The things they do in the name of religion

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I like your Bush mentallity of arguing:

Just because religious people don't like admitting that hitler was religious, doesn't mean he was not

? I dont reply to that silly kindergarden arguments. I told you that the issue has been researched in the past by several historians. And no conclusion can be drawn. Actually it is more likely that he wasnt. I dont count your voice as competent in this area because

A: you never read "mein Kampf" and consequently cannot judge from a single quote

B: You are taking Hitlers statements as what he believes in

Just because religious people don't like admitting that hitler was religious, doesn't mean he was not

I should also have said 'It doesn't mean he was, either.' I thought that was clear enough though.

Hitler was unquestionably religious - his own religion. He was not unquestionably a christian - but he WAS definitely religious. How else do you explain his insane beliefs but as his own religion?

[denoir 0]

Agreed, but a large portion of the world's Christians interpret it that way.

...But an argument from numbers is a fallacy.  

Not the least bit. If in a population of 10 people 9 people think A and one person thinks B then you can't disregard the 90% because  10% of the population think otherwise. And again, that is where your argument is flawed. You focus on the minority that let religion get in the way of science and politics. Most people don't mix them and aren't bothered by the contradictory nature of the systems.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

There is certainly a motivating factor if you think you will burn in hell if you are not nice to your fellow people.

Yes.  There is also a motivating factor to proselytize, to treat others badly based on their religion/ life choice stuff, etc etc.

Yeah, but how large percentage does that? What does mainstream religion preach?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Absolutely, but again, you're focusing on the extremists and fundamentalists.

Am I?  You said yourself earlier that religion interferes with science, that it meddles politically - that is the type of thing I'm talking about.

I say when it interferes with science and religion that it is a problem. Most people do not let religious dogma interfere with their practical lifes. Very few diss quantum mechanics on religious grounds. There are people who do that, but they do not represent the majority. As for politics, the question is a bit more difficult. You have the separation of church and state, but you also have the principles of a democracy. A democratic system does not have a demand of the people voting being able to justify why they vote a certain way. That's however a flaw of democracy, not religion.

Also, a proper separation of church and religion is quite possible as you can see in France for instance.

Quote[/b] ]The overall point being that the negative effects NOWADAYS outweigh the positive effects.

Really? Do you have any numbers to support that claim or did you get them from a higher power?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Not the least bit. If in a population of 10 people 9 people think A and one person thinks B then you can't disregard the 90% because 10% of the population think otherwise.

......

I did not think you as misguided as this.

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.

Examples of Appeal to Popularity

1. "My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the government is overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter peoples' homes without the warrants traditionally required by the Constitution. However, these are dangerous times and dangerous times require appropriate actions. I have in my office thousands of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain terms, that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United States. Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that the police are doing the right thing."

2. "I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay."

3. Jill and Jane have some concerns that the rules their sorority has set are racist in character. Since Jill is a decent person, she brings her concerns up in the next meeting. The president of the sorority assures her that there is nothing wrong with the rules, since the majority of the sisters like them. Jane accepts this ruling but Jill decides to leave the sorority.

Quote[/b] ]

And again, that is where your argument is flawed. You focus on the minority that let religion get in the way of science and politics. Most people don't mix them and aren't bothered by the contradictory nature of the systems.

Once again, just because some people don't really listen to religion, doesn't mean it is a good thing. Any time anything related to social issues is in the news, they invariably have a 'guest' from the religious lobby. These people usually know very little about the topic (see the discussions on cloning) and do nothing but interfere. One of the biggest 'arguments' against many issues is 'its against god.' This is not 'extremists' - it's everyday people who just go along with what their priest or whooever tells them. They hear 'its against god' and, without thinking for themselves, decide they are against it.

Quote[/b] ]

Yeah, but how large percentage does that? What does mainstream religion preach?

Again, arguement from numbers.

Mainstream religion still preaches many 'bad' things. There are still many 'bad things' in the bible.

Quote[/b] ]

I say when it interferes with science and religion that it is a problem. Most people do not let religious dogma interfere with their practical lifes.

The people that aren't ruled by religion are not very religious, are they? Religious people, however, DO let religious dogma interfere with their practical lives. Any discussion on social issues in the news usually features 'religious leaders' - just because they are religious.

Quote[/b] ]

Very few diss quantum mechanics on religious grounds. There are people who do that, but they do not represent the majority.

It doesn't really matter if they represent the majority. Just because it was a minority of individuals who persecuted Jews in 1940s germany, does NOT mean hitler's new religion wasn't a bad thing.

It's still wrong, its still bad, no matter how few people listen to it nowadays.

Quote[/b] ]

As for politics, the question is a bit more difficult. You have the separation of church and state, but you also have the principles of a democracy. A democratic system does not have a demand of the people voting being able to justify why they vote a certain way. That's however a flaw of democracy, not religion.

No, the flaw is that religion influences the way people vote by not allowing them to think.

Quote[/b] ]

Also, a proper separation of church and religion is quite possible as you can see in France for instance.

If people are being influenced by their religion on how to vote, then how is that a proper seperation of politics and religion?

Quote[/b] ]

Really? Do you have any numbers to support that claim or did you get them from a higher power?

Do you have any numbers that support the counter claim?

Are there any numbers available? No. It's too woolly a subject to define with absolutes. Maybe a fraction of the population is influenced to denounce a new technological breakthrough solely on their religious grounds. Maybe a fundamentalist cleric manages to persuade a few more young men that heaven and 72 virgins await him ....

[denoir 0]

Not the least bit. If in a population of 10 people 9 people think A and one person thinks B then you can't disregard the 90% because  10% of the population think otherwise.

......

I did not think you as misguided as this.

Once again, just because some people don't really listen to religion, doesn't mean it is a good thing.  Any time anything related to social issues is in the news, they invariably have a 'guest' from the religious lobby.  These people usually know very little about the topic (see the discussions on cloning) and do nothing but interfere.  One of the biggest 'arguments' against many issues is 'its against god.'  This is not 'extremists' - it's everyday people who just go along with what their priest or whooever tells them.  They hear 'its against god' and, without thinking for themselves, decide they are against it.

Oh, please take a course in basic statistics. "Truth"? Bullshit! Who's talking about a "true" interpretation of religion? If you are then you are in good company with quite a few religious extremists. It is a question of how many interpret the religion in a benign way and how many interpret it in a vicious way (from a secular humanistic point of view).

Please think before spewing out clichés.

Quote[/b] ]The people that aren't ruled by religion are not very religious, are they? Religious people, however, DO let religious dogma interfere with their practical lives. Any discussion on social issues in the news usually features 'religious leaders' - just because they are religious.

80% of Americans say that "religion plays an important role in their lives". I don't see 80% of the US population objecting against the theory of evolution. I don't see 80% of the US population by the book doing everything that's in the bible. Do you?

Quote[/b] ]

It's still wrong, its still bad, no matter how few people listen to it nowadays.

That's where you're wrong. It's caled tolerance and is a very practical thing to practice if you plan on living among other people.

Quote[/b] ]No, the flaw is that religion influences the way people vote by not allowing them to think.

Democracy does not require people to think about how they vote.

Quote[/b] ]Do you have any numbers that support the counter claim?

Are there any numbers available? No. It's too woolly a subject to define with absolutes. Maybe a fraction of the population is influenced to denounce a new technological breakthrough solely on their religious grounds. Maybe a fundamentalist cleric manages to persuade a few more young men that heaven and 72 virgins await him ....

I have evidence - the society you see before you. Science is genreally readily accepted. People prefer what is practical from what what is ideologically correct.

And frankly that's where you are quite similar to religious extremists. What is 'right' is not important. What gives the best practical results is. And with 90% or so of the world being religious it is quite practical to respect that.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I think you are confusing being tolerant of others (which I am) with believing that they aren't doing any harm.

We tolerate others beliefs only until they actually do harm, regardless of how much we disagree with them.

I disagree with the rubbish spouted by the religious. It is not true.

I do, however, tolerate them as long as they are not doing harm to others. The same as you.

It's not about how many interpret whichever way. It is all bullshit. Nonetheless, I tolerate it until they push it on others, etc.

Quote[/b] ]80% of Americans say that "religion plays an important role in their lives". I don't see 80% of the US population objecting against the theory of evolution. I don't see 80% of the US population by the book doing everything that's in the bible. Do you?

Yes. Ordinary people, swayed by their beliefs, vote the way they are told, do as they are told, and so on. This is not only about the extremists. Even fairly moderate people will vote a certain way because of their religion - and for no other reason.

Quote[/b] ]That's where you're wrong. It's caled tolerance and is a very practical thing to practice if you plan on living among other people.

Nonsense, denoir, Nonsense. Their bullshit is tolerated but that does NOT make it less bad or wrong.

Quote[/b] ]I have evidence - the society you see before you. Science is genreally readily accepted. People prefer what is practical from what what is ideologically correct.

Still. Doesn't make it less bad. Because people are less religious, (which is a good thing) religion is less influential in peoples lives. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT A GOOD THING.

90%?? Wrong.

[Veovis 0]

You know, I said I wouldn't post on again on this topic, but that was ten pages ago. Ten very worthless pages. I'm tired of seeing this thread every time I go into the offtopic forum. I assume it is still Baron arguing against everybody else, and that nothing has changed. I really have to refrain from pointing out his errors. If I did, would he listen? No. If he said they were not errors, but facts, would I listen? No. Honestly, do any of you think that you've influenced the other in any way? It's impossible to change a person's position on religion over a forum. I say let it rest.

[theavonlady 2]

It's impossible to change a person's position on religion over a forum. I say let it rest.

Amen.

[miles teg 1]

Humans have morality by default.  We are social animals.  Without something that brutalises and removes their empathy(usally religion), people are basically good.

Humans, like all amimals have only two things "built in". The desire to stay alive and the desire to reproduce. I think you'll find that  humans will do a lot of nasty things to achive those afformantioned goals. In order to achive the primary goal of survival, humans must be social. I would define being social as neccesity rather than morality.

Morality is such an abstract concept anyway, that I can't beleive you all of people would state that it is built into humans.

LOL!  I would say that human beings are not naturally moral creatures anymore then wolves are.  Wolves have a social hierarchy and usually don't kill fellow pack members.  They have natural rules that they follow.  Same with Chimpanzes.  But like humans they go to war with other groups.  

But are these animals "morale" creatures?  Is this natural morality?  I would argue no.  Humans have the unique ability to stop pure "survival of the fittest" social darwanist types of behavior.   We have done this many times all throughout history.

This is where morality that is "taught" comes into play.  It is not natural morale behavior to show compassion, mercy or love to a hated enemy who was hell-bent on killing your tribe.  

IT IS THIS that is part of the key essence to almost all religions.    It is this essence of religion that the good Baron does not seem to understand.   All he can do is show bitterness and contempt for religion without trying to understand why it is appealing even to many educated people.   Even many atheists have a type of religion...they may not believe in God, but I don't think there are many that will deny something pretty damn amazing about the universe and that there is a an incredible depth and beauty to it all that is beyond the realm of our current comprehension.  

Spirituality often also comes in the form of just personal experiences such as the experience of a musician as they pour their heart out into their music and feel it take them into a higher realm of reality.... these moments are beyond what can be described in mere words...they are the essence of what religion so often struggles to define... that for me is divinity.    It is this essence of religion that gives me hope.

I feel pity for the Baron that he can't understand this or that he refuses to acknowledge the fact that other human beings feel something that perhaps he does not for whatever reason.

Instead he wishes to focus on the extremists...like our media.

That solves nothing if their beliefs are not also understood.

Understanding religion and its role in the history of mankind (both good and bad) is critical in this endeavor.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Redefining religion as awe != a good argument.

If all your arguments are simply redefining words to mean whatever you want, you won't impress anyone.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You know, I said I wouldn't post on again on this topic, but that was ten pages ago. Ten very worthless pages. I'm tired of seeing this thread every time I go into the offtopic forum. I assume it is still Baron arguing against everybody else, and that nothing has changed. I really have to refrain from pointing out his errors. If I did, would he listen? No. If he said they were not errors, but facts, would I listen? No. Honestly, do any of you think that you've influenced the other in any way? It's impossible to change a person's position on religion over a forum. I say let it rest.

ooo, flame bait. Very mature.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It's impossible to change a person's position on religion over a forum. I say let it rest.

Amen.

Say "yes", "I agree", "good point" or "dito" but dont say "amen".

Considering the topic of this thread this is political incorrect and a provokation to all atheists. Freedom of thought. Dont try to undermine peoples mind with your slick scientology religious propaganda.  

----------------------------------------------------------------

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

"Can sience prove that God doesn't excists" From an christian point of view.

What would happen if you one day got curious and wanted to see what bacterium looks like. You are no scientist but ingenious as you are, you take your binoculars and point them towards a coup of water. What would happen? You would fail to see any bacterium. Does that make bacterium non-existent? No, you are just using the wrong tool. Sience is a tool, a grate tool i might add. But still the wrong tool.

Edit: added one word to the first line that i forgot

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sience is a tool, a grate tool i might add. But still the wrong tool.

The problem is that we have no tools to prove that a god exists.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I belive there are other options as well, yes.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

For Denoir: something a little closer to his home

Yes, It is Islamic Don't Apologize for It!

By Azam Kamguian

In the last few weeks, the Swedish society has been touched by the brutal and calculated murder of Fadima Sahindal; a young courageous woman who chose to live according to her will and paid the price by her life. In the last two months, two other young women in Denmark and Britain were killed by their fathers because of the honor of the family. Honor of men and the family took their lives. Honor killing is a tribal and Islamic practice prevalent in Islam- ridden countries and Muslim inhabited communities in the West. Being killed deliberately and brutally is, in fact, a price that victims pay to practice their minimal human rights such as how to dress, talk to men other than their male family members, live, work and study independently, and marry at will, or have voluntary sexual relations.

Hundreds of women get shot, burned, strangled, stoned, poisoned, beheaded or stabbed every year in Islam ridden countries because their male relatives believe their actions have soiled the family name. They die, so family honor may survive. According to this tribal and religious practice, woman is a man's possession and a reflection of his honor. It is the man's honor that gets tarnished if a woman is 'loose'. The murderers and their defenders refer to this verse of the Koran that allows husbands to beat their wives: "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill - conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them", the Koran, chapter 4, verse 34. Honor killing is a tribal practice that has been incorporated in the religion of Islam, because of its anti - women nature and misogynist philosophy. And the law is usually on the man's side, not only in the Middle Eastern and the Central Asian countries, but shamefully, in the Western countries too. They often letting murderers go unpunished or with a light sentence.

According to this Islamic concept and tradition, from the early childhood, girls are taught about "eib", which means shame, and "sharaf", which means honor. And everywhere girls go are reminders that their most important mission in life is to remain virgin until they marry. Boys are also taught to have "ghayrat", meaning to be ardent. All these concepts are Islamic concepts, and that is why the killers always defend their acts of murder by these Islamic concepts. According to the UN statistics, the majority of these murders occur in the Islam - ridden countries and Muslin inhabited communities in the West.

Though, honor killing may seem not much surprising in societies such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, its occurrence is indeed shocking and shameful in the heart of Europe in the 21st Century. And that is where the reactionary idea of Cultural Relativism is put into practice to justify women's victimization by excusing Islam and backward traditions. Unfortunately, until recently which some measures were implemented by the Swedish government, this government not only neglected to protect the lives and the rights of these women, but also justified their murders under the name of respecting 'other' people's religion and culture. While the murderers have repeatedly and openly defend their act by referring to Islam and the Koran, the majority of feminists, the mainstream media and intellectuals try to explain these murders as the prevalent patterns of domestic violence against women in the Western societies. While the murderers, whether in the Middle Eastern countries or in the Muslim inhabited communities in the West, openly state that their act of murder are "crimes of honor", and that they are merely following the directions set down in their religious beliefs, both in the Koran and in the Bible, the apologetic Western intellectuals repeatedly assure us that it is not Islam and the backward traditions, it is the common pattern of violence that is happening to the Western women too.

Swedish intellectuals should show the honesty that is required and expected from intellectuals, by telling the truth, by siding with those innocent young women who were victimized and continue to be brutally victimized because of the Islamic and backward tradition. It is not acceptable to apologize for Islam and backwardness.

And as far as the Swedish government is concerned, there shouldn't be a different basis for people's right in the one and same society; in the Swedish society. All should be considered as Swedish citizens and equal before the law. The Swedish society is duty bound to safe guard and protect the rights of women and girls from Muslim origins. This could be done only by abolishing all the respective discriminatory laws against these girls and women. This could be done only when there is no respect, excuse and legal interpretation for the misogynist Islamic and traditional beliefs and practices.

Email: azam_kamguian@yahoo.com

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

"Can sience prove that God excists" From an christian point of view.

What would happen if you one day got curious and wanted to see what bacterium looks like. You are no scientist but ingenious as you are, you take your binoculars and point them towards a coup of water. What would happen? You would fail to see any bacterium. Does that make bacterium non-existent? No, you are just using the wrong tool. Sience is a tool, a grate tool i might add. But still the wrong tool.

For the 500th time:

Name a better one.

Name an equivalent one.

Name ANY OTHER MEANS of determining if something exists or not.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

go to a church baron

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Baron, sometimes you have a very provokative way of arguing the people. You come forward with the accuse that people dont bring arguments because they try to approach the issue analytically but because they want to persuade.

There is certainly no doubt that people have often in history have commited cruel crimes in the name of religion. Especially in the middle ages anyone could convince a crowd without real arguments and just by refering to supernatural forces. "She is so beautiful, bet she is a witch and has put a spell on, lets burn her".  

When you cant convince a crowd, persuade them. If you cant beat their objective mind, try to hit their subjective perception. That is propaganda. Religion of course is a perfect platform. Religion is not objective, it is imaginative and you can use it to justify actions which in an objective approach could not be justified. It is predestined to be abused. And Hitler used every occasion to break and manipulate people, not with arguments but with imagery, references to religion.,, and so on.

But the question is, where in the bible does it say "burn witches", I mean read the 10 basic rules of the bible and tell me which of those forces people to commit crimes. Where does it say, that the jews are responsible for jesus death?

But still a leader can say "god safe our country" (and what about the rest of the world) and can say "jesus appeared in my dream tonight" or "they are a threat to the christian culture" but in the end this is just rethorical devices, propaganda. People with low education are indeed under risk to fall for such religious bullshit. But they are at risk to fall for basically any mind manipulation because of their lack of objective judgement. But shall we blame it on religion? I think we should blame it on the people who abuse it! Even if it is so easy to abuse.

Education is an essential piece to ensure an objective mind. That is why we have seperated government form church, and that was NOT the idea of atheists. And who built the first schools during the middle-ages? Who the first universities? I think it was the church. Who first analysed the bible critically? Was it Luther? Sophisticated religious people always felt that religion on its own cannot be enough guidance for life. You say that religious people mainly believe that religion is all one needs to know about. That is simply incorrect. Without education people can be manipulated and used for everything. They cant explain science so they seek for supernatural explanations. Religion is supernatural. So that is why so many leaders were able to abuse unsophisticated people by refering to supernatural powers, to religion.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]go to a church baron

I'll say it for Baron. Church proves nothing.

