Hitler on the Origins of Religion:

[Carcano]

My view of Hitler was that he was not very well educated and suffered from acute psychopathic aberrations even before he hit the beer halls.

No doubt he could pick up on any recollection of a figure like Constantine or maybe some overheard remark about Constantine and drill this into some frenzied idea about himself and his place in the world.

I would be surprised if Hitler could articulate Nietzsche's thesis in this or any other work. Even if Nietzsche was striking a note among German intellectuals, it's hard to say how the drill sergeants and corporals responded to any such influence. In fact I think there was some contention like this - about the ideological goals of Nazism vs the practicalities of seizing power - that became evident during the Putsch. It would seem to me that Nietzsche may have had the effect of softening up the core of German society that would have otherwise obstructed Hitler - by planting this idea that oppression is within the natural order of things. They may have actually seen Hitler as a logical manifestation of Nietzsche's world view.

Hitler was extraordinarily well educated in European history....as evidenced from his huge library of books that were scribbled with his own comments in the margins. There was even a book published about his reading habits.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Private-Library-Books-Shape/dp/1400042046

And we also know that he spoke in many voices depending on the listener.
Talking about Neitzsche, eugenics, or the history of the early church would not do for a public speech, as most of the audience wouldnt have the intellectual background to understand.

The common man wants something that appeals to his personal frustrations, his testosterone, his ego, and Hitler gave them what they came for, with dramatic hand gestures, thundering crescendos, rolling his rrrrrrrs...making the crowds feel as if they were on the crest of a great wave.

Was he a psychopath, without empathy or conscience? Of course, but I doubt he started that way. Absolute power went straight to his head.

But this is how people choose to remember him, as bad to the bone from the get go, because it makes him an easier target of a hatred that doesnt require any complicated thought or inquiry.

Even the Jewish historian Edwin Black encountered great resistance from his own community to his book outlining Hitler as the primary economic sponsor of the state of Israel prior to the war in the 1930s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-1ts3VTeeI

Even his own family at first refused to see Hitler as anything other than the great enemy of Zionism.

 

[wynn]

Her religion was used as a tool to manipulate and abuse her. I do not know why you are unable to see that.
Obviously, the man was likely to be violating the religion in harming her but he still used HER faith against her to twist the rules and cause her harm.

Nonsense.

What you say would be the case only if the only precept of doctrine the woman would follow would be "Obey your husband."

In which case, we can hardly say she followed much of the religion to begin with.

I have stated, "Religion can be used as a tool". A hammer is a tool. If used correctly it can be quite productive and good, but if it is slammed into the skull of human being it can be bad. So in this sense, the hammer is neither good nor bad. It is purpose for or method of how it was used that is actually good or bad.

No. It is the picking and choosing, the focus on some things at the expense of others that produces what you're talking about.

If one is sincere in one's faith, as I used to be, one may not concern oneself with the obligations of others. I only concerned myself with my own obligations. Because I could not control what others did. If one person violated the rules that did not justify my violation of the rules. If it did then the rules of religion or laws of any land for that matter would be pointless.

Cite me one religious doctrine that states "Thou shalt be an idiot."
I dare you.

Most religions I know have teachings on how a person, man or woman, should be careful about whom they associate with and how.

So if the woman is sincere, the man can use her faith against her and constantly remind her of her "place" keeping her in a state of submission.

Nonsense.

What you say is the case only if the woman doesn't at all know the religion she is supposedly practicing.

The same ignorance is also characteristic for some critics of religion.

In some religions women are given no recourse for justice.

In some religions, or in some cultures?

I agree that in some cultures, women are considered lesser beings.

 

[wynn]

So if the woman is sincere, the man can use her faith against her and constantly remind her of her "place" keeping her in a state of submission.

What is manipulation, by anyone, a practitioner or a critic, is to focus only on some tenets of a doctrine and ignore the others.

Especially, it is manipulation to focus on a lesser tenet and consider it above higher ones.

In religious terms: A woman doesn't stop being a child of God just because she got married.
A person's first duty is to God, and then to everyone else.
And if someone claims otherwise, they clearly have an ulterior motive for doing so.

