM
[/B]


The difference is that I don't believe in Santa Clause... I mean Jesus. Keep up, silly.

Well, gee, I do want to believe in Jesus because as a result of confessing my belief in Him, I'm supposed to have ever lasting life. Something that Santa Claus won't offer. I look forward to what happens after I die. However, the place in the Bible that says, "The dead know nothing," is far from reassuring. lol

gmwise
11-19-2009, 11:08 AM
I think any religion is partially good.
But religion tends to get taken over by the extremists and start the separation process.
US and THEM is always done to justified culture, race,class, and gender injustices.

There is never a bad outcome in treating others with respect, and honesty, and love.
I dont see a reason for me to attack religion or make laws against it.
But if they would focused on their own "house", before telling the rest of society where its goes wrong there's no reason why I wouldnt respect them.

muzique808
11-19-2009, 11:39 PM
religion ends when the world ends. only then theres nothing more to believe, only facts and results for various souls.

until then, believe what you will.

Like a friend used to say, we'll all find out in the end who was right, won't we.

muzique808
11-19-2009, 11:42 PM
By the way, out of fifteen replies to this thread (including my own), none have actually referenced or discussed any specific points in the article.

Interesting.

HVAC Instructor
11-20-2009, 05:37 AM
By the way, out of fifteen replies to this thread (including my own), none have actually referenced or discussed any specific points in the article.

Interesting.

Welcome to OKC Talk! That's pretty much par for the course here. The "bots", meaning conservobots and religobots tend to attack the poster most times rather than address the issue. There are some rare occaisions where the issue actually gets discussed.

MadMonk
11-20-2009, 07:40 AM
:LolLolLol

Also note that a liberal never, ever posts anything inflammatory or derogative in any way and always sticks to the issue with a cool, calm demeanor*. It's a shiny happy world in liberal-land (formerly Dementiaville). Enjoy your stay.

When the psychosis ends or you are ready to leave due to a lack of other people's money to spend, please exit through the door labeled "Reality". Watch your step, mind the gap and welcome back.

*"Your mileage may vary."

HVAC Instructor
11-20-2009, 08:39 AM
:LolLolLol

Also note that a liberal never, ever posts anything inflammatory or derogative in any way and always sticks to the issue with a cool, calm demeanor*. It's a shiny happy world in liberal-land (formerly Dementiaville). Enjoy your stay.

When the psychosis ends or you are ready to leave due to a lack of other people's money to spend, please exit through the door labeled "Reality". Watch your step, mind the gap and welcome back.

*"Your mileage may vary."

True, the libtards can be pretty nasty, but even you, MM, have to admit the conservo-religi-bots tend to be the nastiest while at the same time claiming the high road and following Jesus et al.

And if they disagree with you, they'll put you on "ignore" but will always post in your threads while "ignoring" you. :LolLolLol

mugofbeer
11-20-2009, 08:48 AM
True, the libtards can be pretty nasty, but even you, MM, have to admit the conservo-religi-bots tend to be the nastiest while at the same time claiming the high road and following Jesus et al.

This is a questionable claim at best and totally unprovable.

In my time on here, I've observed that just on this site, those who are fringe left-wing are far more personal, far more combative and far nastier than those on the religious right. Certainly the righties are not without their moments but certain people on this site can't say a word without throwing in name-calling or insulting someone.

buckt
11-20-2009, 08:52 AM
This is a questionable claim at best and totally unprovable.

In my time on here, I've observed that just on this site, those who are fringe left-wing are far more personal, far more combative and far nastier than those on the religious right. Certainly the righties are not without their moments but certain people on this site can't say a word without throwing in name-calling or insulting someone.

Agree!

HVAC Instructor
11-20-2009, 09:09 AM
This is a questionable claim at best and totally unprovable.


Especially when you tend to side with the righties, right mugsy?

Stan Silliman
11-20-2009, 09:33 AM
Like a friend used to say, we'll all find out in the end who was right, won't we.

