The problem is human nature not religion

[Immanuel Can]

3:

Scientific method: go read the writings of the inventor of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon -- master scientist and theologian. Read his "Of Truth" for a start.

Human rights: go read John Locke, the founder of the modern rationale for human rights. See his "Toleration" essay.

You're laughing in ignorance.

Facts....facts...facts...

[Ginkgo]

3:

Scientific method: go read the writings of the inventor of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon -- master scientist and theologian. Read his "Of Truth" for a start.

Human rights: go read John Locke, the founder of the modern rationale for human rights. See his "Toleration" essay.

You're laughing in ignorance.

Facts....facts...facts...

Immanuel I think you are conflating science and religion. Science and religion started out as a hybrid, but over time it evolved to be two different disciplines.


John Locke's idea of natural rights are strictly secular.

[3Sum]

Facts....facts...facts...

You mean ignore all the facts against your opinion? And what the hell did faith and god exactly have to do with those people contributing to humanity?

Christianity - Massively brainwashing people, killing and torturing everybody opposing their religion -> Acts proud because many prominent people were "miraculously" of their religion, almost like they brainwash people, torture and kill those who oppose them so few actually dare to stand against such evil. Wow. Only makes me despise it even more.

Immanuel I think you are conflating science and religion. Science and religion started out as a hybrid, but over time it evolved to be two different disciplines.

As in when scientists discovered that actual science of the real world has nothing to do with the bible. A bit too much truth for the priests, so naturally the only rational response is witch-hunting, torture and murder. I'll give Christians one thing: They certainly knew their torture devices. Got to have real sick minds to invent stuff like that.

[Ginkgo]

As in when scientists discovered that actual science of the real world has nothing to do with the bible. A bit too much truth for the priests, so naturally the only rational response is witch-hunting, torture and murder. I'll give Christians one thing: They certainly knew their torture devices. Got to have real sick minds to invent stuff like that.

I think the imprisonment of Galileo was an important watershed in the split between science and religion. It certainly marked the beginning of the end for the Aristotelian/clergy world view.

[Kuznetzova]

Well, as we noted beforehand, "religion" has actually been an exceedingly minor force in the history of wars and even smaller in the history of prisons. Facts, please.

You are not even reading the same history I am reading then.

The First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE),

Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE) — also called the Second Jewish-Roman War

Charlemagne (742-814 CE) burnt villages to the ground, killing men, women, children, everything that walks and clucks -- all in the name of the Christian God, because the people he was murdering were pagans.

The 11 military crusades into the middle east (1096-1285 CE) where European Christians clashed with Arab, Muslim armies. Not once. Not twice. Eleven times.

The Protestant Reformation, and counter-reformation (1517-1648)

The 30 years War in Germany. (1618–1648)

(2014 CE) The State of Israel is pointing is "shadow-nukes" at Iran, and Iran is pointing its rockets at Israel. Why? Because Allah is an angrier god than Jehovah is, that's why. Or maybe it's the other way around?


"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison, 1785.

James Madison read the same history I read.

[Ginkgo]

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison, 1785.

James Madison read the same history I read.

This type of quote was typical of Enlightenment thinkers associated with the founding of the United states of America. The Founders were at pains to make sure they came up with a secular constitution. The contribution of John Locke to their attempt at a secular government cannot be underestimated.

[QMan]

Aren't we a little hasty now. People torture, maim, defame and are patently dishonest. All stripes of people. So don't get things confused and mix up a perfectly good belief system with the imperfection of the individual, which most definitely includes the atheist secularist.

What nation invented torture:
Most Likely the earliest known civilizations utilized torture or what the Bush Administration calls 'coddling terrorist,' and since
Assyria-Babylonia and Egypt pre-date China they would most likely get the nod. The Romans were quite gifted at refining torture - - - - Crucifixion and skinning people alive were among their favorites. Here is a book you would probably like...

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/d...

"The History of Torture Throughout the Ages"
George Ryley Scott

Torture, an enduring and seemingly not declining aspect of man's relationship to his fellow man, is an enduring thread through human history. Whether it be practiced by primitive people, the ancient Greeks or the Catholic Church, whether it be ancient China, Japan, 1930's Germany, or Northern Ireland today, torture is alarmingly systematic and consistent in its methods. Impaling, burning, rack or wheel, mutilation, drawing and quartering, burning or hanging alive in chains."

From <http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 446AAffY4B>


The Brazen Bull was invented in Ancient Greece, by Perillos of Athens.

The "torture rack" was first used in England due to John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter, the constable of the Tower in 1447.

Inspiration for the iron maiden may come from the Carthaginian execution of Marcus Atilius Regulus as recorded in Tertullian's "To the Martyrs" (Chapter 4) and Augustine of Hippo's The City of God (I.15), in which the Carthaginians "packed him into a tight wooden box, spiked with sharp nails on all sides, so that he could not lean in any direction without being pierced",[7] or by the account of Nabis of Sparta's deadly statue of his wife, the Apega.

[QMan]

Well, as we noted beforehand, "religion" has actually been an exceedingly minor force in the history of wars and even smaller in the history of prisons. Facts, please.

You are not even reading the same history I am reading then.

The First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE),

Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE) — also called the Second Jewish-Roman War

Charlemagne (742-814 CE) burnt villages to the ground, killing men, women, children, everything that walks and clucks -- all in the name of the Christian God, because the people he was murdering were pagans.

The 11 military crusades into the middle east (1096-1285 CE) where European Christians clashed with Arab, Muslim armies. Not once. Not twice. Eleven times.

The Protestant Reformation, and counter-reformation (1517-1648)

The 30 years War in Germany. (1618–1648)

(2014 CE) The State of Israel is pointing is "shadow-nukes" at Iran, and Iran is pointing its rockets at Israel. Why? Because Allah is an angrier god than Jehovah is, that's why. Or maybe it's the other way around?


"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison, 1785.

James Madison read the same history I read.

You should really get your facts straight and not let you bias against Christianity be the sole determinant of your contribution to these fora.

Most of these items were wars for political and territorial reasons. The church was not necessarily the driving force but secular ruler's greed was using the church often as a pretense.

And there were other reasons, e.g.,

"With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt--once the most heavily Christian areas in the world--quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

"That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be consumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

It seems history is repeating itself, unfortunately because of human ignorance, prejudice and sinfulness, not because of divine intent.

[Immanuel Can]

John Locke's idea of natural rights are strictly secular.

Not even remotely true. If you read the "Toleration" essay, you'll see. If you don't, you won't. It's that simple.

[Immanuel Can]

The First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE)...

Kuz:

You are correct. You are reading quite a different history.

How many killed in all the incidents you list? How do they compare to, say, the post-Revolution Terror in France, Stalinist Purges, Mao's prisons and "re-education" programs, or Pol Pot's killing fields? How is it that you can ransack history for ancient Jewish skirmishes and spout antI-Semitic propaganda with out blushing, but you cannot remember these much more recent and far more spectacular events openly perpetrated by Atheists? Where's your balance?

And of these events you list, how many killed by people not merely *pretending* to be Christians in order to act for political or personal advantage, but actually *being obedient* followers of Christ? (answer: zero -- Christ told no one to kill anyone; therefore, anyone who did manifestly did not do so as a Christian but as a disobedient opportunist.)

Contrast that situation with Atheism. Atheism, while it may not positively *require* mass murder, suffers from the deficiency that it has, and can have, absolutely no prohibition against it. So anyone who does kill is not a "bad" Atheist, since Atheism has no particular concept of "bad." Nor is "Thou shalt not murder" a commandment binding on any Atheist. Hence, an Atheist is free to kill if he/she wishes, all the while remaining an Atheist in the fullest sense of that word.

Now, how many were killed in the last century by people openly professing to be Atheists? (answer: between 1917 and 2007, approximately 148 million dead at the hands of 52 declared Atheists, ruling over 28 countries, though war, civil war and individual crime).

facts...facts...facts.

[Kuznetzova]

How many killed in all the incidents you list? How do they compare to, say, the post-Revolution Terror in France, Stalinist Purges, Mao's prisons and "re-education" programs, or Pol Pot's killing fields? How is it that you can ransack history for ancient Jewish skirmishes and spout antI-Semitic propaganda with out blushing, but you cannot remember these much more recent and far more spectacular events openly perpetrated by Atheists? Where's your balance?

And of these events you list, how many killed by people not merely *pretending* to be Christians in order to act for political or personal advantage, but actually *being obedient* followers of Christ? (answer: zero -- Christ told no one to kill anyone; therefore, anyone who did manifestly did not do so as a Christian but as a disobedient opportunist.)

Contrast that situation with Atheism. Atheism, while it may not positively *require* mass murder, suffers from the deficiency that it has, and can have, absolutely no prohibition against it. So anyone who does kill is not a "bad" Atheist, since Atheism has no particular concept of "bad." Nor is "Thou shalt not murder" a commandment binding on any Atheist. Hence, an Atheist is free to kill if he/she wishes, all the while remaining an Atheist in the fullest sense of that word.

You are a mouthpiece for Fox News talking points. I know precisely where you are getting this. You probably own several Bill O'Reilly books.

Your contention that atheism "requires mass murder" is preposterous tin-foil hat garbage.

Now, how many were killed in the last century by people openly professing to be Atheists? (answer: between 1917 and 2007, approximately 148 million dead at the hands of 52 declared Atheists, ruling over 28 countries, though war, civil war and individual crime).

"At the hands of" This is idiocy. That number total that you added up (148 million) is not the result of atheism. This was the result of several different factors from different nations who underwent a period of totalitarian political regimes, and a number of different civil wars. The starvation under Mao's Great Leap Forward was a product of centralized planning, not a result of "atheism". And yes, you did include those numbers in your calculation. In the case of the Russia, they had sacked their duma (parliament) four times prior to going to a civil war between Bolsheviks and White Russians. In China, there was a civil war with a relatively small group of Maoists that happened very early (1920s), and there was a peaceful period for several decades when Japan invaded mainland. After WWII, the defeat of the Japanese, the civil war within China resumed, where by 1950, Mao had taken power.

(Marginal note. This is a very complex subject matter, and historians come at it from different angles and dimensions. There are number of historians who contend that it was the actually lack of DEMOCRACY that underpinned the atrocities of the 20th century, rather than things like atheism, communism, or "lack of religion" or whatever.)

facts...facts...facts.

No, these are not "facts" at all, and I have clearly explained why they are not. You have shuffled the conversation far enough way from our original exchange that some people reading this thread may no longer be following it. So for their sake , what happened precisely is that you made this claim:

Immanuel Can: "Well, as we noted beforehand, "religion" has actually been an exceedingly minor force in the history of wars and even smaller in the history of prisons. Facts, please."

To respond to that particular sentence, I then inundated you with a list of historical facts of religious wars. Every encyclopedia on earth, and every history book on earth all admits, with plain honesty, were all WARS OF RELIGION. In the case of wikipedia, religion is sometimes mentioned in the very first sentence of the article for these wars. The fact of the matter is that Christianity did not spread like wildfire in Europe. Europe was slowly and painfully "Christianized" and in several places Christianity was spread by military conquest, particularly in scandinavia.

Outside of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly spew, you will not find history books or encyclopedias referring to "Wars of Atheism". I will concede to you the only example from history that I am aware of that could be described as a "War of Atheism" was the French Revolution. And you already listed that. So I think we agree on that fine detail. The rest of what you are saying is just not historically accurate.

[QMan]

Of course. You must have heard of the English word "Prayer"? That would be the most effective way to address problems and sinful behavior. Next, your confessor if Catholic, then your psychiatrist, counselor, dad, mom, good friend. Now, the best way all these could help you is of course to also pray for you. Note that even strangers like me pray for misguided souls. If God chooses so he can also indirectly help through the agency of all the latter.

Was trying prayer a long time. About 10 years infact. Never got any response. Started feeling stupid thinking my wishes to myself and eventually stopped.

Your hypothesis that the being is fictional is of course not provable

Errm, yes, it actually is, depending on your definition of it. I already disproved the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god in my Problem of evil thread.

Besides, even if you defined the word god in the way that us humans can't prove he doesn't exist, that still doesn't justify requiring others to believe without any evidence.

Theist side has much higher probability of being correct? How so? Any arguments for that or are you just going to assert things and then run away? Be careful not to commit any logical fallacy though.

Indeed, my background is not in Philosophy and yours might be, it appears? Well, if yours is then maybe you can answer me this question that I have wondered about for the longest time. What are they doing to you poor guys and gals in philosophy school, drumming out common sense in the first semester already? I know there are at least some here who were, under the threat of expulsion, able to sneakily hide the fact from the provosts that they retained at least some semblance of common sense. Could you clarify please. Are you one of them?

The reason I am asking is because common sense would allow you to deduce that I cannot (and wish not to) require you to do anything.

Secondly, I am giving below part of an earlier append I had made in the PN forum concerning your question about the probability I assign to theist facts. You can see from that that it would be ridiculous for you to assume that your probabilities carry greater weight and could possibly replace mine.

Btw I usually do run away from people who lack common sense but in this case have decided to hang around.

atheosalio wrote:
the second part of the question should have been clearer, the first part is rhetorical. if someone believes in any god(s) then they should want me to believe, if not then why do they believe in the first place. to clarify the second part, why should I believe in your god(s) over someone else's god(s)

Qman:
Let me suggest an answer. 99.9... % of all knowledge any individual has is obtained through outside sources like history, schooling, news, books, magazines, personal communication, and so on. The individual does not live long enough to experience everything. It is therefore of primary importance that one learns to differentiate between the quality of the information that is passed on to you from others, and to discern the quality of the source itself. Now, information flow is hierarchical, has a pyramid shape, with the top quality coming from fewer qualified sources of greater veracity and capability from the top part of the pyramid. For example, would your top quality source be a supreme court justice who has decided that abortion is an OK procedure, a president who has decided that homosexual marriage is equivalent to faith based marriage, a philosopher who has not made an iota of effort to search for a personal God in his/her life? Now, as far as my life experience and research has shown me, based on public and private moral teaching, the pinnacle of the information pyramid is occupied by Jesus Christ and his teaching, there simply is no other room there. If you can show me a president, a supreme court justice, a wise man, a news pundit, a senator, a judge, an expert scientist, philosopher, common man or woman who can, e.g., turn water into wine, heal instantaneously, raise from the dead, walk on water teach equivalently to the Sermon on the Mount, and gives his life for my and your sake, then point them out to me and I will consider if I'll take my information from them and perhaps effect changes in my life based on their teaching.

From:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11243&p=146276#p146276

[Kuznetzova]

The 30 Years War was one of the worst, bloodiest civil wars ever seen in Germany, or ever seen in Europe, full stop, since about the time of the Roman Empire. There is not an encyclopedia in print today that does not just plainly state it was a religious war.

The Protestant Reformation caused all of Europe to basically disintegrate into a collection of little fiefdoms of Protestant and Catholic princes.

By 900 AD, Norway had still not been Christianized. A king named Olaf the First regressed to using war, murder, and torture to bring the Norwegians under the heel of the catholic church.

By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters Olaf I succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland.

These are all historical facts. Bring any historian here you want to verify them. Get your history books out. We will go page-by-page.

Even today, in the Middle East, Shia vs. Sunni (a wholly theological debate) continues to act as a catalyst for civil wars, infighting, murder, and atrocities in at least two nations (Syria, Iraq) but probably several others as well. We have seen this process before, echoed in the wars of religion in Europe of Protestant vs. Catholic.

Over the years, Sunni–Shia relations have been marked by both cooperation and conflict. Sectarian violence persists to this day from Pakistan to Yemen and is a major element of friction throughout the Middle East. Tensions between communities have intensified during power struggles, such as the Bahraini uprising, the Iraq War, and most recently the Syrian Civil War

Code: Select all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

At this point, anyone on this forum who denies the role that religion plays in military violence and war most be living under a rock, or suffering from illiteracy, delusion, or both.

[QMan]

The 30 Years War was one of the worst, bloodiest civil wars ever seen in Germany, or ever seen in Europe, full stop, since about the time of the Roman Empire. There is not an encyclopedia in print today that does not just plainly state it was a religious war.

The Protestant Reformation caused all of Europe to basically disintegrate into a collection of little fiefdoms of Protestant and Catholic princes.

By 900 AD, Norway had still not been Christianized. A king named Olaf the First regressed to using war, murder, and torture to bring the Norwegians under the heel of the catholic church.

By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters Olaf I succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland.

These are all historical facts. Bring any historian here you want to verify them. Get your history books out. We will go page-by-page.

Even today, in the Middle East, Shia vs. Sunni (a wholly theological debate) continues to act as a catalyst for civil wars, infighting, murder, and atrocities in at least two nations (Syria, Iraq) but probably several others as well. We have seen this process before, echoed in the wars of religion in Europe of Protestant vs. Catholic.

Over the years, Sunni–Shia relations have been marked by both cooperation and conflict. Sectarian violence persists to this day from Pakistan to Yemen and is a major element of friction throughout the Middle East. Tensions between communities have intensified during power struggles, such as the Bahraini uprising, the Iraq War, and most recently the Syrian Civil War

Code: Select all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

At this point, anyone on this forum who denies the role that religion plays in military violence and war most be living under a rock, or suffering from illiteracy, delusion, or both.

I deny it. The role that you want to describe is not played by religion it is always only and exclusively played by human beings. Religion (I do not include cults in that) is generally a moral and benevolent belief system that was and is often ignored by many, in the middle ages as well as now. So, blame humanity, not religion per se. You are disingenuous if you claim, for example, that Christ's teaching in any way shape or form can be used as a basis for sinful human behavior. The difficulty with your argument is that you are confounding his teaching with the illicit actions of people who may claim to be his followers but, as you well know, cannot be because of their intent and actions.

If you fail to make that distinction, you can correctly be accused of intellectual dishonesty and bias towards religion!

[Kuznetzova]

I deny it. The role that you want to describe is not played by religion it is always only and exclusively played by human beings. Religion (I do not include cults in that) is generally a moral and benevolent belief system that was and is often ignored by many, in the middle ages as well as now. So, blame humanity, not religion per se. You are disingenuous if you claim, for example, that Christ's teaching in any way shape or form can be used as a basis for sinful human behavior. The difficulty with your argument is that you are confounding his teaching with the illicit actions of people who may claim to be his followers but, as you well know, cannot be because of their intent and actions.

If you fail to make that distinction, you can correctly be accused of intellectual dishonesty and bias towards religion!

Intellectually dishonesty is equivocating the word "religion" with "Christ's Teachings". I will remind you there are millions of Muslims all over the world on nearly every continent. There are millions of Buddhists all over eastern Asia. Do you know how many people in India follow Hinduism as adherents? There is like hundreds of millions of them. There were once pagans all over northern Europe (well, before Charlemagne slaughtered most of them in the name of the Christian God.. anyways..).

Do you have anything coherent to say regarding the recent "sectarian" violence between Shia and Sunni muslims? That is happening right now as we type into this forum. At this point, I guess I would need to ask if you even consider Islam to constitute a religion? Because as far as I can tell from your posts you are operating under the premise that Religion=Christ's Teachings. Otherwise I wouldn't ask.