 

[wynn]

I also remember my great grandmother's passing. I was the only one with her and she had been hanging on for a long time in a coma at the age of 91. The nurses were having to come in about once and hour to suction the water out of her lungs and rigor mortise had already begun to set, evident by the hardening of her extremities. Yet she still lingered. I contacted my mother and grandmother by cellphone and placed the phone to her ear so they could say their goodbyes and she could hear their voices one last time. Though she was in a deep state of dementia and may have had no idea who they were or who I was. She at one point opened her eyes and raised her head to look at me for just about 15 seconds. At the time I was Muslim and wore a scarf. Due to my great grandmothers strong Christian faith she may well have thought she was looking at the virgin Mary. But I told her that her duties to her family are well beyond fulfilled and that it was time for her to join her husband in heaven who was waiting for her, he had his fiddle and her banjo and was waiting to play their old stringed duets again. She almost immediately gave up the struggle. This is anecdotal and I am sure there is plenty of scientific explanation for why she displayed the physical behaviors she did and why at that very moment she finally lost the fight. But at the time, I was a believer, and correlating her behaviors as reactions to my words gave me comfort that she (meaning her psychological existence) was still in tact right up to the end. Even though her behavior before the onset of coma clearly indicated that "she" hadn't been there for a very long time.

So in this situation, her faith as well as mine were used to console me. Maybe they consoled her as well, we will never know. But they did help me to deal with the loss of a loved one. And it also helped me deal with the guilt I would have had for asking the nurse to stop suctioning her lungs since, by the nurse's advice and my own observation, it seemed to be causing her great pain and was only delaying the inevitable.

What I see as relevant there is not the specific religious reference you make, but simply the common sense of giving a dying person the chance to say goodbye and that she was told that she didn't owe anyone anything and that the other people involved were well.

You might say hogwash to the rigor mortise statement I made. I am not studied in the process of death but the nurse told me it was rigor mortise and that it happened to every patient as they died. It usually happens after death but if the death is slow and drawn out it does happen before official death of the mind has actually occurred.

I myself have seen this is dying cats - they were still breathing, while their bodies were cold and becoming stiff.

 

[Balerion]

Maybe I am naive. I haven't known EVERYTHING since I was 16. What motivates those in power to declare war is something that takes place in the mind of those individuals. With the human mind still being so much of a mystery, speculation is sadly the bulk of what we have to work with.

But to even suggest that religion is the only or even merely the primary cause of war implies that if all the world were atheists then we would have world peace. I don't think anyone truly believes that peace would break out and last forever if we got rid of religion entirely.

I believe, as long as there are at least 2 human beings that disagree on something there will be motivation for war. Religion is not required for violent disagreement. This is evidenced in observation of school children fighting over a swing, chimpanzee groups warring with other groups for resources and territory, or two boxers in a ring.

I think maybe we've gotten our signals crossed. I'm not trying to say that religion is the cause of all war, just that it can be and is one of many causes. I would argue that some of the most consistent and contentious conflicts would in fact settle themselves if not for faith (nearly every conflict in the Middle East, for example), and many could have been avoided or perhaps dealt with diplomatically if not for divine righteousness. But war is part of the human condition, and we'll never be without it.

Your stance seems to be that religion is not a cause at all, which is naive. It's very clearly at the heart of most of the world's largest conflicts at the moment.

 

[Neverfly]

A person's first duty is to God, and then to everyone else.

One of the more disturbing bits of the doctrine, in my opinion.

 

[seagypsy]

What is manipulation, by anyone, a practitioner or a critic, is to focus only on some tenets of a doctrine and ignore the others.

Especially, it is manipulation to focus on a lesser tenet and consider it above higher ones.

The construction of your sentences leave me a bit confused as to the meaning they are trying to convey but if I am correct in what I THINK you are trying to say, it would seem we are on the same page.

In religious terms: A woman doesn't stop being a child of God just because she got married.
A person's first duty is to God, and then to everyone else.

Not all religions say the same thing. Some are very degrading to women in context of modern views, others can be seen as great liberators of women.

