Religion does more harm than good

[Ferocious]

So say the majority of British.

82% say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious

If this kind of rational thinking ever takes a dominant foothold in the USA, that could be bad news indeed for the GOP.

click

 

[Steeplerot]

*Grabs some popcorn*

 

[Schadenfroh]

This is going to be nasty........

 

[Aimster]

I <3 Jesus

now to get a bumper sticker that says that. I want to shove it to the British.

 

[slash196]

THEISTIC religion does more harm than good. Atheist religions tend to be ultimately positive. You don't see anyone killing each other over Confucianism.

 

[Harvey]

:thumbsup: to the Brits. I see religion as a bad excuse for philosophy. Both attempt to answer questions about the unknown, but at least, in philosophy, "I don't know." is an acceptable answer.

I also see religion primarily as a political power structure based on fear and ignorance. Any organization that claims exclusive insight to some greater truth or powers based on ancient texts, myth and lore, while ignoring later information learned and proven over time through our ever increasing ablity to observe and analyze the evidence of the nature of our universe, is blowing smoke.

Concepts of good and evil and right and wrong do not require any deity or religion to understand why they are true. They make perfect sense in simple concepts of social engineering and understanding. It's all based on the idea of avoiding "bad vibes." For example most of the Ten Commanments are rules for a microcosm roving around the desert.

• Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't hit on your buddy's SO, etc.
  
  Why? It causes bad vibes.
  
• Respect and care for your parents.
  
  Why? When you were too little to do it for yourself, they did it. If now, they're too old or disabled to care for themselves, it's your turn to return the favor. Anything else causes bad vibes.
  
• Remember the sabbath.
  
  Why? Without rest and relaxation, human beings burn out and turn nasty and even dangerous to others. To make sure everyone gets at least some rest, we'll declare one day where we can be sure everyone does. Otherwise, you get ... (you guessed it)... bad vibes.

Then, you get down to the enforcer, the first commandment, "I am the lord thy god... blah, blah, blah..." Since this group of desert wanderers barely has the manpower to deal with survival, let alone a police force to enforce the rules, when the masses ask the leaders, "Why should we follow these rules?" they answer, "God said so," and the masses just say, "Oh! Guess we'd better do it, or else..." :shocked:

It doesn't take the wisdom of some mythical deity to understand why good works better than evil simply because it requires far less effort, energy and resources to maintain a happier, healthier society.

If religion is where you learn the basics, more power to you. I'm glad you learned it somewhere. If you think YOUR religion gives you any special knowledge of, or preference with, your concept of some superior powers, to quote Hamlet speaking to Horatio, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

If you believe your version of the creation story gives you some special reason to belittle, or to demonize, or to harm, or to discriminate against otherwise peaceful, friendly people with other beliefs, either you didn't learn the lessons, or the teachings of your religion suck.

 

[Steeplerot]

The thing that really is a head-scratcher is when they come in here and ask how could we be moral without their book, I mean wtf? SO you are telling us you are so screwed up you need a book to command you not to rape and kill your neighbor?

Personally I think anyone who thinks there is some fairy in the sky dictating everything in this day and age should be put in a straightjacket but then I was not luckily raised christian or anything else.

Any Brits got a spare room if the proverbial p00 ever hits the fan? 😉



I can think of one group of Brits that put it best in this XTC song, probably known as the atheists anti-anthem:
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=wXZhpduVCjs">Dear god,
Hope you got the letter,
And I pray you can make it better down here.
I dont mean a big reduction in the price of beer,
But all the people that you made in your image,
See them starving on their feet,
cause they dont get enough to eat

From god,
I cant believe in you.

Dear god,
Sorry to disturb you,
But I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears,
And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
cause they cant make opinions meet,
About god,
I cant believe in you.

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!

Dear god,
Dont know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look,
And all the people that you made in your image,
Still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it aint and so do you,
Dear god,
I cant believe in,
I dont believe in,

I wont believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners,
No devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
Youre always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And its the same the whole world round.
The hurt I see helps to compound,
That the father, son and holy ghost,
Is just somebodys unholy hoax,
And if youre up there youll perceive,
That my hearts here upon my sleeve.
If theres one thing I dont believe in...
It's YOU</a>

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: slash196
THEISTIC religion does more harm than good. Atheist religions tend to be ultimately positive. You don't see anyone killing each other over Confucianism.

What about Stalin ?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: slash196
THEISTIC religion does more harm than good. Atheist religions tend to be ultimately positive. You don't see anyone killing each other over Confucianism.

What about Stalin ?

USSR and stalinist type dictatorships were not atheistic, the people were rounded up and told to fight for their god-dictator instead of the one in the sky, they just replaced one god for another. Stalin, Pol Pot etc, were nothing but living pharaohs in a way.

Also, Stalin did reopen the churches during WW2, so the USSR during it's worst eras of gulags etc would once again be technically once again a Orthodox Christian state although the dictator was the "official" supreme godhead.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: slash196
THEISTIC religion does more harm than good. Atheist religions tend to be ultimately positive. You don't see anyone killing each other over Confucianism.

What about Stalin ?

USSR and stalinist type dictatorships were not atheistic, the people were rounded up and told to fight for their god-dictator instead of the one in the sky, they just replaced one god for another. Stalin, Pol Pot etc, were nothing but living pharaohs in a way.

Also, Stalin did reopen the churches during WW2, so the USSR during it's worst eras of gulags etc would once again be technically a Christian state although the dictator was the "official" supreme godhead.

What a load of crap. Is this your own theory, or did you read it somewhere ?

 

[Steeplerot]

Name a part you disbelieve, it is all part of history.

In 1943 Stalin reopened the Russian Orthodox Churches

The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-Sung and his son, Kim Jong-Il. During the peak of their reigns these leaders (Kim Jong-Il is still in office) appeared as god-like infallible rulers. Their portraits were hung in every home or public building, and many artists and poets were instructed to produce only works that glorified the leader. The term "cult of personality" comes from Karl Marx's critique of the "cult of the individual." link

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Name a part you disbelieve, it is all part of history.

The part about the Russian people thinking Stalin was a god for starters.

The complete misdirection of the whole post. The issue is what Stalin believed and what he did in the name of that belief.

Implying that the misdeeds of Stalin were done in the name of Christianity, because Stalin allowed churches to reopen, is as ludicrous as saying Hitler was secretly fighting for the creation of Israel.

edit- since you added more, the cult of personality has nothing to do with belief in god, so Stalin's use of it doesn't have anything to do with my question.

 

[Steeplerot]

I made no such claim, the peasants of the Russia were mainly Christian orthodox still, not atheists, and Stalin was one of the biggest examples of godhood on earth.

See link above about cults of personality, same deal, Stalin was a living god, and mummified too on death just like a pharaoh.

Even better, check out Stalins wiki link under "Cult of Personality"

USSR just switched one god for another.

So if Stalin what not a god to Russians what makes someone a real god to you?

They attributed him to miracles, (Winning ww2 single-handedly) saving the people from capitalism etc etc, although they were false but then that is what "faith" is all about.


To clear up the part you pointed out, I was not saying it was Christianity, but the blind faith in a "god" cult of personality, etc. Gods and religion have many forms but they all boil down to the same thing -irrational faith that opens people up for manipulation instead of people using their own critical thinking skills.

 

[Tom]

Fear of death, or being sent to a Gulag, doesn't equal belief that someone is a god.

Stalin believed in power for himself primarily, and the primacy of the state. He was as pure an atheist as has ever wielded so much power, and the only reason to deny that is to try to associate everything evil with belief in god(s), which isn't true.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Tom
Fear of death, or being sent to a Gulag, doesn't equal belief that someone is a god.

Unless you see the ruler as all powerful with the ability at his whim to send you to the equivalent of some idea of a hell.

It's not how the rulers sees themselves. It's how they're perceived by those they rule and the mythology they build around themselves.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Tom
Fear of death, or being sent to a Gulag, doesn't equal belief that someone is a god.

Stalin believed in power for himself primarily, and the primacy of the state. He was as pure an atheist as has ever wielded so much power, and the only reason to deny that is to try to associate everything evil with belief in god(s), which isn't true.

I do not think you see the irony in your own first statement in relation to religion especially Christianity.


Every government since time immemorial has recognized the role religion plays in stifling dissent and keeping people quiet and submissive. Charles I of England, for example, once said "religion is the only firm foundation of power."

Stalin did not want to share his power with anyone. Recognizing the church as the only significant rival to his supremacy, he attacked it. His attacks had nothing to do with ideological differences; it was a simple question of his stamping out a perceived threat.



The smear campaign against atheists is an attempt to link them with the crimes of the various communist dictatorships. Few would deny that Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship, or that he focused much of his enmity on the church. However, we must consider two important factors: 1) Did he commit his crimes in the name of atheism, and 2) What were his motivations.

Throughout its history, Russia's people have always had strong mystical inclinations. Their mystical traditions extend far back in history, to the time of the first Slav settlements over a thousand years ago. In the year 988, due to the conversion of Vladimir 1, Russia became officially Christian. The Russian people lived and breathed religion, and it played a central role in their lives until the time of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Stalin (1879-1953) was the product of a seminary, and learned its lessons of manipulation and mind control well. He knew that the best way to stifle dissent and to break the will of the people was to deprive them of that which they value the most. Religion, being so important to the lives of the Russian people, was the perfect target. By depriving the people of the crutch of religion, he knew he could crush their spirit.

There are no elements of freethought (the foundation of atheism) in Soviet philosophy. Stalin most certainly was unfamiliar with the humanistic underpinnings of atheism; they contradicted his goal, which was to create a totalitarian state in which he became the new god, whose dictates were not to be questioned. Individual rights, so central to freethought, were unknown in Soviet Russia.

The massacres of Stalin's reign were committed in the name of statism, not atheism, and statism is a by-product of the fundamentalist religious mindset.

link

Take it as you will, but that is my stance also that is based off of history.

Remember Stalin was a schooled in seminary school, he knew very well of the tactics of mass manipulation.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Tom
Fear of death, or being sent to a Gulag, doesn't equal belief that someone is a god.

Unless you see the ruler as all powerful with the ability at his whim to send you to the equivalent of some idea of a hell.

It's not how the rulers sees themselves. It's how they're perceived by those they rule and the mythology they build around themselves.

In the case of Stalin, it wasn't a myth. But like the rejection of Mao, I don't buy the idea that people saw Stalin or Mao as all powerful, but it was sensible to pretend one did.

But we aren't discussing the practicality of going along to get along, we are talking about real beliefs, aren't we ?

 

[bamacre]

It is not religion that is the problem. It is the misunderstanding of it that is a problem. It is the abuse and use of it as a tool for corruption that is a problem.

 

[Harvey]

As I said, earlier, I see religion primarily as a political power structure based on fear and ignorance. It doesn't matter what form it takes if the results are the same.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: bamacre
It is not religion that is the problem. It is the misunderstanding of it that is a problem. It is the abuse and use of it as a tool for corruption that is a problem.

So 82% are wrong? This is reality, not what it could be in some perfect world. (Which never did exist) it has always been a tool to pacify masses, manipulate and extort them, always.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Tom
Fear of death, or being sent to a Gulag, doesn't equal belief that someone is a god.

Stalin believed in power for himself primarily, and the primacy of the state. He was as pure an atheist as has ever wielded so much power, and the only reason to deny that is to try to associate everything evil with belief in god(s), which isn't true.

I do not think you see the irony in your own first statement in relation to religion especially Christianity.


The smear campaign against atheists is an attempt to link them with the crimes of the various communist dictatorships. Few would deny that Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship, or that he focused much of his enmity on the church. However, we must consider two important factors: 1) Did he commit his crimes in the name of atheism, and 2) What were his motivations.

Throughout its history, Russia's people have always had strong mystical inclinations. Their mystical traditions extend far back in history, to the time of the first Slav settlements over a thousand years ago. In the year 988, due to the conversion of Vladimir 1, Russia became officially Christian. The Russian people lived and breathed religion, and it played a central role in their lives until the time of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Stalin (1879-1953) was the product of a seminary, and learned its lessons of manipulation and mind control well. He knew that the best way to stifle dissent and to break the will of the people was to deprive them of that which they value the most. Religion, being so important to the lives of the Russian people, was the perfect target. By depriving the people of the crutch of religion, he knew he could crush their spirit.

There are no elements of freethought (the foundation of atheism) in Soviet philosophy. Stalin most certainly was unfamiliar with the humanistic underpinnings of atheism; they contradicted his goal, which was to create a totalitarian state in which he became the new god, whose dictates were not to be questioned. Individual rights, so central to freethought, were unknown in Soviet Russia.

The massacres of Stalin's reign were committed in the name of statism, not atheism, and statism is a by-product of the fundamentalist religious mindset.

link

Take it as you will, but that is my stance also that is based off of history.

Remember Stalin was a schooled in seminary school, he knew very well of the tactics of mass manipulation.

As I thought, your whole point is an attempt to deny and/or redefine reality because it doesn't fit into the atheist' dogma that deist religion is the root of all evil.

I'm not attributing Stalin's evilness to his atheism, just as most cases where evil is done in the name of religion the evil doesn't actually come from the ideals of that religion, but from the tendency of people to think their group has the answers, and is superior to some other group.

In that respect atheists can be just as dangerous as anyone else, which is my interest, not in smearing anyone.

 

[Steeplerot]

Well your original question about Stalin sure seemed to be putting the two together.

Problem is history is not on religions side as far as peacefulness, as far as I am concerned one less reason to hate one another is one less justification to dehumanize others which leads to killing.

Take religion out of it and you have less problems, this was my point and what the thread is about.

It is not a cure-all but it sure is a step in the right direction if we are going to even remotely consider getting along in the long run.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Harvey
As I said, earlier, I see religion primarily as a political power structure based on fear and ignorance. It doesn't matter what form it takes if the results are the same.

If that's the way I saw religion, I'd be an atheist, too.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Well your original question about Stalin sure seemed to be putting the two together.

Problem is history is not on religions side as far as peacefulness, as far as I am concerned one less reason to hate one another is one less justification to dehumanize others which leads to killing.

Take religion out of it and you have less problems, this was my point and what the thread is about.

It is not a cure-all but it sure is a step in the right direction if we are going to even remotely consider getting along in the long run.

Except I think you've misidentified religion as the problem, when I would say it's more a problem of feeling superior to someone else, and lack of tolerance. Those things can come from all kinds of things including religion.

At the same time, some religions include teaching tolerance.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Tom

At the same time, some religions include teaching tolerance.

Absolutely, but then what really is the point?

Religion must thrive off of competing for fellowship and control, this is self-defeating in the long run for a religion.