Ban All Religions

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

SGTObvious So glad to see this thread back- it was a fun one. 3/17/2004 7:08:06 PM

FJV, we will always find things to fight over, because if nothing else, we fight over relative status. If we were all kings we would still fight over the shiniest crown. The Yanamamo people of Brazil have absolutely nothing to fight over, so they kill each other to impress women and have the highest "death by violence" rate of any culture on the Earth.

Quote Reply

Condor Legion RE:So glad to see this thread back- it was a fun one. 3/17/2004 8:15:21 PM

Religion is the oldest form of politics. STEP-N-FETCH-IT, CL.

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE:So glad to see this thread back- it was a fun one. 3/17/2004 10:03:26 PM

Nice to see old ground retread. Recent events in my personal life have reached up and slapped me off my "atheist" pedestal. I guess I've almost come full circle - born Christian, flirted with agnosticism, studied other religions, embraced atheism, pondered agnosticism again, studied other religions and philosophies, and leaning back towards where I started in the first place as a Christian. I read things I posted here over a year ago "in the name of atheism" and cringe at the seeming religiousity of it in retrospect. I'm not even sure I'm comfortable with calling myself an "atheist" anymore. Is it okay to be nothing but a politically conservative long-haired scruffy-faced guy in an Army jacket and Pantera T-shirt listening to techno? Perhaps the best assessment is that we're all henotheists screaming "my god is bigger than yours" whether our god is a theological idea, a quantum singularity, a book by Jung, or a can of beer. Personally, I want a religion that is anti-supremacist in nature, if that makes sense. Something so obvious that it requires no spirited ideological defense, no sermon to propagate, no ceremony to commemorate, no text to debate the meaning of. The closest thing I can come up with that matches that criteria so far is "If you kill people, I will kill you. Have a nice day." Is that so wrong?

Quote Reply

DrCruel Ban Atheism 3/17/2004 10:10:03 PM

The worst killer of the 20th century, by far, was Marxism. Upwards of 100,000,000 people, fully 2% of the population of the earth at that time, lost their lives violently in the name of a promised "worker's paradise" that never materialised. As I recollect, Marxists are atheists.

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE:So glad to see this thread back- it was a fun one. 3/18/2004 4:01:22 AM

I am a proud HERETIC!!! I am on the outer as faras everyting (I have read or heard) is concerned with every religion and secular ideology I have ever encountered. I was born a Catholic, rejected not just Catholicism but Christianity for Agnosticsm. Discovered that it was like drinking 'Diet Pepsi', you can, but why bother? Tried atheism, discovered that I cared less fot it than even a non-existent deity/creator. I finally cottoned on to the fact that the majority of religions from ancient times to the present have sought one overriding purpose, (generally) the spiritual evolution of man. No belief system that overrides or disregards this objective is worth my p!ss if it was on fire. I take the bits that appeal, tell the ideological conformists to walk and trundle up to the pub for another beer. Who needs or requires spiritual angst?

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE:Ban Atheism 3/18/2004 4:06:38 AM

>>The worst killer of the 20th century, by far, was Marxism. Upwards of 100,000,000 people, fully 2% of the population of the earth at that time, lost their lives violently in the name of a promised "worker's paradise" that never materialised. As I recollect, Marxists are atheists<< But not all atheists are Marxists.

Quote Reply

SGTObvious Athiestic Marxists 3/18/2004 5:55:32 AM

"As I recollect, Marxists are atheists" Yes, but they were very religious about being athiests.

Quote Reply

Elbandeedo RE:Athiestic Marxists 3/18/2004 6:13:53 AM

I'll probably start a "thought-food" fight here - but here goes! The first crusade, in my opnion, was a valid and justified crusade. (we are now in a "clash of civilizations" with "the west" fighting the islamofacsist hordes - AGAIN!) Now, I've been trying to catch up on some long-missed history (on my part) and near as I can tell, since the first crusade went so "well" and "we" recaptured the holy land - more crusades sounded like a good idea. Besides, there was all that plunder to be brought back! So, a "good idea" based on a religious quest for "justice" (retaking the holy land from the islamofacsist hordes) was taken by power-hungry popes/kings/other leaders and used to their benefit. Imagine being able to tell your enemies or nearest rivals, that it was their religious duty to go FAR away (a years travel, or just alittle less!) and then to have to fight a wily opponent (which of course presented the opportunity for your political rival to be killed "in the service of God".) - I mean, it's clever right? So if I'm REALLY off base, someone please enlighten me - include links if possible, titles where needed. I really don't proclaim to know much about the crusades, but from what I've seen of the catholic church, it's leadership has been bought and sold for some time, from early history on - and THAT was what was behind many of the 'later crusades'. IMHO. Therefore - while there were many deaths due to religion from the first crusade, the rest of the supposedly 'religious crusades' were in fact secular attempts to maintain/gain power and influence, by using the name of God to exploit the masses. (some of whom were probably truly faithful and zealous Christians). Thoughts? E.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a RE:Athiestic Marxists 3/18/2004 2:55:05 PM

You're mostly right. Popes didn't start moving away from political power until just recently, and the Catholic Church didn't get out of medevalism really until Vatican II. Look at the Bible. There's passages chock-full of people using God for political gain. There's a reason why Jesus went after the Pharisees so hard. I don't see how anyone could be an atheist--there's too much beauty out there in the world to say "it just happened by accident." But that's my two cents. Besides, God gave us St. Patrick, who gave us St. Patrick's Day. "This is grain. Any fool can eat it. But God intended it for a higher purpose. Let us give thanks for...beer."

Quote Reply

celebrim RE: Ban Evil and Stupidity 3/18/2004 3:43:01 PM

I don't really want to get involved in this thread, and would rather it had stayed buried. However, if I had to ban something to insure the future welfare of humanity it wouldn't be religion or even aethism. I would ban as my first choice Evil. As my second choice, I'd ban Stupidity. After that, it hardly matters. Ban impiety. Ban self-righteousness. Ban pride. Ban self-centeredness. Ban apathy. Banning religion is stupid. Religious people live on average longer than non-religious people. Religious people are 50% more like to give to charity than non-religious people, and when they do give they give 20% more. Religious people are more than 50% likely to donate thier time to charity compared to non-religious people (I'd have to look for the exact number). Religious people report that they are happier with life than non-religious people. Virtually everything that masquerades as a religious war is actually about land or other property. The Irish and the Protestants aren't fighting in Ireland over transubstantiation or salvation by grace vs. salvation by works. They are fighting over land (and the ill will of past conflicts). The Hindi and Moslems in Kashmir aren't fighting over whether one should worship one God or many; they are fighting over land. The 30 Years War wasn't fought over the doctrine of continuing revelation. It was fought over percieved political abuses by the Catholic Church with the instigation of German nobility. The basic question was not 'what must I do to be saved', but who would have the right to collect taxes. Calling someone else a bunch of heathens and heritics is just how you justify for yourself the land or powergrab, but I assure you that where religious differences are not available people are plenty capable of coming up with non-religious insults. Even such excesses of religion as the European Witch trials, or the sacking of Jeruselem in the First Crusade, or the infamous Spainish Inquisition all prove to be the product of powerful secular motivations when closely inspected. In the case of the witch trials, the most usual motivation was greed. Of the 30,000 or so documented cases of burning witches at the stake, a not unsurprising number of cases have to do with charges brought by neighbors or landholders against widows or old maids without heirs (and without legal station to defend themselves) who would end up buying the property at bargain prices afterwards. The sacking of Jerusulem, horrible as it is to contemplate a nominally Christian army acting in that manner, was notable only in that it was a nominally Christian army acting in that manner and was not out of character for the conduct of war at that time or any prior time. Besides which, dishonorably as the Crusades might have been conducted they were in simple historical fact mere counterattacks. Christiandom had not started that war, and it had plenty of valid justification for it - if no excuses for its conduct. And the Spainish inquisition had alot to do with enternal Catholic politics, and besides which had been founded expressly because the secular judicial system was seen as hopelessly corrupt. Fearsome they may have been, but there are instances of people turning themselves over to the inquisition to escape persecution. It wasn't like torture was an exclusively religious or European practice. Hmmm... I guess I got involved in this thread afterall.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT