In Defense of Religion
This thread is an offshoot from Norsefire’s Social Advantages and Disadvantages of Religion. I read Fraggle Rocker’s post (which was intended as a response to Norsefire), and decided to form a reply, although mid-way I noticed it was getting slightly off-topic. Although I’m quoting Fraggle Rocker in this post, everybody is free to comment. I noticed Norsefire’s thread was becoming unfairly critical of religion, led by Fraggle Rocker’s typical anti-religious sentiments, so I decided to start a new thread combating the irreligious arguments.
Fraggle Rocker,
Those who assert such balderdash are of the atheistic-materialism creed. For you to state with such aggravating certainty that religion is a hindrance rather than a necessity speaks volumes about your credibility, Fraggle Rocker. Atheistic-materialistic mindsets always lead to totalitarian dictatorships: ideologies such as Nazism, Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism, Maoism, Darwinism, etc., can only arise from atheism and the strict belief in nothing other than testable “matter“. The concept of civilization is non-existent without religion, for both past and present times. Don’t you realize that religion was one of the prime factors in making civilizations develop and flourish worldwide? Archaeological evidence shows that many early religions supported the practice of marriage, encouraged the stability of the family, laid down rules (or laws) for raising children and caring for the aged, and established the way the dead should be respected. In short, religions helped build civilization. Why should this phenomena change as civilization advances? There is no logical argument for that viewpoint. Rationally speaking, abandoning religion should make civilization regress until it fails to exist.
It certainly does not! Religion is universal, and it establishes understood morals and values within a given society. People of all backgrounds, regardless of their inherent differences, live their lives by these sacred testaments and traditions. Religion unites people under a commonly shared belief, and encourages charity to assist the less fortunate. How many atheistic-based charities do you know of? Absolutely none. Religion preaches unity and oneness, but also allows for uniqueness within the individuals as well, which is vital for scientific, mathematical, and literary progression. Religion preaches that nobody is superior to another, and that everybody is to be held equally accountable for their actions, as ordained by God. Do these qualities of religion seem as if they exacerbate the differences between people? Of course not.
European culture did not stagnate as a result of the Christian church’s power; rather, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the corrupting influence of Pagan-Jewish merchants and money-lenders. Actually, Edward Gibbon dealt with such merchants and money-lenders in some of his historic works, crediting them with contributing greatly to the decline and subsequent fall of the Roman Empire. Once Pagan-Jewish predominance in Europe was established, the “Dark Ages” began. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says this on the subject: “There was an inevitable tendency for them (Pagan-Jewish merchants and money-lenders) to specialize in commerce for which their acumen, and ubiquity, gave them special qualifications. In the Dark Ages the commerce of Western Europe was largely in their hands, in particular, the Slave Trade.” It’s no coincidence, either. Sure, the rise of Christendom’s “power” just so happened to coincide with such events, but in no way can it (Christianity) be blamed as the “cause“. Also, I say “Pagan-Jews” because it is dishonest and unfair to call the aforementioned merchants and money-lenders “Jews”, considering they truly weren’t “Jews” in belief. Most of them were either pagans (especially through historical origin) or simply irreligious.
Utter nonsense. The Renaissance didn’t take place due to European societies eschewing religion; it took place only after the Western European nations wrestled economic control away from the Pagan-Jewish money-lenders and merchants. It’s interesting to note that the Renaissance began during the same era in which European countries collectively began banishing and expelling Jews from their lands. England expelled the Jews in 1290; France in 1306; Saxony in 1348; Hungary in 1360; Belgium in 1370; Slovakia in 1380; Austria in 1420; the Netherlands in 1444; Spain in 1492; Lithuania in 1496; Portugal in 1498; Italy in 1540; Bavaria in 1551. Notice how during this era of Jewish banishment, the Renaissance began? It began because the European Christians slowly regained control of their own commerce. The Jewish “Dark Age“, according to many historians, is said to have begun during the Renaissance. Coincidence? Highly unlikely.
Stick to linguistics, Fraggle, because you seemingly have no knowledge in the department of the Muslim world. The Muslim world was at its indisputable height when it was united under Islam, often referred to as its Golden Age. The Golden Age happened during the Caliphate, which was an era when the Muslim world practiced Islam at its most genuine and accurate form. The Ottomans, who usurped control over the Muslim world, practiced many of the same culturally-binding techniques as the Caliphate, and were successful in maintaining a strong, Islamic-oriented Empire for the mind-blowing span of over six centuries. What led to the Muslim world’s condition today, you ask? There are a lot of different answers to that question, although I can assure you that “religion” is not one of them. If you ask me, the Ottoman Empire’s collapse was the single worst event to have ever happened to the Muslim world. However, the Ottoman Empire did not collapse due to Sunni-Shi’ite strife, as you imply; in fact, the Sunnis and Shi’ites managed to finally get along, in one way or another, after the Ottoman-Safavid wars. Both the Ottoman Sunni Empire and the Persian Safavid Shi’ite Empire were considerably strong, combining to make a Middle Eastern superpower. Despite denominations in Islam, the Middle East was still a formidable entity. However, the Ottomans, like all Empires, witnessed a decline and subsequently a collapse. The decline was due in large part to money-lending. During the end of the 18th century, the Ottomans committed the unforgivable sin of borrowing much-needed money (mainly due to the Russo-Turkish wars) from Pagan-Jewish money-lenders practicing usury in Europe. After these events took place, the Ottomans failed to pay their debts back sufficiently, pushing them to their breaking point whilst various European nations ogled their vulnerable territory. Attempting to place the final nail in the Ottoman Empire’s coffin, Pan-Arabists such as Sharif Husayn bin Ali, financed and armed by the British, waged wars against what remained of the Ottoman Empire. From that point on, much of the Middle East embraced the backward ideology of “Pan-Arabism” (significant figures include Gamal Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Ahmed Ben Bella, etc.), and ignored Islam. Secular parties began gaining prominence, such as Iran’s Shah dictatorship, Turkey’s Kemalists, and Iraq’s Ba’athists. The newly-formed Turkish Republic adopted “Pan-Turkism” as its national ideology as well, removing all religious influence from its constitution, replacing it instead with transparent concepts of secularism. Ataturk, an atheist, ensured the survival of Turkey's secularism with an ingenious idea, aware that knowledgeable Turks would eventually attempt to incorporate Islam into the Republican yet again. Countering this inevitability, Ataturk gave the military the right to intervene with the government's affairs when it saw fit, forcibly removing leaders posing a threat to the nation's secularism. This led to a trio of irreligious ideologies - Pan-Arabism, Pan-Turkism, and Pan-Iranism - which competed for power throughout the Middle East (these three ideologies are still in conflict today, and are still active in dividing the Muslim world through ethnicity and nationality). I could discuss the efforts of the PLO, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, General Abdul Karim Qasim, etc., explaining how they fought and died against the ostracization of religion in the Muslim world, but this paragraph is getting long enough as it is. After reading such information, Fraggle, how can you insist on blaming Islam for the Muslim world’s current affairs? Ignoring Islam is what caused the effects we witness in the Middle East today. Under Islam’s guidance, the Middle East - rather, the Muslim world - was virtually untouchable by any foreign entity.
What is wrong with conformity, pray tell? Conformity to God’s laws and the Prophets’ teachings by the masses is a scintillating sight. Religious people certainly do differ greatly, contrary to what you say, and hold conflicting opinions with regard to a plethora of issues; however, their differences don’t undermine their religious unity whatsoever. You claim atheists can “happily differ“, although history proves such an assertion to be miserably false. Atheists conform, just like everybody else in the world. The difference? Atheists conform to men and manmade ideologies. According to many atheistic groups in the past, the State must be supreme. This being so, the Head of the State is to be “God” on Earth. This belief brings into actual practice the deification of man. History has shown that atheists enjoy and partake in conformity just as routinely as their religious counterparts. Logically, the only difference is the idea or entity they conform to: religious people to God and His laws, atheists to man and material.
Enormously unsubstantiated speculations! Care to be more specific? Religious people don’t declare wars to force their beliefs unto others; instead, wars are declared to win leaders resources, wealth, and manpower.
This is a downright laughable statement, Fraggle Rocker. Monotheism is anything but a straitjacket on the human spirit; instead, individuals influenced by monotheism have accomplished the greatest feats throughout history. Look at Michael Hart’s list of the top one-hundred influential people in history, for example: atheism and polytheistic religions are triumphed by monotheism in terms of accomplishments. Was monotheism a straitjacket on the spirit of Muhammad? Of Jesus? Of Abraham? Of Moses? Of Sir Isaac Newton? Of Pasteur? Of Galileo? Of Constantine? Of Michelangelo? Of Martin Luther King Jr? These are some of the most influential and successful people to have ever walked the Earth. Their accomplishments and discoveries are revered to this very day. Do you think that believing in a single God made these people “spiritless”? Consider the fact that these men constitute a very low percentage, in the grand scheme of things, of the full list of accomplished monotheists. Where, in turn, is the atheist’s history of tolerance and success? Which names of atheism have been preserved long enough to be discussed today? Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tong, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, etc. These men, free from the “shackles” of monotheism, have shown glimpses of tolerance, you say? I don’t think so. Instead, these were some of the worst mass-murderers, genocide causers, and infamous revolutionaries in history. Their spirits were free, according to you, Fraggle. But then again, all atheists have free spirits, do they not? Yes, but what has it accomplished? Where are the bounteous scientific advancements? Where are the charitable leaders? Where are the benevolent empires? Where are the civil rights leaders? If a “free spirit” amounts to virtually no contribution or success in any of these categories, then I prefer the straitjacket.
If history is any indicator, there is no straitjacket fiercer in grip than atheism.
Kadark the Empire
Last edited:
