Naturally, those who insist on desperately hanging on to ancient superstitions supplied/enforced by all institutionalized religious doctrines will refuse to give them up.....and grow up.
Chicken! You specifically claimed you believed that at least the majority of wars throughout history were caused by religion. And you went on to further state that if the world eliminated all organized religion, you believed all future wars would cease. Now are you gonna stand behind your words or not?
I agree the video is funny and a well written jab at religion. But whether God exists or not, is irrelevant to the point you were making.
Oil and other resources have been the cause of several wars in the last 100 years, religion did play a role in quite a few too, as motivation or as justification.
I fully agree that religion has contributed to some, possibly many wars throughout history, probably more as a motivational tool for the masses than as a cause. Religion didn't have much to do with wars of the last 200 years. But C was clear that he believed ridding the world of organized religion would end all wars. Do you buy that?
No, humans can always find some excuse to slay each other. But religion is a significant driving force for violence, if it were eliminated there would probably be fewer wars. In any case there would be less stupidity in the world.
And I disagree with you that religion had not much to do with the more recent wars. I.e. most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by religion
Land and its divisions/ownership/conquest are the primary roots of wars.
Even now in the middle east.
HD said it best: religion plays a role...as does greed, pride, fear, etc
Strangely enough when you go to the regions of the world where Christianity is not practiced...you see allot of what this guy is saying taking place. They prostitute their own children, practice genital mutilation, eat puppies, practice bestiality and incest, etc, etc. It is very violent in these places. Life before the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob was a world of paganism and blood violence. Life after will be the same...because God is disappearing. Why do you think the world is going to shit? He is distancing Himself because many of us, more and more everyday, don't want Him anymore. Sad, really.
Call me crazy, but "They prostitute their own children, practice genital mutilation, eat puppies, practice bestiality and incest, etc, etc." I'm pretty sure Christians have done their share of all of that -- as for cannibalism, I think the Christians have that market cornered every Sunday...
Ridding the world of religion wouldn't end all conflicts, but it would be a good place to start.
And thank gawd that the Christians will turn the other cheek rather than attack me for this, or is "turn the other cheek" just a pick-up line for choir boys?
Yassas
You will have a hard time showing evidence for the specifics you accused Christianity, Further, you will have an impossible time justifying the atrocities of human beings...in Christian doctrine.
Go read, in full context, what turn the other cheek means. (Matthew 5:39)
Actually, most of those things you mention were, and are still sometimes practiced in the service to some god or gods. So where does one point to causation? IMO It has everything to do with society, and nothing to do with deities.
One might as well ask what if God existed, how would the world be?
Believers in their respective Gods claim He has a hand in everything in their lives, but not in the lives of others? The video is badly flawed, and self conflicted nonsense, but it does open the door as to Gods hand in all things.
It is hard to believe that He allows a ten year old boy to be murdered and repeatedly raped by two pedophiles in the back of a van for two days and then killed and thrown into a river. Where was His hand in that? Perhaps empirical evidence dispassionate observer, or non existance. BTW the boys name was Jeffery Curley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtaNRfvwM0
Pods
A couple of really good points you made. A misconception or two, as well.
Christianity is one of the few religions that asserts that God has a personal relationship in the lives of humans. Most other religions do not see God in this light (Buddhists and Hindus in particular).
If God gave man a will to choose and then allows man to engage in his choices...tragedy, horror and mayhem are sure to follow. The atrocity of singular events shows man's awful depths when he ignores God's word.
"Christianity is one of the few religions that asserts that God has a personal relationship in the lives of humans."
Ohhhhhh, I dunno about that.
Those muslims wo scream "Allah Ackbar!" just before they toggle that detonator with their thumbs, seem to have/enjoy quite a "personal relationship" going on with The Man Upstairs, as well.
More so than your average "christian", I dare say.
And by-the-by Stream-O....it's been a long time since I've dwelt on anything to do with YOUR Saudi pals, haven't I? You remember THEM, don't you? Your PALS? Ya...THESE folks:
Canuck
Have you ever read anything that the Koran claims or what Muhammed claimed? This sort of thing is not surprising in an Islamic state. It is also very normal, culturally, in parts of the Middle East.
Please forgive me if I don't see how this relates to the US...other than another place to invoke our relationship to them.
Is BHO going to change our relationship with that Saudis?
My guess: he will continue it, much like it is now and much like most other GWB foreign policies.
Bug
Islam is not a "branch" of Judaism.
Its claims are entirely different. Muhammed may or may not have been Jewish. But, Islam is clear on Judaism and Christianity(and any other religion/people on earth): They must submit, voluntarily or involuntarily, to Islam. Judaism nor Christianity make that claim.
Islam was not around when the Jewish and the Christian texts were written, so they had no chance of mentioning it in any way. As for people believing in other gods the bible has some drastic measures planned.
You calling a previous member of The Dirty Four Dozen a "chicken"??? Man-Oh-Man.......them thar is fightin' words! LOL!
What yassas said: "Ridding the world of religion wouldn't end all conflicts, but it would be a good place to start."
I've said this a gazillion times. What we got to lose by giving it a shot? It sure as hell don't seem to work with having now, does it? (Except I say I believe it WOULD be a start to ridding all wars).
As for the commentys of jana11, think of it this way: Maybe it's a good thing "He" DOES "distance Himself from us", because maybe it'll give us the chance to be grown-up boys and girls, and solve our OWN effing problems like civilized human beings.
Or maybe you think we're NOT capable of THAT, without "His" Earth-flooding, city-smiting, plague-inducing ways?
Now THAT kind of thinking makes people like YOU "sad".
Oddly enough, I agree with much of what this guy is saying, especially the part he says of "not wanting to fight for those who don't have the balls to fight for themselves" (I've said THAT a gazillion times, as well).
Sounds to me like he's reached the end of his rope with this crap.
The sarcastic premise of the video is illogical.
Atheists already claim that there is no God. Those who believe in God recognize that the belief relies heavily on Faith. So, to postulate what would happen if God disappeared, actually creates an untenable place for the producer of the video.
This video, in a non sequitur sort of way, postulates what the person producing it already believes...and then, uses that as a vaulting board to promote arguments, some of which we have hear, that are unproveable...oddly, something demanded by atheists.
YOU believe in snakes that talk; burning shrubs that converse; people that walk on water; people that rise from the dead; armies held at bay by walls of fire; seas that miarculously part..........
Canuck
Which of those things, that fall under the naturally unexplainable (miracles), are illogical?
You may find them incredible to believe, but illogical is not the foundation you are appealing. With no belief in God, miracles are out of bounds to you...and that is logical. For me, an all-powerful God can do anything and therefore miracles are possible and likely...and that is also logical.
You and I believe in one unexpalined and unexplainable phenomenon: That the universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo)and that singular event is the only time that something came from nothing.
Interesting, just what I was pointing out to you: Making a point based on bullshit is like making no point at all. And that is what you are continually doing: Trying to argue based on an old unreliable book as your source of wisdom.
Would that be like placing your faith in the pronoucements of others...people you don't know...making statements that, at best, you want to agree?
Sounds like we both share faith as one of ur sources.
Careful, Bug. A lot of people, including PhD's, believe in what the Bible says.
When you say that, you are not just arguing with me.
Bush's initiatives required Congressional approval before money was spent.
Maybe you could check: Did he ever get approval? Were his initiatives Christian only? Did it include a bidding process?
Well now be careful there C. Did science win, or did ethics and human compassion for the unborn lose? Is it right to grow embryos for parts so long as they are never implanted? Are those embryos still human? This is some of that slippery slope stuff to watch out for.
Remember eugenics was once leading edge scientific research to.
Canuck
HD asked a few good questions.
There is a great book called "Forbidden Knowledge" (not to worry: it is not a religious book). It simply examines the lengths humans have gone to attain knowledge and to what degree, if any, humanity was comprimised.
There are cultures that have placed the value of knowledge and its aquisition above the value of human life.
Canuck, what you suggest formally allows the gubment and tax dollars to take that stand.
I think everyone would like to see where all of that money is going.
%u201DI do believe it's time for reform in the church, however we get it,%u201D said John M. Lucarelli, a member of the Representative Town Meeting in Greenwich and a parishioner at St. Michael the Archangel, where an audit found last year that former pastor the Rev. Michael Moynihan had diverted as much as $400,000 in off-the-books expenditures to his own credit card bills and personal benefit.
It is interesting that religion wants its hand in how government is run, but does not want it the other way around. If they are receiving money from the American taxpayers then the taxpayer is fully entitled to see the books, even the 'other books' that use the money for non-religious items. As in this case for a vacation for the priest and his boyfriend.
Agreed.
If the church is receiving tax money, the people should see their books.
However, your assertion that religion wants its hand in government is not true...it is just a fear of some who see any discussion about God/religion/ etc as out of bounds in the public forum.
Canuck
Show me, and anyone following along, how the American Christians are trying to institutionalize our gubment with Christianity.
Or, anywhere else in the world.
Christianity stands in stark contrast to that. My statement remains true and you did not refute it.
Little correction: Saudi Arabia is not a theological dictatorship, it is a monarchy and one where the rulers would be happier if their subjects were less religious. It is actually a lesson in how dangerous a situation in a country can become if the social divide gets too wide and the monarchs cling to their power too long and too intense.
You're all wrong. Rule one of any evil oppressive regime, destroy the peoples beliefs in anything but the evil oppressive regime. I believe people who have called themselves Christians have led evil oppressive regimes in the past. There have certainly been a few popes willing to incite violence for a "good" cause.
Although in Streamo's defense, calling yourself a Christian don't necessarily make you one.
But bug and C, you guys like to pretend all evil in the world is committed by religious folks. Evil is committed by all kinds of folks, religious or not. Stalin was plenty atheist, and plenty fucking evil.
But isn't it possible that if Hitler and Stalin actually believed in a power higher than themselves, that they would have to answer to after their deaths for all the actions they commanded, and people they ordered executed, that they might... just might... reconsider?
The answer is No. If Hitler or Stalin had been religious, they'd have just distorted religion to justify their crimes... like the pope in the crusades, like Islamic terrorists now. And they'd probably fervently believe in their God-commanded cause.
Being religious / believing in God don't make you evil, but it don't necessarily make you good either. Its all about how you perceive God's message. Kinda like being an atheist alone doesn't make you good or evil, it all about how you live your life and treat others.
Is there ANYTHING you won't compare/drag "Hitler" into???? I mean....ANYTHING at all???
Besides, Hitler was a Roman Catholic (as were 90% of the Nazi heirarchy). What's your point???
"Being religious / believing in God don't make you evil, but it don't necessarily make you good either. Its all about how you perceive God's message. Kinda like being an atheist alone doesn't make you good or evil, it all about how you live your life and treat others."
Apples and oranges are being mixed here.
(Thank you Bug for making the distinction in Saudi Arabia. If wandering nomads discovered oil of that magnitude in Palestinian territories, Israel would be the least of the Middle East's worries. Iran might be closer Canuck's point. Bug- you offered no answers to the points I made. Does this mean you and I share faith and ignorance?)
HD- you reworded what I said. Read Marx, Mao, Lenin and Hitler. The destruction of the belief in God is central to the take over. Canuck willfully portrays Hitler as a Roman Catholic knowing full-well he was not only NOT a practicing Catholic but rejected God long before coming to power. The central question, if Canuck believes waht he writes, is: Why was his Roman Catholicism not a primary tool of propaganda in the rise to power? We know from his writings and his actions (and the writings of his faithful) what they thought of God.
Which Christian regimes do we know that, as a tool of Christianity, used repression and violence? (key on: as a tool of Christianity.) I word it that way because it is not enough to be a Christian and be a perverse leader. The distinction I am making is not the singular status of the leader, but the grounds upon which they lead.
I contend that Hilter, Stalin, et al do not rise to power in that manner nor ingratiate themselves to the rest of the world for those awful years were they practicing Christians. It is not a matter of reconsideration at the point of making decisions...it is a lifelong commitment that would have colored their decisions. It would have changed with whom they surrounded themselves. It would have, at the very least, caused them to pause along the way. (Notice: they had long abandoned God by the time they arrived at their peak. Not the night before. In other words, they had stripped themselves of any rational foundation of morality that might have changed things along the way. It took years; years of cynicism, selfishness and then meeting with the means, political or otherwise, to carry out their own desires.)
I am not suggesting that there have not been Christian leaders of nations who have not been abominable. There have been plenty. You just won't find their tenets of governance in Christian doctrine. That is why I say we are comparing apples to oranges.
You are correct, HD: Being religious or believing in God don't necessarily make you good. It is the next step that can: acting on those beliefs.
As I have said many times: Being an atheist don't make you bad, in the human sense, either. Atheism just removes the personal restraints to act in any other way beyond self interest/ gratification/ etc. It replaces God with the self.
Atheism removes the restraint to have to act based on an arbitrary rule system dictated by old writings and old men. And it does not replace god with anything.
I have answered your questions long ago in this thread.
As for the Third Reich: Hitler may have become an atheist before coming to power, but many of his peers had not. And have a look at the role of the roman catholic church in that time.
Bug
Which tenets of Christian morality do you (a) disagree, and (b) think are arbitrary. I assure you that, as a beneficiary of Christian norms and culture, you are currently living them.
I recognize that you do not like the atheist assertion that removing God as the creator of morality thus makes man the arbiter, therefore making man his onw God. But, it is true nonetheless. You of all people know that one cannot remove one thing withouth replacing it with another.
A lot of mythology about the Roman Catholic church's role in and around WWII. To what do you refer?
When tabulating what American's spend on health care, what is included? (hair care products, toothpaste, gym memberships...)
Further, what is the individual's role in health care?
One would expect fluctuations in a freer market. These numbers do not apply to other times. Nor does it follow that we make the "one size fits all" leap to socialized medicine...especially when our economy is struggling.
It should also be pointed out that many of our problems in worker health care, as cited in the piece, come from forced pay situations...as in unions.
And finally, the last two paragraphs of the piece: The authors DO NOT recommend gubment run health care. It should remain in private hands.
"Other countries spend less on health care and their workers are relatively healthier, the report said."
Ya catch that part?
The CURRENT system you have NOW.....needs serious repair work.
Or did you skip over THIS part:
"The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S."
Of course our health care system needs work.
No one I am aware says otherwise. It is the socialized/gubment run proposed solution that is in question.
All I wanted to know, from a nebulous idea like "what Americans spend on health care", is what is included. It appears the details don't matter to you.
I wonder which nation on Earth spends the most on botox injections, facelifts, tummy-tucks, and nice big plastic tits? I bet its not Cuba.
Now I wonder if all those non-essential health care costs are included in the bill for US health care?
How about those few that spend the combined health care costs of a hundred Cubans, trying to save one child with cancer, severe burns, or fix a birth defect? Better to just let that kid die right, more health care bang for the buck that way!
I have been doing my taxes, and I always try Schedule-A. In my whole life I have never been able to deduct the dental expenses. Not that that is a bad thing, as I don't really believe in entitlements, but my mind always lands on my dear multi-millionaire senators, who do not do their own taxes, get stunningly good health care administered by the government, all paid for by us peasants...and I cannot even get $1 off of a $800 expense.
The insurance companies will pay for the brain washing, and political power to keep things just as they are. (Did you know that the uninsured pay more for medical treatment than the insured, and yes a great many do indeed pay their bills.)Perhaps the first step for this country is to do what Massachusetts has done.
HD - I hate the idea of rewarding bad behaviour on the backs of those who follow the rules. But, if we can do it for the billionaires, then we can do it for some of the peasants as well.
Its all wrong... He is just continuing the Bush bailout plan. Printing gobs of money will only deepen the crisis, and he and congress know it. The economy cannot recover because the inflationary bubble will hit just as recovery begins.
If some entity is "too big to fail" then obviously it was too big to exist, and definitely too big for taxpayer funds. If the taxpayer must accept the burdens of capitalism, then so must the corporations that exert such burdens. They should have been forced into bankruptcy, and broken up.
The country is run as a oligarchy, and so we have the expected result, and not the capitalist solution. Indeed, if the proper regulations were in place for the past 30 years, there would have been no bubbles at all. When there are no rules to play by, then chaos is the only result.
Pod, you are right, the "too bog to fail" sucks, unfortunately it is still true, due to missing rules some of these banks are too big to let them fail. The only hope now is to pull them through somehow and axe them later (though I doubt that will be done).
I'd agree with that as well. No bailouts were correct, private or big business. Its not within the governments constitutional authority.
China is now warning us not to spend money like drunken sailors, or like politicians. I don't think their warning will be taken. Inflation will soar. China will stop buying US T-bills. The dollars value will plummet. Hold on, the ride is really gonna get bumpy in the future...
Comments (126)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.