Doubt it.

That's the problem. People are willing to destroy the world or, at the least, somebody else's world based on a fable.

Folks, relying on a fable, crashed planes into buildings. Nobody can prove you will rewarded with 72 virgins, but hey, let's kill 4000 people on the off chance.

Wackos like Amanutjob in Iran are willing to use nuclear weapons and bring on Armegedden based on religious beliefs. He and other Shiites feels this satisfies a prophecy. That's a good reason to call for an end to religion.

For those who say just as many people died under godless communism to refute my point, I will agree. However, communism as it played out and was practiced by the soviets was, actually, a religion.

mugofbeer
11-20-2009, 09:35 AM
Especially when you tend to side with the righties, right mugsy?

Somewhat, but remember, I voted for Mr. O. You didnt...... (smile).

Not as righty as you might think.

DaveSkater
11-20-2009, 09:56 AM
Out of the 6.5 billion people on this planet nearly 5.8 billion believe in some sort of religion. It ain't going anywhere soon.

Dawkins, Harris and other "enlightened" secular fundamentalists would argue that christianity is bad for society and stands in the way of an so called ordered and intelligent civilization.

Harris states: "the degree to which religious ideas still determine govenmental policies - especially those of the United States - presents a grave danger to everyone."

Dawkins states that opposition to evolutionary dogma "comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States."

Dawkins and other contemporary aetheists bring nothing new to christianity bashing. People down thru the ages have urged believers to discard their "fairy tales" and "poorly written poems.

The problem with all of this of course is those pesky statistics. To quote Joseph Stalin, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"

Here are a few more statistics for you to consider. These are not people who have died in wars, or by plague, but who were killed by militant aetheistic, christian hating communists, socialists, and facists. They were lined up on a wall and shot, or put in an oven and gassed for believing in God:

USSR from 1917 - 1987 61,000,000
Communist China 1949 to present 35,200,000
MAO's army 1923-1949 3,400,000
Nazi Germany 1932 - 1945 20,000,000
Communist Poland 1945 -48 1,600,000
Communist Cambodia 1975 -1979 2,000,000
Communist Vietnam 1945 - 1975 1,600,000
Communist Yugoslavia 1944-1987 1,000,000
Anti-Christian Mexican Revol 1900-1920 1,400,000
Turkey 1900-1918 1,800,000
Pakistan 1958 - 1987 1,500,000
Japan 1936 - 1945 5,900,000

Total 170,000,000 people put to death at the hands of an aetheistic state, for the betterment of the state or some sort of enlightened Utopia.

So, all of you aetheist out there who wish to thrust your "logic" and danger rhetoric down the rest of us believer's throats, save it. It's nothing new, and has been tried before, and 25,000,000 people died OUTSIDE of those numbers above fighting in wars initiated by those "enlightened" despots.

Damn them pesky details and statitics huh?


"PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!!!"
Chaplain Howell Forgy; December, 1941 aboard the ship USS New Orleans at Pearl Harbor.

Luke
11-20-2009, 10:08 AM
A religion to end all religion.

Sounds like a great idea!

Stan Silliman
11-20-2009, 11:51 AM
Out of the 6.5 billion people on this planet nearly 5.8 billion believe in some sort of religion. It ain't going anywhere soon.

Dawkins, Harris and other "enlightened" secular fundamentalists would argue that christianity is bad for society and stands in the way of an so called ordered and intelligent civilization.

Harris states: "the degree to which religious ideas still determine govenmental policies - especially those of the United States - presents a grave danger to everyone."

Dawkins states that opposition to evolutionary dogma "comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States."

Dawkins and other contemporary aetheists bring nothing new to christianity bashing. People down thru the ages have urged believers to discard their "fairy tales" and "poorly written poems.