[denoir 0]

For Denoir: something a little closer to his home

Yes, It is Islamic Don't Apologize for It!

I fail to see the relevance. First of all it's certainly not Islamic. Ask Acecombat or any other muslim here on the board. It's cultural, not religious.

Furthermore I really don't see the point of it. The murderer was tried and convicted just like any other murderer. He was tried under normal Swedish laws and muslim women are equally protected as any other citizen.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Baron, sometimes you have a very provokative way of arguing the people. You come forward with the accuse that people dont bring arguments because they try to approach the issue analytically but because they want to persuade.

That would be because that is not how to debate. Emotional appeals are not arguments. People need to learn this.

Quote[/b] ]

When you cant convince a crowd, persuade them. If you cant beat their objective mind, try to hit their subjective perception. That is propaganda. Religion of course is a perfect platform. Religion is not objective, it is imaginative and you can use it to justify actions which in an objective approach could not be justified. It is predestined to be abused. And Hitler used every occasion to break and manipulate people, not with arguments but with imagery, references to religion.,, and so on.

Agreed. One of the main problems with it.

Quote[/b] ]

But the question is, where in the bible does it say "burn witches",

Deut. 18:10-12:

There shall not be found among you any one that ... uses divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer, for all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord.

Exodus 22:17, "You shall not suffer a witch to live".

Also verses from the NT, Galatians 5:19-20 refers to witchcraft (or sorcery, depending on the version) as being very sinful.

Revelation 21:8 refers to witchcraft, sorcery, 'those practising magic arts' etc depending on version.

Thats the main ones, there are other references to not using enchantments and stuff. Have you actually read the bible? This leads me to suspect that you haven't.

I mean read the 10 basic rules of the bible and tell me which of those forces people to commit crimes. Where does it say, that the jews are responsible for jesus death?

If that were the entirety of the bible, there would not be as many problems - there'd still be a lot of religious violence, of course - thou shalt have no other god but me.

Which 10 commandments are you referring to? There are three different sets in the bible.

Quote[/b] ]

But still a leader can say "god safe our country" (and what about the rest of the world) and can say "jesus appeared in my dream tonight" or "they are a threat to the christian culture" but in the end this is just rethorical devices, propaganda. People with low education are indeed under risk to fall for such religious bullshit. But they are at risk to fall for basically any mind manipulation because of their lack of objective judgement. But shall we blame it on religion? I think we should blame it on the people who abuse it! Even if it is so easy to abuse.

without these people being taught the religious 'ways of knowing' they would not be convinced by the bullshit.

Quote[/b] ]

Education is an essential piece to ensure an objective mind.

And the more education, the less likely religion is to arrive; it is, after all, an illogical and unobjective thing.

Quote[/b] ]

That is why we have seperated government form church, and that was NOT the idea of atheists. And who built the first schools during the middle-ages? Who the first universities? I think it was the church. Who first analysed the bible critically? Was it Luther? Sophisticated religious people always felt that religion on its own cannot be enough guidance for life. You say that religious people mainly believe that religion is all one needs to know about. That is simply incorrect. Without education people can be manipulated and used for everything. They cant explain science so they seek for supernatural explanations. Religion is supernatural. So that is why so many leaders were able to abuse unsophisticated people by refering to supernatural powers, to religion.

None of which makes religion a good thing nowadays.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I fail to see the relevance. First of all it's certainly not Islamic. Ask Acecombat or any other muslim here on the board. It's cultural, not religious.

Furthermore I really don't see the point of it. The murderer was tried and convicted just like any other murderer. He was tried under normal Swedish laws and muslim women are equally protected as any other citizen.

Read the post please. Don't sit there claiming a religious practice is cultural when it is clearly religious. I didn't think you were the type.

Under swedish laws women are equally protected. But if the (not extremists) muslims who follow their Koran had their way, they would not be and this would be de rigeur.

[miles teg 1]

Redefining religion as awe != a good argument.

If all your arguments are simply redefining words to mean whatever you want, you won't impress anyone.

