This world would be better without religion

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
This is a disorganized rant but I don't care.

Religion - for the purpose of this thread, is defined as beliefs involving a make-believe world and god.

Without religion . . .

- Everyone would embrace science and its many benefits. We would be able to advance much further in medcine using stem cells, we wouldn't have kids in school being taught about creationism which just distracts from REAL learning. By not believing in god, we would start to uncover the true mysteries of our origination. (Which is far more interesting anyway..) As well as where we will be going into the future. What is the nature of time? Are there multiple universes? Other intelligent lifeforms?

- People wouldn't waste their lives trying to be good for someone that isn't there, and instead enjoy the time they have RIGHT NOW and would make the absolute most of it.

- We wouldn't have to be fearful of crazy islamo-fascist muslim dickheads trying to blow us all up because they live in a shithole country with malnurished goats (their favorite animal)

- We wouldn't have crazy christians trying to ruin our tv shows, movies and music by telling us what is acceptable behavior. Teen pregnancy would go down because kids in school would stop being told that condoms aren't effective and are a waste of time.

Without religion, a large portion of our wars would cease, without religion, everyone would try to make life a better experience. Without religion, we would be happy.

Religion needs to end.
 
Only in rightwing world, is the bible considered to be literal truth, and where science is scoffed at.

There isn't necessarily a split between science, knowledge, and religion. The christian churches I went to as a youth embraced science, and knowledge, including evolution. They taught that the stories in the bible (particulaly old testament) were metaphors - not literal truth.
 
I am not saying you can't get good out of religion, I just think that, generally speaking, the bad far outweighs the good.
 
again damo. Some religion is fine and non-threatening. But, generally speaking, look at all the problems religion has caused the world over the last 3000 years. We would have been better off without it.
 
again damo. Some religion is fine and non-threatening. But, generally speaking, look at all the problems religion has caused the world over the last 3000 years. We would have been better off without it.
That's entirely possible. Believe it or not, however, I don't buy it.

What do we mean by "religion" in this context? Is "religion" the belief in forces that aren't rationally describable, or are we talking about the transmission of such beliefs from one generation to the next?

I'll agree that belief in supernatural, mysterious causes for events is intellectually lazy. It also leads one to sweep other inconvenient obserfations under the metaphorical carpet. Belief in the supernatural promotes more laziness, in other words.

Still, I think that the real problem is the fact that such superstitions tend to propagate across generations.
 
Millions have been killed in the name of atheism too. Atheists are just as radical.


The most important facet of religion is not the supernatural aspect, but the rules for living they provide. How we cooperate determines how successful we are. Cooperation works. That's what morality is all about.

Science is not what will save mankind, morality is.
 
Millions have been killed in the name of atheism too. Atheists are just as radical.


The most important facet of religion is not the supernatural aspect, but the rules for living they provide. How we cooperate determines how successful we are. Cooperation works. That's what morality is all about.

Science is not what will save mankind, morality is.

I sense a strain of collectivism hidden in your words.

I am going to have to report this post to the chief "Capital L extra foam" Libertarian, RS. He is in the middle of a collectivst cleansing.
 
I sense a strain of collectivism hidden in your words.

I am going to have to report this post to the chief "Capital L extra foam" Libertarian, RS. He is in the middle of a collectivst cleansing.
:eek: That's it, I'm off to work. Pogroms give me gas.
 
I sense a strain of collectivism hidden in your words.

I am going to have to report this post to the chief "Capital L extra foam" Libertarian, RS. He is in the middle of a collectivst cleansing.


Humans are naturally a social species, if that's what you're talking about. Statist fascist collectivisim is actually elitism masquerading as something else.

Are you saying morality = communism? That's pretty stupid.
 
Millions have been killed in the name of atheism too. Atheists are just as radical.


The most important facet of religion is not the supernatural aspect, but the rules for living they provide. How we cooperate determines how successful we are. Cooperation works. That's what morality is all about.

Science is not what will save mankind, morality is.

No one has ever been killed "in the name of atheism".

You're confusing atheists killing people with people killing in the name of atheism. Now, Christians kill people, AND they kill in the name of God.
 
This is a disorganized rant but I don't care.

Religion - for the purpose of this thread, is defined as beliefs involving a make-believe world and god.

Without religion . . .

- Everyone would embrace science and its many benefits. We would be able to advance much further in medcine using stem cells, we wouldn't have kids in school being taught about creationism which just distracts from REAL learning. By not believing in god, we would start to uncover the true mysteries of our origination. (Which is far more interesting anyway..) As well as where we will be going into the future. What is the nature of time? Are there multiple universes? Other intelligent lifeforms?

- People wouldn't waste their lives trying to be good for someone that isn't there, and instead enjoy the time they have RIGHT NOW and would make the absolute most of it.

- We wouldn't have to be fearful of crazy islamo-fascist muslim dickheads trying to blow us all up because they live in a shithole country with malnurished goats (their favorite animal)

- We wouldn't have crazy christians trying to ruin our tv shows, movies and music by telling us what is acceptable behavior. Teen pregnancy would go down because kids in school would stop being told that condoms aren't effective and are a waste of time.

Without religion, a large portion of our wars would cease, without religion, everyone would try to make life a better experience. Without religion, we would be happy.

Religion needs to end.

Amen
 
No one has ever been killed "in the name of atheism".

You're confusing atheists killing people with people killing in the name of atheism. Now, Christians kill people, AND they kill in the name of God.

Wrong again, Shitfer Q. Brains.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh D'Souza
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. – In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."

Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."


In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.

The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.

The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

Blindly blaming religion for conflict

Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.

Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."

One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Atheist hubris

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
 
If the Christians hadn't told 2000 years of lies against the Jews the Holocaust would've never happened.

BUt Asshat would've hated THAT history.
 
If the Christians hadn't told 2000 years of lies against the Jews the Holocaust would've never happened.

BUt Asshat would've hated THAT history.

The jewish book of hate, The Talmud, a racist document, and observable jewish asshole behavior is what has caused anti-semitism.
 
pretty much Hitlers line wasn't it ?

That whites were the chosen people? Yes. It's also wrong when jews are racial supremacists.

we just need to reject their bullshit attempts to shame all other cultures. And their attempts to control the world under their precious noahide laws.
 
So let me get this straight. D'Souza says that BECAUSE Mao and Stalin were athiests they killed? I argue that hitler was not an athiest but a believer in the Romantic visions of Wotan. That being said, none of these three killed for any other reason than they were power hungry and Religions sought to divide the people's loyalties. Stalin and Mao killed to create fear and panic. To subjugate the masses. It had nothing to do with Athiestic opinions held or not by these psychopaths. D'Souza also ignores the fact that relgion, and in the western world, Christianity used it's power to keep the masses uneducated and when presented with proof of such things as the earths movement around the sun and the suns movement through space, sought through torture and violence to supress that knowledge. The Dark ages did not occurr when secular scientific thought became more prominent.
 
Back
Top