The problem with all of this of course is those pesky statistics. To quote Joseph Stalin, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"

Here are a few more statistics for you to consider. These are not people who have died in wars, or by plague, but who were killed by militant aetheistic, christian hating communists, socialists, and facists. They were lined up on a wall and shot, or put in an oven and gassed for believing in God:

USSR from 1917 - 1987 61,000,000 *1
Communist China 1949 to present 35,200,000 *1
MAO's army 1923-1949 3,400,000 *1
Nazi Germany 1932 - 1945 20,000,000 *2
Communist Poland 1945 -48 1,600,000 *1
Communist Cambodia 1975 -1979 2,000,000 *1
Communist Vietnam 1945 - 1975 1,600,000 *1
Communist Yugoslavia 1944-1987 1,000,000 *1
Anti-Christian Mexican Revol 1900-1920 1,400,000
Turkey 1900-1918 1,800,000 *3
Pakistan 1958 - 1987 1,500,000 *4
Japan 1936 - 1945 5,900,000 *5

Total 170,000,000 people put to death at the hands of an aetheistic state, for the betterment of the state or some sort of enlightened Utopia.

So, all of you aetheist out there who wish to thrust your "logic" and danger rhetoric down the rest of us believer's throats, save it. It's nothing new, and has been tried before, and 25,000,000 people died OUTSIDE of those numbers above fighting in wars initiated by those "enlightened" despots.

Damn them pesky details and statitics huh?


"PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!!!"
Chaplain Howell Forgy; December, 1941 aboard the ship USS New Orleans at Pearl Harbor.

Again, if we COULD get rid of religion, we'd also have to get rid of the "isms" who fervent followers resemble religiosity.

*1 Communists - who believed the only way the world would be be better off was is if everyone in the world were communists. Loyalty to the party and it's principles. That's a religion. How is that different to a degree from missionarys or the catholic church sending out their conquistadors?

*2 Nazis - Perverted form of Christianity who felt they were doing the world a favor by ridding us of jews, homos and communists.

*3 Turkey - Just another holy war, this time the Muslims ridding the world of Christian Armenians

*4 Pakistan - Muslims against Hindus. Another case against religion

*5 Japan - Hirohito was considered a diety. Same old fable: be a kamikaze and you'll be rewared as a martyr.

You can't get rid of religion without getting rid of all "isms" and utopiastic notions.

PennyQuilts
11-20-2009, 12:47 PM
Good post, Stan. How's it going, these days?

kd5ili
11-20-2009, 01:10 PM
Get rid of Religion and people will just find other excuses to either go to war or slaughter groups of people.

-Chris-

edcrunk
11-20-2009, 02:12 PM
Religion killed Christ. He says if your enemy is hungry, feed him, thirsty... Give him something to drink. He also says to love the Lord with all your being and treat others how you would wish to be treated. That's how I strive to live... And when I mess up, I admit I was wrong and ask for forgiveness. I don't take veangeance cuz he says he will repay. Screw religion, but this rekationship I have with God is pretty frikkin rad.

PennyQuilts
11-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Religion killed Christ. He says if your enemy is hungry, feed him, thirsty... Give him something to drink. He also says to love the Lord with all your being and treat others how you would wish to be treated. That's how I strive to live... And when I mess up, I admit I was wrong and ask for forgiveness. I don't take veangeance cuz he says he will repay. Screw religion, but this rekationship I have with God is pretty frikkin rad.

There you go, then!

gmwise
11-20-2009, 08:31 PM
This is a questionable claim at best and totally unprovable.

In my time on here, I've observed that just on this site, those who are fringe left-wing are far more personal, far more combative and far nastier than those on the religious right. Certainly the righties are not without their moments but certain people on this site can't say a word without throwing in name-calling or insulting someone.

No Mugs its provable it would just take some time to go thru all the postings and read thru them all and determined where from the postings the poster leans too...

gmwise
11-21-2009, 07:24 AM
Saw a funny picture of poor Sarah.
http://www.edkrebs.com/herb/Fascist-Palin-.jpg

gmwise
11-21-2009, 07:33 AM
"The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."
-- U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace, quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944


What did the Fascist regimes in Italy, Germany, and Spain have in common?
They consisted of a highly militarized state, backed by corporation and a wealthy elite, that rose to power through a false populism that exploited the public’s fear of foreigners and "moral degenerates".