Another thing is that there are no absolutes in Religion since it is subject to interpretation by the one who claims to follow it.

And if someone claims otherwise, they clearly have an ulterior motive for doing so.

I agree. And this would be the method of choice when using the Religion as a tool to cause harm. The one with ulterior motives would be hoping to exploit their victim's possible lack of understanding what their religion REALLY says. Couple that with the victims insatiable desire to please their creator.

So one could see how to some Religion may give them strength, but misinterpreted it can be their weakness.

For instance, women are treated all too often as second class citizens* in Islamic countries. However, from reading the Qu'ran I came to the conclusion that Islam actually gave women a much higher social status than the Bible did. Still not equal but not to be treated as property exactly either. However, Sharia law, and local social taboos that exist within Islamic culture suggest otherwise. For instance, in Pakistan, women are constitutionally allowed to petition for a divorce and there are terms in which her request will be granted. Albeit they are not the same terms a man has to meet. But still she is legally entitled to a divorce under certain circumstances.

However, the women I spoke to on the subject there are reluctant to request a divorce even for abuse or abandonment because a divorced woman is treated like a leper there. They are social outcasts. And that is the least of her concerns really though, considering that it is a common thing to read in the paper there that a woman meets with a lawyer to file for a divorce and as a consequence the husband's family has her and her lawyer killed. These are called honor killings and in Pakistan they are "legal". Something illegal inherently becomes legal when a society refuses to prosecute the crime.


*"Second Class" being a relative term and defined by western standards for the sake of this example.

 

[wynn]

One of the more disturbing bits of the doctrine, in my opinion.

Why?

 

[wynn]

So one could see how to some Religion may give them strength, but misinterpreted it can be their weakness.

This is not religion's fault.

Ignorance is usually a problem.

 

[seagypsy]

I think maybe we've gotten our signals crossed. I'm not trying to say that religion is the cause of all war, just that it can be and is one of many causes. I would argue that some of the most consistent and contentious conflicts would in fact settle themselves if not for faith (nearly every conflict in the Middle East, for example), and many could have been avoided or perhaps dealt with diplomatically if not for divine righteousness. But war is part of the human condition, and we'll never be without it.

Your stance seems to be that religion is not a cause at all, which is naive. It's very clearly at the heart of most of the world's largest conflicts at the moment.

I don't believe it is a cause.I believe it is merely an excuse given when we don't want to admit what the real reasons are. I think religion plays a stranger role in the human psyche. We have our natural tendencies as humans. Some are unpleasant. We have a sense of justice. In the animal world we refer to it as instinct. But we also have this pesky little thing called EGO. Religion offers an 'unquestionable' authority. One that can justify behaviors that may be unpopular with people who would have us do things differently. Imagine trying to go to war with a country on the premise...."because we don't like them!!" or "because they have oil and we want it!!!" So we as a society construct a set of laws "dictated by God" that says Only people who follow THESE laws are right.

If everyone was atheist, there may very well be fewer wars, but only because in order to declare it, you would have to state what your real motivations for it are. And it is hard to rally support for greed and arrogance.


Maybe my premise is too abstract even for me to explain. Is there anyone out there who gets what I am trying to say that may be able to put it in more clear concise terms?

 

[seagypsy]

This is not religion's fault.

Ignorance is usually a problem.

I agree, ignorance is a huge problem.

Religion and Ignorance are often seen as the same thing by many people.

I don't see Religion as something that can be defined consistently with accuracy by anyone due to it's subjective nature. So even if someone is not aware of what a Religious text says about a specific topic, there is no certainty that being made aware of it would automatically mean they would interpret it the same way as everyone else. You can even show some people what a text says and they will still not accept it. So ignorance AND denial are a problem. but it is hard to say that it is even possible to be ignorant or in denial when it comes to religion. Because Religion is open to interpretation.

 

[Balerion]

I don't believe it is a cause.I believe it is merely an excuse given when we don't want to admit what the real reasons are. I think religion plays a stranger role in the human psyche. We have our natural tendencies as humans. Some are unpleasant. We have a sense of justice. In the animal world we refer to it as instinct. But we also have this pesky little thing called EGO. Religion offers an 'unquestionable' authority. One that can justify behaviors that may be unpopular with people who would have us do things differently. Imagine trying to go to war with a country on the premise...."because we don't like them!!" or "because they have oil and we want it!!!" So we as a society construct a set of laws "dictated by God" that says Only people who follow THESE laws are right.

If everyone was atheist, there may very well be fewer wars, but only because in order to declare it, you would have to state what your real motivations for it are. And it is hard to rally support for greed and arrogance.


Maybe my premise is too abstract even for me to explain. Is there anyone out there who gets what I am trying to say that may be able to put it in more clear concise terms?

Well then that's just willful ignorance. There is no question that religion can and does make otherwise good people do bad things, and provides injunctions for atrocities that would not otherwise exist.

What other motive could Al Qaeda have besides religious? What justification for the oppression of women is there other than religious? How does one become a suicide bomber without the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife? Why is it that when a society operates independently of these ideologies, we trend towards equality for the sexes, races, and denominations?

I find people today are too eager to be even-handed in their approach to issues and controversies, and as a result are unwilling to recognize imbalance. Yes, evil can be done without religion. Yes, there are wars driven by nationalism and greed. But there are also wars waged and evils done because of religious belief, and to pretend that there isn't is irresponsible. You earlier said, essentially, that what I'm arguing is "bigoted." Perhaps you need to shed those fears of being considered a bigot by the Politically Correct idiots among us and face facts.

 

[seagypsy]

Well then that's just willful ignorance. There is no question that religion can and does make otherwise good people do bad things, and provides injunctions for atrocities that would not otherwise exist.

So is your assertion that without Islam, Bin Laden and his friends would have been good?

What other motive could Al Qaeda have besides religious?

Political, Ego, Money, Power?

What justification for the oppression of women is there other than religious?

delusions of grandeur? power?

How does one become a suicide bomber without the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife?

kamikazi's did it and they were not Muslim, following orders, depression, anger, angst. One day a paranoid schizophrenic decides he can no longer keep running from "them" so in turn he decides if he his going down he is going to take "them" down with him. Murder suicide is not that rare nor is it often attributed to religion. It is merely an act of desperation.

Why is it that when a society operates independently of these ideologies, we trend towards equality for the sexes, races, and denominations?

I find people today are too eager to be even-handed in their approach to issues and controversies, and as a result are unwilling to recognize imbalance. Yes, evil can be done without religion. Yes, there are wars driven by nationalism and greed. But there are also wars waged and evils done because of religious belief, and to pretend that there isn't is irresponsible. You earlier said, essentially, that what I'm arguing is "bigoted." Perhaps you need to shed those fears of being considered a bigot by the Politically Correct idiots among us and face facts.

Being called a bigot is not what makes one a bigot. BEING a bigot is what makes one a bigot. I agree with you that political correctness is undesirable. I would prefer political honesty. An environment where people say exactly what they think. I prefer that the world be just like the one portrayed in the movie, "The Invention of Lying". When we are honest with each other it is easier to be honest with ourselves. Many conflicts are caused by simple misunderstanding because people are afraid to say what they really mean. Then one makes assumptions about the others intentions based on what they are hiding themselves and so the battle begins.

Religions are much like political parties. They both claim to have the same goals but they cannot agree on how to achieve those goals. And rather than work together to find a middle ground for the good of all, both sides refuse to compromise because each side simply insists on being right and wants the credit associated with doing something right. EGO.

Humans are competitive by nature, if you remove Religion from the equation they will concoct some other excuse for fighting and method for keeping score proving "we are better than them".

I will not deny that there have been times when the sole motivation very well could have been Religion. History tell us it is so. But I guess maybe I can explain it better by saying, whatever motivated the individual to embrace religion in the first place, is to blame. And one of the primary benefactors of faith is the human ego.

 

[Balerion]

So is your assertion that without Islam, Bin Laden and his friends would have been good?

I don't know what they would have been like. All I do know is that their ideology is religious, and their ideology is what demands them to act in the way they do.

Political, Ego, Money, Power?

Well, their religion is their political system, so the two are not exclusive. As for ego, money, and power, I can only ask what about their actions or stated goals would give you this idea? It's as if you simply don't want to believe that they're religiously motivated, so you refuse to, and invent other motivators.

delusions of grandeur? power?

How would the oppression of women be spurred by delusions of grandeur? And why is that a better explanation than the one found in their holy text, which makes women secondary citizens?

kamikazi's did it and they were not Muslim, following orders, depression, anger, angst. One day a paranoid schizophrenic decides he can no longer keep running from "them" so in turn he decides if he his going down he is going to take "them" down with him. Murder suicide is not that rare nor is it often attributed to religion. It is merely an act of desperation.

You are mistaken. Kamikaze pilots (at least the ones who were so willingly; many of them were not) were driven by a form of Shintoism which promised that they would live on as guardian spirits of the country after their grand sacrifice.

Murder-suicides are an entirely different phenomenon than a suicide bomber, who almost always is associated with some fundamentalist splinter group, and informed by the Koran.

Suicide bombers are also not paranoid schizophrenics. For the most part they're just normal people.

Being called a bigot is not what makes one a bigot. BEING a bigot is what makes one a bigot.

Yet you called criticism of religion in regard to its role in war and general violence a "bigoted opinion."

I agree with you that political correctness is undesirable. I would prefer political honesty. An environment where people say exactly what they think. I prefer that the world be just like the one portrayed in the movie, "The Invention of Lying". When we are honest with each other it is easier to be honest with ourselves.

I have no problem with that, but it seems kind of a non-sequitur. It is not bigoted to point out the connection between religion and some of humanity's most vile institutions, and I really can't think of a reason why anyone would try to defend religion against these charges unless 1) the person was religious themselves, or 2) they're afraid of being called a bigot for doing so. Your charge that such an opinion is bigoted is telling.

Many conflicts are caused by simple misunderstanding because people are afraid to say what they really mean. Then one makes assumptions about the others intentions based on what they are hiding themselves and so the battle begins.

Could you give an example of such a misunderstanding?

Religions are much like political parties. They both claim to have the same goals but they cannot agree on how to achieve those goals. And rather than work together to find a middle ground for the good of all, both sides refuse to compromise because each side simply insists on being right and wants the credit associated with doing something right. EGO.

The better comparison would be to political ideologies, which, just like any ideology, can lead to suffering and death. And religion is a series of ideologies. Why you agree that political ideologies can lead to war but refuse to admit that religious ideologies can as well is something I can't figure out.

Humans are competitive by nature, if you remove Religion from the equation they will concoct some other excuse for fighting and method for keeping score proving "we are better than them".

You're knocking down straw men again. I don't deny that injustice, violence, and suffering exists independent of religion. I never said otherwise. I simply said religion is one such motivation. You're correct that it's also a tool, such as it was for Hitler, but that does not mean it also isn't a motivator.

I will not deny that there have been times when the sole motivation very well could have been Religion. History tell us it is so. But I guess maybe I can explain it better by saying, whatever motivated the individual to embrace religion in the first place, is to blame. And one of the primary benefactors of faith is the human ego.

Well, that's an unexpected 180.

If you're implying that there must be something "wrong" with people who embrace religion and then do bad things, I have to disagree. Otherwise good people have done terrible things out of fear of eternal punishment or zeal for eternal reward.

Though I will say that ignorance is often a contributor to faith. You'll notice on this forum that most of the believers are not as intelligent as the nonbelievers. And I don't mean that in a pejorative way, just that they seem to argue their beliefs from a place of ignorance. We see this in the anti-evolution debates and discussions, particularly. It's also why the poor and uneducated tend to be the most pious. Religion really is a crutch, and if we had a better education system, I think at the very least religiosity would decrease, and perhaps we'd see less of the ills we see today in the world.

 

[seagypsy]

I do apologize for the extreme length of this post. It has taken me hours to complete this. I personally dislike wordy explanations but I am not the most skilled at explaining myself. I most probably lack vocabulary skills that would help me to express my thoughts in a more concise manner. So if you are sure you really want to read this, i suggest you go get a large fresh cup of coffee and a snack to get you through to the end.

I don't know what they would have been like. All I do know is that their ideology is religious, and their ideology is what demands them to act in the way they do.

Well, their religion is their political system, so the two are not exclusive. As for ego, money, and power, I can only ask what about their actions or stated goals would give you this idea? It's as if you simply don't want to believe that they're religiously motivated, so you refuse to, and invent other motivators.

In their particular case I agree and disagree. Their religion as they interpret it is the same as their political ideology.But if you study Islam at all you will see that their acts violated many virtually unforgivable laws of Islam. They would be the ones referred to as hypocrites which to the best of my understanding, is Allah's least favorite people. He hates them more even than non-believers.

To say they were good representatives of Islam would be like saying Hitler was representative of atheists.

How would the oppression of women be spurred by delusions of grandeur? And why is that a better explanation than the one found in their holy text, which makes women secondary citizens?

Ever hear a bully on the play ground say to another child," You have to do what I say because I am bigger than you and will beat you up!" The bully sees his size as qualifying him as an authority. Some men believe that because they are bigger and stronger than women, they are inherently better than women. Many atheist men, and some women surprisingly, think men are smarter than women. They will even post "studies" to prove it.

You are mistaken. Kamikaze pilots (at least the ones who were so willingly; many of them were not) were driven by a form of Shintoism which promised that they would live on as guardian spirits of the country after their grand sacrifice.

Fair enough, but they aren't promised 72 virgins, are they? Honestly, I can't figure out how 72 virgins would be a reward. Seems like a punishment to me, but then I am female. We don't usually like wasting time with someone who has no idea what they are doing. lol.

Murder-suicides are an entirely different phenomenon than a suicide bomber, who almost always is associated with some fundamentalist splinter group, and informed by the Koran.

This is a matter of perspective. Suicide bomber commits murder and suicide at the same time. So in my opinion, they are the same thing. Simply two ways to achieve the same goal. You may remember Columbine. These two kids were considered mentally ill. They suffered some anxiety and depression due to being bullied.They were motivated by hate for those who had treated them badly. A justifiable reason to severely dislike someone in my opinion. But not justifiable reason to kill. However they did kill, revenge being their motivation and if I remember correctly they were reported to be atheists. I know I went through the same thing they did and even had similar fantasies way back in my teen years. Luckily it was my faith at the time that stopped me from acting on it. Back then my perspective on life was different. I have since matured and now no longer need the fear of hell to keep me from committing atrocities.

Suicide bombers are also not paranoid schizophrenics. For the most part they're just normal people.

Have you read the personal stories of any suicide bombers? You don't really know if they were normal or not. For the most part, the media only tells us that they committed the crime. They do not go out of their way to reveal that they were in anyway like the rest of us. It would be considered in bad taste to humanize someone the world wishes to perceive as a monster. That doesn't sell news papers or magazines. And the media is a business and like any business its goal is profit, and to make profit it must be viewed in a favorable like to the consumer. If you read the papers in the middle east, Americans are the monsters and suicide bombers are heroes.

Consider the psychological profile of the typical cult follower. They are usually not working on all thrusters when they get lured in. Then they go through intensive brain washing. You can't really think a person is sane when they believe God wants them to give their children arsenic laced kool-aid. These so called Islamic fundamentalist groups are cults. Just like those started by David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite. A typical cult follower would be someone like Tom Cruise or Charlie Sheen. All joking aside, people who join cults can then be related to those who join gangs. Humans have an insatiable need to belong to a group. They will adapt their thinking in order to be accepted. When self esteem is low this need becomes more apparent. Cult leaders bent on violence rarely put themselves in harms way. They find willing, weak minded patsies, to brainwash into doing their dirty work. And the strongest tool for brainwashing is Religion. Religion has equal potential to be used for good as it does for being used for evil.

Yet you called criticism of religion in regard to its role in war and general violence a "bigoted opinion."

