The four horseman of the apocalypse, now

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just curious - do you think if nobody belived in an afterlife (Heaven/Hell/Valhalla whatever) or in karma, would there be more violent crimes - in particular, murders?

No, I think there would be less.  In particular, you wouldnt get things like people flying aeroplanes into skyscrapers or strapping dynamite to themselves, but in general as well.

Now that you've alluded to suicide bombing, let me ask you two questions:

1.  If suddenly, everyone would think as you do about God then what would become of those who consider themselves God's chosen people?

2.  And what should be done about all of those chosen people who are living on other people's land because they believe that God promised it to them?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Oh yeah, except almost everyone can spread some propaganda of their own.  Isn't that a normal human need.  

Depends how you define propoganda.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Now that you've alluded to suicide bombing, let me ask you two questions:

1.  If suddenly, everyone would think as you do about God then what would become of those who consider themselves God's chosen people?

They wouldn't think so any more? They would realise how silly that was? I really don't know.

Quote[/b] ]2. And what should be done about all of those chosen people who are living on other people's land because they believe that God promised it to them?

Case by case scenario. Too complicated to apply a general rule. Something for politicians to sort out. (rationally, ideally)

[Tamme 0]

There is one thing that I wan't to make clear. I have the feeling that you think I don't believe in science. Is that so?

Anyone who 'believes in' Science doesn't understand it.  You shouldn't believe in it, you should understand how it works, trust it maybe, but not believe in it.

Ya ya, I just wanted to be sure that you don't think that I think that science is BS and such. I do understand science.

[Tamme 0]

Ok, you know what?

I'd be perfectly happy to leave the religious to get on with and believe in whatever they like as long as

1) They stop brainwashing/ indoctrinating children before they get a chance to decide what they believe, or dont believe, for themselves.

I Agree.  

Quote[/b] ]2) They stop trying to interfere in politics (EG the pope requesting American voters to vote a certain way on topics.)

Agree. Religion shouldn't be mixed with politics. That's just wrong

Quote[/b] ]3) They cease interfering in scientific 'areas' - as Denoir said, they have no grounds there.  This ranges from complaining about new technologies with misconceptions of what it entails to demanding in on debates where they have, again, no knowledge or qualification.  EG a televised debate on GM crops - There were experts on both sides in various fields, from plant experts to seed designers.  But also present were religious 'leaders,'  who did nothing but put forth emotional arguements based on what their misunderstanding of the subject was.  And of course, there were more of them than scientists, because there just had to be one of every denomination.  No more of that, please.

Agree.

Quote[/b] ]4)  No more teaching young earth creationism as fact.  Even the Papacy has given up on this load of nonsense.  Teach it like every other creation myth if you must.

Noone teached it to me as a fact, but if someone does teach it as a fact then he or she should stop it.

Quote[/b] ]5) No more enforced prayer in state run schools, at least.

Agree. If you don't want to pray then you shouldn't be forced to.

Quote[/b] ]6) No more preying on the weak and mentally ill; alcoholics, drug abusers - stop using charity as an excuse to brainwash people.

....Wha? We pray for them, but we don't force them to join us. (we shouldn't anyways)

Quote[/b] ]7) If religious people get to stand around in high streets handing out propoganda, singing songs and screaming at people; so does every other group.  Gays, Satanists, NAMBLA, you name it.  Or they can stop harassing people and wait for those who want to, to come to them.

I say let them come to us if they wan't to.

Quote[/b] ]8) Stop putting religious themed crap on official currency, institutions, laws, etc.  'In God We Trust' in the US, for example.

It never has bothered me.

Quote[/b] ]If they do all these things, fine, I'd be happy to let them believe whatever they like.

Dunno where we do shit like that. Haven't seen that in Finland. (I'm referring to christians in my answers. Most of those cases are caused by the hypocrits that I mensioned)

[Balschoiw 0]

HEHE !

Church pays for visitors

[mr. Duck 0]

HEHE !

Church pays for visitors

Now that is something I find a ridicoulous idea.

[Balschoiw 0]

It´s just a sign of modern times

First gay bishop

[Bernadotte 0]

Now that you've alluded to suicide bombing, let me ask you two questions:

1.  If suddenly, everyone would think as you do about God then what would become of those who consider themselves God's chosen people?

They wouldn't think so any more?  They would realise how silly that was?  I really don't know.

Quote[/b] ]2.  And what should be done about all of those chosen people who are living on other people's land because they believe that God promised it to them?

Case by case scenario.  Too complicated to apply a general rule.  Something for politicians to sort out.  (rationally, ideally)

You seem to be saying that a world without belief in God would have less violence, BUT getting to that point could be a very violent process - you just don't know.

IMO, it would be a very violent process because too much money has already been invested by too many people at the expense of so many others on the basis of there being a God.  And the vast majority of those stakeholders are not simply going to wake up one morning saying, "Oh, this is silly," as you've suggested.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You seem to be saying that a world without belief in God would have less violence, BUT getting to that point could be a very violent process - you just don't know.

IMO, it would be a very violent process because too much money has already been invested by too many people at the expense of so many others on the basis of there being a God.  And the vast majority of those stakeholders are not simply going to wake up one morning saying, "Oh, this is silly," as you've suggested.

You don't know either. We've tried it one way, why not try it the other way?

IMO it wouldn't be a very violent process because it would not be an instant change. Over generations, it would be- gradually improving education so people see the faulty reasoning. What shareholders are these, anyway?

Your argument seems to be 'if this happened, people wouldn't have it happen.' Doesn't make sense.

@ tamme

Yes, I was not suggesting that all religious people everywhere do all of these things. But they do happen in some places.

The recovering alcoholics thing is because at most recovery centres the 'patients' are first encouraged to find god and then helped. Indoctrination, pure and simple.

[denoir 0]

You seem to be saying that a world without belief in God would have less violence, BUT getting to that point could be a very violent process - you just don't know.

I am inclined to believe that religion is more of an excuse for violence rather than it is a cause of it.

[Major Fubar 0]

Meh, fanatics are fanatics...if people weren't suicide bombing in the name of Allah, God or any other deity, IMHO, these types would probably be doing the same thing in the name of their country, or king, or leader, or a union...

Heck, Timothy McVey didn't kill all those people for relgious reasons (even though he was apparently a pretty fanatical Christian)...he did it because he was digruntled with the government.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

IMHO getting rid of cigarettes wouldn't stop all cases of lung cancer, is it still a bad idea?

[FSPilot 0]

I heard somewhere about a 40-year old vatican document detailing how to cover up child molestation cases, even went into how to cover up beastiality cases. Now THATS insane.

Don't get me started on the gays in church debacle.

Baron when are you going to reply to my post?

[Bernadotte 0]

IMO, it would be a very violent process because too much money has already been invested by too many people at the expense of so many others on the basis of there being a God.  And the vast majority of those stakeholders are not simply going to wake up one morning saying, "Oh, this is silly," as you've suggested.

IMO it wouldn't be a very violent process because it would not be an instant change.  Over generations, it would be- gradually improving education so people see the faulty reasoning.

I strongly disagree.  I do not believe that keeping more than a million people in refugee camps for further generations because God promised their land to someone else will lead to less violence.

What shareholders are these, anyway?  Your argument seems to be 'if this happened, people wouldn't have it happen.'  Doesn't make sense.

I'm referring to stakeholders, not shareholders.

Have you heard of the promised land - the land promised by God to God's chosen people?  I suppose I could be referring to the Mormons, but they are not making international news headlines every night.

In this case the stakeholders are those with a vested interest in the entire world believing a particular interpretation of holy scriptures such that an entire population can remain displaced from their homes for more than half a century.  Unfortunately, the folks who would have to be convinced to give back land that God promised them have nukes.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Baron when are you going to reply to my post?

Your post is silly enough that everyone else on this forum can see the huge glaring errors in it for themselves. There's no point pointing them out to you because you simply will not listen.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I strongly disagree.  I do not believe that keeping more than a million people in refugee camps for further generations because God promised their land to someone else will lead to less violence.

Did I say they had to stay in refugee camps? Did I? As I said, that issue is far too complicated for me to deal with, and its a poor argument anyway.

'Oh well religious people messed things up so.. umm.. we need them around until it's fixed.'

Quote[/b] ]

I'm referring to stakeholders, not shareholders.

Have you heard of the promised land - the land promised by God to God's chosen people?

In this case the stakeholders are those with a vested interest in the entire world believing a particular interpretation of holy scriptures such that an entire population can remain displaced from their homes for more than half a century. Unfortunately, the folks who would have to be convinced to give back land that God promised them have nukes.

Whats the problem? If they didn't believe in God, they wouldn't believe that god gave them the land. I didn't say it would be easy to convince them or even that you could. Whats your argument? That religion would inhibit them from seeing sense? I agree.

[Bernadotte 0]

I strongly disagree.  I do not believe that keeping more than a million people in refugee camps for further generations because God promised their land to someone else will lead to less violence.

Did I say they had to stay in refugee camps?  Did I?  As I said, that issue is far too complicated for me to deal with, and its a poor argument anyway.

'Oh well religious people messed things up so.. umm.. we need them around until it's fixed.'  

Quote[/b] ]

I'm referring to stakeholders, not shareholders.

Have you heard of the promised land - the land promised by God to God's chosen people?

In this case the stakeholders are those with a vested interest in the entire world believing a particular interpretation of holy scriptures such that an entire population can remain displaced from their homes for more than half a century.  Unfortunately, the folks who would have to be convinced to give back land that God promised them have nukes.

Whats the problem?  If they didn't believe in God, they wouldn't believe that god gave them the land.  I didn't say it would be easy to convince them or even that you could.  Whats your argument?  That religion would inhibit them from seeing sense?  I agree.

Perhaps we need to go back a page to revisit your original opinion.  When asked if there would be more violence in the absence of religion, you replied:

Quote[/b] ]No, I think there would be less.  In particular, you wouldnt get things like people flying aeroplanes into skyscrapers or strapping dynamite to themselves, but in general as well.

Was this your response to if all religion would be abolished tomorrow or if there had never been any religion in the first place?

I agree that a secular world would be a less violent place, but the journey to that world from where we are now would be very violent.  In other words, I agree with most of your opinions about how things should be, but they offer little to address present-day realities.

By the way, this thread seems to have had a positive effect on you.  Now, you see religious folks as needing to be re-educated, which implies that they might actually have some intelligence afterall.

[Bernadotte 0]

Did I say they had to stay in refugee camps?  Did I?

Oh... and by the way...

Yes.  You said, "...it would not be an instant change."  This means that people would have to remain in refugee camps.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Perhaps we need to go back a page to revisit your original opinion.  When asked if there would be more violence in the absence of religion, you replied:

Quote[/b] ]No, I think there would be less.  In particular, you wouldnt get things like people flying aeroplanes into skyscrapers or strapping dynamite to themselves, but in general as well.

Was this your response to if all religion would be abolished tomorrow or if there had never been any religion in the first place?

That was in response to the hypothetical situation of all religion being discarded immediately, voluntarily, not an enforced thing.

Quote[/b] ]

I agree that a secular world would be a less violent place, but the journey to that world from where we are now would be very violent.

Not necessarily. Simple education over a long time should do the trick.

Quote[/b] ]

In other words, I agree with most of your opinions about how things should be, but they offer little to address present-day realities.

I wasn't outlining my plan for world peace, I was explaining why I don't see eye to eye with religious people.

Quote[/b] ]

By the way, this thread seems to have had a positive effect on you. Now, you see religious folks as needing to be re-educated, which implies that they might actually have some intelligence afterall.

Everyone has some degree of intelligence, they have just been taught and conditioned not to use theirs.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Did I say they had to stay in refugee camps?  Did I?

Oh... and by the way...

Yes.  You said, "...it would not be an instant change."  This means that people would have to remain in refugee camps.

No it doesn't.

Nothing is specified about the refugee camps.

[Bernadotte 0]

Did I say they had to stay in refugee camps?  Did I?

Oh... and by the way...

Yes.  You said, "...it would not be an instant change."  This means that people would have to remain in refugee camps.

No it doesn't.

Nothing is specified about the refugee camps.

You said the change would not be instant.  In fact, you said it would take generations.  Without change people will remain in refugee camps.

...Or didn't you know that when you said it?  

[FSPilot 0]

Your post is silly enough that everyone else on this forum can see the huge glaring errors in it for themselves.  There's no point pointing them out to you because you simply will not listen.

In other words you don't have any serious replies and are just running away with your tail between your legs? Thats what it looks like from here.

[Bernadotte 0]

That was in response to the hypothetical situation of all religion being discarded immediately, voluntarily, not an enforced thing.

Umm... Meanwhile, back on planet Earth.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You said the change would not be instant.  In fact, you said it would take generations.  Without change people will remain in refugee camps.

...Or didn't you know that when you said it?  

The change of losing religious affiliations would take generations, that doesn't mean that the entire population would have to stay exactly where it is. I thought that was obvious so I didn't bother spelling it out.