This precisely defines the formula that Karl Rove designed to consolidate the Bush administration’s power in the recent election.
--Sean Donahue, Nov. 2004

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
--Randall Terry, quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 16, 1993

The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening.
--Pat Robertson


The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
--Pat Robertson


Get the few liberals out. If you don't do it, it ain't gonna be done. You will be doing the Lord's work, and he will richly bless you for it.
--Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, Christian Coalition's Road to Victory Conference, 2002, Washington D.C


If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell.
-- Jimmy Swaggart

OKCisOK4me
11-21-2009, 08:29 AM
A religion to end all religion.

Sounds like a great idea!

Isn't this Scientology?

PennyQuilts
11-21-2009, 09:24 AM
I personally don't know any Christians particularly impressed with Jimmy.

buckt
11-21-2009, 10:02 AM
The Mayflower's captain worked his way around the Cape, searching for a place to drop anchor, an intense debate ensued. By nightfall, the leaders had drafted an agreement, called the Mayflower Compact. Among its key clauses were these words: "Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith . . . a voyage to plant the First Colony . . . [we] solemnly . . . in the presence of God and of one another, Covenant . . . ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic. . . . "

buckt
11-21-2009, 10:08 AM
Consider these words from the Father of Our Country. On the eve of his leaving public life, Washington wrote to the Governors of the 13 States… his final paragraph of that letter:

“I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.”

gmwise
11-21-2009, 11:15 AM
I personally don't know any Christians particularly impressed with Jimmy.

If you mean Jimmy Swaggert. I agree, but there they are....on second thought you think they borrowing their "audience" footage from Fox News?


lol

DaveSkater
11-23-2009, 08:38 AM
I find it strangely ironic that this thread got so far off track. The thread reads, "Why religion must end." Every Christian hating dictator or state government that has said that very thing since 1900 has resulted in MILLIONS of people put to death for their beliefs.

170,000,000 people were EXTERMINATED on this very premise. Those who don't heed history are bound to repeat history. For 2010 years, people have believed and worshipped Jesus Christ. In those nearly 2010 years, no exterminations have been done in His Name or at His direction, because He never directed anyone to do so. Have there been lunatics that claimed to be following scripture do bad things? Yes. Have there been wars fought in His name? Yes. The difference is also quite clear. At the end of the day, He is still known as the Prince of Peace. To spread His word is to be a peaceful endeavor.

Atheism, or fundamental secularism when practiced at the state level or by a dictator or ruler is down right evil and murderous. The numbers, specifically the 170 million, prove that to be true. You can believe that atheism is not evil all you want, and you can go about proudly proclaiming yourself as one as much as you want too. Same with Satanists. They are afforded the same protections under freedom of religion. Just know what company you keep, and try not to paint it with a rosy innocent brush of "enlightenment" for the rest of us. Just know that you're in fine company with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Marquis De Sade, Crowley, Anton LeVay, Mao and others of that ilk. Which is your right.

gmwise
11-23-2009, 11:33 AM
In those nearly 2010 years, no exterminations have been done in His Name or at His direction, because He never directed anyone to do so. Have there been lunatics that claimed to be following scripture do bad things? Yes. Have there been wars fought in His name? Yes..

The Old Testament..Crusades, The Europeans arriving in the Western Hemisphere...
Part of the problem is the vagueness that the Bible was written, some would argue it was not meant to be a codified set of behavior such as the Leviticus or even parts of Exodus (that which govern the procedures and practices of the Priests).
It was and always been a US and THEM, it was bound to happened on the basis of either of these :color,culture,wealth,class, level of education,and political beliefs as well as religious ones.
Small minds and small people like to pick out differences to say how more American or Christian, or educated or wealthy (or whatever they feel is their only redeeming quality) they like comparing to those they are attacking.

