Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?

NCOT -- Never said it was in Bible (at least none I am familiar with, OT, NT, Quran, (both Catholic and Protestant) that "conversion" (to include genocide) was the will of the "Christian God". Read the Alexander VI's decrees or the text of the original Thanksgiving in the Plymouth Bay Colony. It was Organized Religion, which is much more than founding texts.

 

well organised religion is what it is, as for your claims and allegations they seem remarkable flimsy and have no grounding in the teachings of Christ.

If that were not the case you would be able to show me where in the Bible Jesus commands his followers to kill those who dont convert ?

The real message of Christianity is Love, to Love God, Love Yourself and Love everyone else.

 

NCOT, that is your opinion. I, too, do not abscribe murfer and genocide to Christ's teaching.

The simple truth is that Organized Christianity (Catholic) did committ the atrocities of the Rhineland, the capture of Jerusalem, the Albigensian Crusade all while showering forgiveness on the murderers who did shout Jesus' name.

In the case of the Americas, the Conquistadors merely extended the religious intoilerance and bigotry that began in the Reconquista and Inquisition to the American Peoples (just do a wiki search). And the Protestants were worse, look at our Founding Father's First Thanksgiving Proclamation made by the Plymouth Colony (The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents: The First Thanksgiving Proclamation).

And let us face it, the Spanish Catholics (in the end at least) were not as vicious and racist as we nothern Europeans. The majority in Latin America are mixed blood, so the Nations survive somewhat. North of the Rio Grande very little remains of the Nations. My English ancestors were just a little more efficent than my Spanish ones.

The evidence is not "flimsy". Just get Ward Churchill's "Struggle for the Land". Or it up on Google Scholar. There are thousands and thousands of serious articles on the persecution of the Native Peoples by "good Christians" obeying what they were told was the "Christian God" to murder and rape in the name of Jesus.

This should come as no shock to anyone who has ever seriously looked at the history of Christianity. I am not saying any Bible condones this, that Jesus wanted this, or that is not horrendous in the eyes of G!d. I am merely staing that Christianity has had many, many periods of erroneous interpretation (the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, slavery in the Americas, the Inquisition, the Reconquesta, the ownership of the Congo, the tacit help to Nazis....) .

They all come under the heading of "false and unjustified violence done in the name of Jesus". But they hapopened all the same.

 

Timed out, NCOT, get any of these (Amazon.com: genocide native american: Books) from your library.

 

i sort of agree with you although i dont blame Christianity IMO the message of Christianity is a message of Love not one of slaughter so if thats the case then the Catholic Church was not following the teaching of Christ.

I came across this article a few weeks back
Morality

 

The trick of it is to separate the outer church (exoteric) that can be manipulated into backing immoral causes, often justified by misuse of the OT or NT from the true church (esoteric).

See, your conception of Chirst and Chistianity is based on your reading of the true church. It is not in conflict with the outer chruch (whether Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant--all of whom have done some terrible things).

That is why when discussing this I use "Christian God" and not G!d. I do not believe that my true G!d or true church would ever support a Pogrom or an Inquisition or the raising up of a Hilter (the Protestants in Germany supported him and were told to from most pulpits).

People, even well-meaning ones can stray from the path (sin, in its original sense). G!d cannot, since the Divine is the Path.

 

I have reported a few of them in other forums for their excesses in violent verbal insults. And this is through forum discussions, sometimes continents apart from each other. I can imagine in a face-to-face debate.

What there is between Jews vs. Muslims here in Israel has nothing to do with beliefs. It is all about politics. And I am sure you know it only too well. But you have to show the germ of the contension in the nature of the atheist.

And back to your original point, I wonder where you got the idea that we are talking here about converting someone to a different belief. We don't need to covert anyone to Judaism. In fact, when someone shows interest, we try to persuade him or her not to, and that there is no need. We have nothing to offer to anybody in the afterlife as a reward but dust to go back to. (Eccl. 12:7)

But, if there were no theists, as you suggest for the formula of a peaceful world, you would go out of business or start fighting among yourselves out of sheer boredom. Otherwise, what is it that activates atheists to put so much effort to erase the idea of God from the minds of theists?
Ben

 

Nick the Pilot, hi!

I do not think people would be better off without religion. They would still fight wars for land, natural resources, xenophobia, etc. Politicians would find a way to make people fight no matter what. Proof is in the 20th century. We saw the rise of communism, an atheistic approach to running a state and ruling a people. Thousands perished under communism simply because they were deemed threat to the state or did not agree with it. No matter what, people would hold beliefs or convictions, they just may not formally call it a religion. If state is all you care for on the surface and the government sets the rules of what you can and cannot do, say, etc., and whether you can prosper based on your political affiliations, then it is a form of religion. It's just godless. Modern China sets that example. The Chinese government has made attempts to crush any formal religions and limit their freedoms. Priests have been imprisoned. Muslims have been forced not to fast Ramadan in schools and to sell alcohol in their shops, all for the reason to "weaken" Islam. Another godless religion is in North Korea. It's leader is deemed god, he sets the rules and punishes whom he wills in the state. No formal recognized world religion is acceptable and practice of any other religion is punishable by the state law. Are the Chinese or North Koreans any better off? No. They just replaced recognized religions with atheistic statehood religions. If any atheist is convinced that a Utopia without any beliefs is possible, they are mistaken. As long as megalomaniacs are in power, humanity will always have a religion in place. It just might not be teaching charity, fasting, ritual prayer, etc. It would focus on state laws, its leadership and state defense.

 

Greedism, under the garb of religion, areligion, consumerism, capitalism, freedom, democracy etc will continue to rule and slaughter humans for a long time. Vasco da gama crossed cape of good hope in 1498. How many wars have been fought since then for religion? Well, how many wars before that? Its just a pop-belief that religion causes wars.

 

Could'a sworn I was just having this discussion about science. Apparently EveryThing is just another form of religion!

 

"the Buddhist do not believe in God"
Not true, I THINK the Buddhist believe in a non anthropomorphic entity that of course exists in all things, as it has no alpha and omega (per the Nazareth). The Buddhist believe that we can ultimately achieve the Buddha-hood and become one with this god (alas a version of paradise)
The Hindu idea is similar, except they have minor gods who are from a devic race not human, but they also admit that there is one ultimate god the Para Brahma - so there is it. You can call it what you will - there is only one, with many names. Now angels often mistaken for God. That is only natural... Any Buddhist/Hindu please correct me if I am wrong.

 

There is no single view in Hinduism. We're diverse. What you said may apply to a few Hindus. We're a mixture of polytheism, theism, atheism, monism, dualism, henotheism, pantheism, panentheism, etc. One of the mistakes people make is to look for some overall congruity. There is, but not so much on nature of God. More in things like reincarnation, karma, and ahimsa.

 

the problem is how one defines religion. If religion is simply what one believes or not believes concerning the spiritual nature of existence. This belief may be organized, disorganized, individualized, herd wised, personalized or whateverized. In fact I do not believe that one must believe in a God to believe in a religion. I define religion simply as a belief system concerning the subjective nature of existence, and it may or may not take into consideration the objective nature of our existence.

To many people use the word religion as a scapegoat word for what people often claim to describe what other people believe in a negative way. What they believe, of course, is not religion, but something else special or unique.

Considering the fallible (gullible or maybe egocentric) nature of humanity in history staying away from religion is as practical as staying away from air and water.

It is best to try and understand religion and what people believe, and why and not condemn others in the guise of a word.

Words may used as stones to build walls or throw at others, or they can be water and air and embrace others who are different.

 

Quite. With the proviso that certain religious groups do not insist that their way is the only way, with all the accompanying repression which flows from that.

 

Unfortunately egoistic arrogance of the 'only one way' religions breds violence without end, and gives religion a bad

 

And it should give Religion a bad name. It should also get kudos when religions do it right. I guess it is human nature, but we spend too much time damning the bad in a 'thing' (whatever that thing is) and ignoring the good that is also part of that 'thing'. I know this is a flaw I have more often than I like, even though I do know better.

 

Now that's something we can agree on. I think too many people view their religion or method of worship with the mindset that my way is better and forget what brought them to faith in the first place. Just because your neighbor trims his lawn with a string trimmer and you use hand sheers, doesn't mean either of you are doing it wrong. It just means both of you want your yard to look nice.

 

Actually no, IF there is a God of Buddhism it is the undefined unknown apophatic 'Source' (the shunya) of everything to which everything must return, possibly equivalent to Brahman. The many God(s) of the Abrahamic beliefs and Vedic beliefs do not exist.

 

I believe you are presenting too much of a 'one-sided' argument on the responsibility of the consequences of belief. You line scapegoats atheists, and does not realistically take responsibility of theists in the violence and wars in the cause of religious beliefs.

In the arguments of apologists I see more 'ad hominums' and 'begging the question' in their arguments than among atheists.

I do believe in God, but I do not like the ridiculous bad ancient arguments by theist for the existence of God like William Craig uses.

 

This actually reflects more the Baha'i view than anything in traditional Christianity.