Hey that's not bad Baron.  Now we're getting somewhere.  

Have you ever falt "awe" baron?   Was there ever a powerful enough feeling of "awe" that effected your life in any meaningful way?  

I'd like to understand how you perceieve awe in order to understand why you fail to understand what religion is to people who believe in one or who at least consider themselves to be "spiritual".  

For many you see, organized religions touch upon this most deepest sense of "awe" as you describe it.  It taps into very very core emotional feelings with an intensity and fullfillment that is beyond anything else.  Many people seek this fullfillment which is why you often see people "searching" for God, or Truth, or whatever they want to call it.  

To deny this reality that billions of people around the world have is reckless in the extreme.  You don't have to believe in it to accept that people do believe in it.  However you also don't have to insult this belief that often is the meaning of existence for billions of people on this planet.  

To do so is to invite conflict especially if you impose those beliefs upon others.  But even in the context of this thread to just call religious people stupid is insulting.

Have you ever known good religious people?  If not you need to get out more and see the good things that religion has done in people's lives rather then just concentrating on fanatics and being so bitter.  

Basically what you are doing is akin to American capitalists calling Marxist theory all a bunch of garbage without every seriously studying the concepts of class conflict inherent in Marxist theory.  Instead even when they know the basics, they discard it because it goes against their existing rationale for capitalism and concepts of "maximizing profit".  You can say the same about fundamentalist religious people and how they would view your atheist views.

I won't attack your views of being an atheist.  I'm more interested in understanding why you're an atheist and if perhaps you have some type of concept of spirituality that gives you any fullfillment or if perhaps you are simply barren of any such concept in your life.  

If the latter then I would ask if you consider yourself a happy individual.  If so then wonderful, but if not then while I don't think you should go jumping into any religion, I would recommend that you at least open your heart a bit, and read some uplifting poetry or writings about the natural world or on whatever topic brings your heart joy whatever it is.  

Spirituality (probably a better word then religion) I think is not so much really "awe" but rather should be defined as that which gives you the deepest source of joy, peace of mind, and fullfillment.  

However there is also a sort of dark spirituality... one that in which an individual finds his/her deepest satisfaction in revenge and hatred, excessive sexual urges, or in greed... for others its self-hate, depression and all things melencholy... this type of spirituality can often be very dark, and religion can be twisted to appeal to those sorts of darker spiritual urges.

But these are all areas in which we can strive to understand both within ourselves and within our own society and in other socities around the world.  

These are areas in which the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and theology can bring to the table a much deeper understanding into the roots of what the human experience is for people around the world.

Which is why I'm interested in what brings you that deep satisfaction in life or what is the path that you believe is the right one to meeting the fullfillment of your deepest desires for happiness?   What do you think would bring you peace of mind?  

Without knowing these things I can only make assumptions about your character and why you believe the way you do.  Assumptions that might be completely wrong.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]ooo, flame bait.  Very mature.

Baron, only you could interpret that post as flame bait. I was merely stating that you and I (and others arguing here) are stubbornly set in our ways. You treat an obervation as a personal attack? On top of that, you use a sarcastic taunt to call me immature? That seems pretty hypocritical.  

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

More talk that is just redefining religion as awe.

Stop it. Awe != religion.

Already dealt with in previous posts; the deep sense of awe, wonder etc we have for the world does not mean we are religious.

Here

Quote[/b] ]To deny this reality that billions of people around the world have is reckless in the extreme. You don't have to believe in it to accept that people do believe in it. However you also don't have to insult this belief that often is the meaning of existence for billions of people on this planet.

To do so is to invite conflict especially if you impose those beliefs upon others. But even in the context of this thread to just call religious people stupid is insulting.

Are people who believe the earth is flat and the sun goes round it stupid? Idiots? Are people who believe that they can be bitten by snakes without getting hurt stupid? Its exactly the same thing.

Stop apologising for some kinds of stupidity for no reason. The emperor has no clothes.