PennyQuilts
11-23-2009, 12:20 PM
The Old Testament predated 2010 years ago. Or thereabouts. I believe that number was selected to indicate from the time of the New Testament although there is a lot of disputes about the year of the birth of Christ.

The Pilgrims and Puritans got along pretty well with the American Natives as did the French. Religion wasn't really an issue - if they fought, it was over land or trade. The Spaniards had problems and frequently fell back on religious reasons but that appears to be more of a means to an end except for the Catholic missions. The Indian Wars after the Civil War was not fueled by religion except in individuals. Our Revoluntionary War wasn't about religion and wasn't against the natives. If you go back and read from that time in history, there was a distinct idea that Indians had their land and the Europeans had theirs.

Stan Silliman
11-23-2009, 12:43 PM
I find it strangely ironic that this thread got so far off track. The thread reads, "Why religion must end." Every Christian hating dictator or state government that has said that very thing since 1900 has resulted in MILLIONS of people put to death for their beliefs.

170,000,000 people were EXTERMINATED on this very premise. Those who don't heed history are bound to repeat history. For 2010 years, people have believed and worshipped Jesus Christ. In those nearly 2010 years, no exterminations have been done in His Name or at His direction, because He never directed anyone to do so. Have there been lunatics that claimed to be following scripture do bad things? Yes. Have there been wars fought in His name? Yes. The difference is also quite clear. At the end of the day, He is still known as the Prince of Peace. To spread His word is to be a peaceful endeavor.

Atheism, or fundamental secularism when practiced at the state level or by a dictator or ruler is down right evil and murderous. The numbers, specifically the 170 million, prove that to be true. You can believe that atheism is not evil all you want, and you can go about proudly proclaiming yourself as one as much as you want too. Same with Satanists. They are afforded the same protections under freedom of religion. Just know what company you keep, and try not to paint it with a rosy innocent brush of "enlightenment" for the rest of us. Just know that you're in fine company with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Marquis De Sade, Crowley, Anton LeVay, Mao and others of that ilk. Which is your right.

Weapons of mass destruction will eventually give way to weapons of ultimate destruction and if they're used they'll either be used for an "ism" or for a religion.

The "isms" are just as much to blame for our messes as are religions - and by that I mean all religions.

gmwise
11-23-2009, 12:58 PM
.... If you go back and read from that time in history, there was a distinct idea that Indians had their land and the Europeans had theirs.

PQ, its not just the "natives" and how Europeans treated them, the Puritans murdered people believing them to be witches and warlocks or the servants of the devil, on the unsubstantiated testimony of spurned or jealous lovers, and pure hateful people and other instances of the US and THEM, statement I made earlier.
Also the force removal and the genocidal behavior of this country towards the "natives", for example cant be overlooked
Did ya happen to read that period of history?

I think that period of history caused the region (New England for one), to be so liberal in thinking.
Once again the POV I given was in answer to DAVE's statement.
Hope you will read it again.
Thanks

PennyQuilts
11-23-2009, 01:38 PM
GM, I appreciate your reminding me about the witch hunts. It was a shameful episode in this country's history that fortunately didn't come close to the wholesale slaughters that took place in the old country. That they didn't engage in the scale as across the pond is to our credit. To this day, if you want to get a Christian riled, start talking witches having rights. But I personally don't think that is the basis for the liberal mindedness of the North East even though I agree the witch hunts were definitely Christianity fueled.

I think the primary reasons that part of the country is so liberal minded goes back to who settled it in the first place and who immigrated, thereafter. The puritan model kept government from religion because it felt such worldly things demeaned religion. That attitude has continued since that time. In addition, you have a huge population of of immigrants who aren't Christian who have settled in the Mid Atlantic States on up through New England. When I worked in the Commerce Department, more than half of upper management were Jewish. I know this because they always took off for Jewish holidays. Husband works for another federal agency and it is the same thing.