I have done a search of the thread for the word "bigot" and the only results turning up are your posts accusing me of calling you one and my response to the accusation. I have never called you or anyone else on this thread a bigot. Nor have I referred to any idea as being bigoted. Please refrain from this dishonest line of debating.

You, on the other hand, have accused me of "willful ignorance".

Well then that's just willful ignorance. There is no question that religion can and does make otherwise good people do bad things, and provides injunctions for atrocities that would not otherwise exist.

I allowed you to express your opinion of me without returning fire. From this point on I will report you for ad hominem attacks and intellectual dishonesty.

I have no problem with that, but it seems kind of a non-sequitur. It is not bigoted to point out the connection between religion and some of humanity's most vile institutions, and I really can't think of a reason why anyone would try to defend religion against these charges unless 1) the person was religious themselves, or 2) they're afraid of being called a bigot for doing so. Your charge that such an opinion is bigoted is telling.

I have made no charges of bigotry towards any individual, group, or idea. Quote me where I have or stop making the dishonest claim.

I am not defending religion, exactly. It would appear so to you only because you do not look at things from the same perspective as I do.

I am atheist and hold a strong code of ethics. Theists will call that code religion. If you loosely define the term religion then I guess it would qualify. But semantics are not that important to me. A rose by any other name.....

I stand up for what I believe is right. And I believe it is important to find the real cause of things so that we can understand how to prevent atrocities. I don't necessarily accept the easy explanations. In terms of physics Occam's Razor may apply quite well but when it comes to understanding psychology its a whole other story. Understanding, or at least attempting to understand, how or why the first humans created religion helped me to realize why religion is flawed and therefore cannot be created by a perfect god. If a god is not perfect then why bother worshiping it. I believe that humanity created gods in their own image. I cannot worship that which I create in my own mind. And if it is merely a figment of my imagination, then I can simply stop imagining it and it will cease to exist. So the sole evidences for God's existence, for me, was invalidated.

I sympathize with your disdain for religion as a whole. My disdain for religion does not however justify holding it accountable for all or even most of the bad things people do. The internet is demonized by many when in the hands of those who would troll, commit piracy, or publish child pornography. Many people blame the internet for all the foul things that occur on it. Should we ban the internet since some people use it to do bad things? The internet, like religion, is another tool. Nothing more. The internet is a tangible tool for tangible purposes. Religion is a psychological tool for psychological purposes.

Could you give an example of such a misunderstanding?

Have you never spent any time observing people,at all? Though not always violent, in every day life, misunderstandings are common place.

A plausible hypothetical situation : A guy in a bar accidentally bumps the elbow of another guy causing him to spill his drink. He is unaware of what he has done because it is crowded and everyone is bumping everyone. The guy who has been bumped takes offense to the lack of apology and assumes the guy who bumped him did it on purpose. He then assaults the first guy. When the second guy notices the first guy is of a different race he proceeds to call him a slew of names some having racial undertones. The first guy, unaware that he even bumped the second guy, has no idea why he is being assaulted but assumes the attack is racially motivated. Onlookers who also do not know what ACTUALLY led to the confrontation hear the racial slurs and assume it is a racially motivated attack. When the real motivation for the attack was simple misunderstanding. And the one who attacked had an inclination to violence and racial bigotry.

The better comparison would be to political ideologies, which, just like any ideology, can lead to suffering and death. And religion is a series of ideologies. Why you agree that political ideologies can lead to war but refuse to admit that religious ideologies can as well is something I can't figure out.

Very few religions get officially written into law in modern times. In the past, religion was the law. So in that sense, I have to agree with you that they WERE the same. Modern times are moving away from Religion being law, however. In countries where Religion is law, such as Islamic countries, well technically they are violating the religion. At least in regards to Islam anyway. The concept of Sharia Law is unIslamic.

Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256] a verse in the Qur'an for those who are unfamiliar.

You're knocking down straw men again. I don't deny that injustice, violence, and suffering exists independent of religion. I never said otherwise. I simply said religion is one such motivation. You're correct that it's also a tool, such as it was for Hitler, but that does not mean it also isn't a motivator.

I have no idea what strawmen you are referring to, however if there are any, shouldn't they be knocked down. They are not usually good ways to prove a point.

Well, that's an unexpected 180.

I don't feel I did a 180, maybe I just better explained my position and you understand me now. Or maybe you said something that made sense and I had to accept it. Hey stranger things have happened.

If you're implying that there must be something "wrong" with people who embrace religion and then do bad things, I have to disagree. Otherwise good people have done terrible things out of fear of eternal punishment or zeal for eternal reward.

On the contrary, I don't think there is anything wrong with them at all. They are operating within normal human nature. They may be at a different place in their psychological development than those who are not religious. But I would not want to imply that they are underdeveloped or that those who are not religious are necessarily more developed. Some people become atheists over time through a process of growth. Others are atheists because they were taught to be. Faith can be built or destroyed through the same process. Faith can also simply be taught. We simply cannot judge a mass of people like that. Each one has their own experiences which contribute to the way they view the universe and their place in it.

Though I will say that ignorance is often a contributor to faith. You'll notice on this forum that most of the believers are not as intelligent as the nonbelievers. And I don't mean that in a pejorative way, just that they seem to argue their beliefs from a place of ignorance. We see this in the anti-evolution debates and discussions, particularly. It's also why the poor and uneducated tend to be the most pious. Religion really is a crutch, and if we had a better education system, I think at the very least religiosity would decrease, and perhaps we'd see less of the ills we see today in the world.

I can't agree that ignorance contributes to Religious beliefs. I can't say that it doesn't either. I simply don't know. I think being uninformed certainly contributes to it. Ignorance would be more like when sound logic and/or information is being presented and the person receiving it refuses to acknowledge it because they don't like it and/or disagree with it.

My fingers hurt.:bawl:

 

[Neverfly]

Why?

'Cuz.

 

[wynn]

'Cuz.

How profound.

 

[wynn]

I agree, ignorance is a huge problem.

Religion and Ignorance are often seen as the same thing by many people.

I don't see Religion as something that can be defined consistently with accuracy by anyone due to it's subjective nature. So even if someone is not aware of what a Religious text says about a specific topic, there is no certainty that being made aware of it would automatically mean they would interpret it the same way as everyone else. You can even show some people what a text says and they will still not accept it. So ignorance AND denial are a problem. but it is hard to say that it is even possible to be ignorant or in denial when it comes to religion. Because Religion is open to interpretation.

Then how can you criticize religion?

 

[wynn]

I am referring to the strident Nazis who also happened to be Christian. Since Christianity accounts for about 99% of WWII Germans, that would be just about all strident Nazis.

Oh. So the criteria for being a Christian are:

1. If a person is baptized as an infant into the church, they are a Christian.

2. If a person attends monastery school, they are a Christian.

3. If a person is a communicant or altar boy, they are a Christian.

4. If a person is not excommunicated, they are a Christian.

5. If a person works with the Church for any reason, be it political or economical, they are a Christian.

6. If a person's beliefs and values in any way resemble those of Christians, they are a Christian.

However, episodes such as Kristallnacht must have been a brutalizing experience for the aggressors, one that would have given them a chance to rethink the worth of senseless aggression and then to stand up to the forces of oppression, even if it only meant desertion.

Whatever happened to evolutionary ideas of "only the strong survive," "man is an animal," "survival of the fittest" and so on?
Don't you believe those ideas anymore?

 

[seagypsy]

Then how can you criticize religion?

Have I? JDawg would argue that I defend religion, You say that I criticize it. How is it that you both reached completely different conclusions? Maybe you aren't actually reading my posts and instead are looking for key phrases that trigger kneejerk assumptions about one's position. Go back and read with the intention to understand and you will likely fair better on your next try.

I have merely said, REPEATEDLY, that I see Religion as neither good nor bad. I see it as a tool that can be used for either purpose.

If you consider that I dislike religion to mean I criticize it then you are reading too much into things.

Some people don't like meat loaf. I doubt they think it is evil.