Stan Silliman
11-24-2009, 08:58 AM
Good post, Stan. How's it going, these days?

I'm doing okay, with my one good hand. Is that you, ECO?

PennyQuilts
11-24-2009, 09:34 AM
I'm doing okay, with my one good hand. Is that you, ECO?

Yes, indeed. I asked Stan to change it since we'll be home, soon. What is wrong with the other hand?

gmwise
11-24-2009, 09:39 AM
Yes, indeed. I asked Stan to change it since we'll be home, soon. What is wrong with the other hand?

Though I am not part of the conversation, I am laughing...(asking a guy about his hands)

PennyQuilts
11-24-2009, 09:41 AM
Maybe I should have just nodded and kept my confusion to myself. In dealing with men, sometimes it is just better to do that...

gmwise
11-24-2009, 09:47 AM
Maybe I should have just nodded and kept my confusion to myself. In dealing with men, sometimes it is just better to do that...

and really a lawyer should know stuff like that...lol

PennyQuilts
11-24-2009, 09:51 AM
and really a lawyer should know stuff like that...lol

I am a bad lawyer, I suppose.

Stan Silliman
11-24-2009, 11:13 AM
Yes, indeed. I asked Stan to change it since we'll be home, soon. What is wrong with the other hand?

My right hand went all Bob Dole on me. Right about the same time my hair went Kramer.

So now I'm a left-handed eraserhead. On the plus side,,, left handers are more creative.

DaveSkater
11-24-2009, 11:22 AM
Maybe I should have just nodded and kept my confusion to myself. In dealing with men, sometimes it is just better to do that...

I know the reverse is always the case. Just smile and nod knowingly!

HVAC Instructor
11-24-2009, 11:47 AM
I am a bad lawyer, I suppose.

Reading your posts these last few months, I'd have to say this is one of our rare moments of agreement.

buckt
11-24-2009, 12:09 PM
Reading your posts these last few months, I'd have to say this is one of our rare moments of agreement.

Mr. Instructor - here is an honest question. Where would sense of right and wrong come from in your religion free world? For instance - would murder be wrong in your religion free world? If so, why would it be wrong? Just wondering....

HVAC Instructor
11-24-2009, 12:13 PM
Mr. Instructor - here is an honest question. Where would sense of right and wrong come from in your religion free world? For instance - would murder be wrong in your religion free world? If so, why would it be wrong? Just wondering....

Fair question, which requires me to ask you a question. Or two:

Does morality only exist within religion?

Are you suggesting that secular humans are incapable of morality?

buckt
11-24-2009, 12:19 PM
Fair question, which requires me to ask you a question. Or two:

Does morality only exist within religion?

Are you suggesting that secular humans are incapable of morality?

No - my question is WHERE does the whole 'right/wrong' guide come from? I mean - that sense of 'this is wrong' whether murder or stealing etc. - is that sense with us from birth?

HVAC Instructor
11-24-2009, 12:47 PM
No - my question is WHERE does the whole 'right/wrong' guide come from? I mean - that sense of 'this is wrong' whether murder or stealing etc. - is that sense with us from birth?
From human beings capable of thought and reason. It really is that simple.

Somewhere along the line, religion was invented, by humans, to control other humans.

All humans are capable of love and various emotions, whether one is religious or A-religious.

Religion is not required to teach right from wrong. Thought and reason is all that is required.

buckt
11-24-2009, 12:50 PM
From human beings capable of thought and reason. It really is that simple.

Somewhere along the line, religion was invented, by humans, to control other humans.

All humans are capable of love and various emotions, whether one is religious or A-religious.

Religion is not required to teach right from wrong. Thought and reason is all that is required.

Interesting. So...we really don't need laws to govern right from wrong because we all have 'thought and reason' - therefore we don't really have to respond to any kind of authority because we are our own authority?