NationStates Jolt Archive

I used to think that it would be bad on some level if there was no religion, due at least in part to the religious people who've helped me who, had they at first chosen not to help me, could have been reminded that they are supposed to be serving God etc etc etc...

...but I heard a song the other day, and it seems that there is a way of peace with no starvation and plenty of assistance etc if there was no religion - if there was a brotherhood of man: where everyone shared their stuff (shared food etc, so nobody would need to go hungry, shared money (instead of just lending to a select few), meaning when a person shares money, they're not at a major financial loss because someone else is sharing with them, and basically where everybody just helps each other, no matter what they look like or where they come from - whether that's because of a law or because of a sense of "they're my family" - where there's no "get out of my country" because everybody's part of "the family" so the country belongs to everyone, whatever their sexual orientation or whatever has happened in their past... kind of like a place I went to on Saturday - I stayed for the weekend (was visiting a mate) in a building where each person has their own room but shares communal facilities like bathroom and kitchen and it was like one big family (that I actually felt part of) where people left their rooms unlocked knowing things wouldn't be stolen, where people shared their stuff (fags, hairspray, etc), and where people did stuff together, like one big family. It was awesome.

Where would any sort of moral obligation come from?

Commie.

Where would any sort of moral obligation come from?

I'm an athiest, where's my moral obligation come from? People like you are freakin scary! If god wasn't threatening eternal hellfire you'd be out raping and pillaging wouldn't you?

Where would any sort of moral obligation come from?

Sense ?

I'm an athiest, where's my moral obligation come from? People like you are freakin scary! If god wasn't threatening eternal hellfire you'd be out raping and pillaging wouldn't you?

Your moral obligation comes from your upbringing, which stems from your culture, which stems from religion as it's original backbone.

Where would any sort of moral obligation come from?

Your brain. Social animals develpoed that sense pretty early on.

Your moral obligation comes from your upbringing, which stems from your culture, which stems from religion as it's original backbone.

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

Oh dear, oh dear....

Where would any sort of moral obligation come from?

i dont believe in morals. so people should be more concerned with doing what is more productive for society. religion has proved itself as being very counter productive in most cases.

situations like that are great until a noncooperative person comes along. and they always come along. sooner or later the great atmosphere is ruined by a real life troll who decides to take advantage of the situation.

Your moral obligation comes from your upbringing, which stems from your culture, which stems from religion as it's original backbone.

So rapists and murderers were raised to be such? What about "christians" who kill abortion doctors? Are their parents to blame?


You're not very good at the whole debate thing are you?

So rapists and murderers were raised to be such? What about "christians" who kill abortion doctors? Are their parents to blame?


You're not very good at the whole debate thing are you?

Yes, I would say the parents are a strong factor as well as possibly other religious types or maybe psychological disorders.

situations like that are great until a noncooperative person comes along. and they always come along. sooner or later the great atmosphere is ruined by a real life troll who decides to take advantage of the situation.

Which, in essence, is why communism unfortunately won't ever work. Humans are in a constant conflict between being social to benefit long-term, and being egoistic and profiting short-term.

Your moral obligation comes from your upbringing, which stems from your culture, which stems from religion as it's original backbone.

That is a possible scenario, yes.
One could of course also consider designing a system based on other things than religion. Kant is one of the most famous examples, but there are dozens of others.

Yes, I would say the parents are a strong factor as well as possibly other religious types or maybe psychological disorders.

Yep. So the crusades was just one big psychosis... Freud would have so much fun with you, bub.

Yes, I would say the parents are a strong factor as well as possibly other religious types or maybe psychological disorders.

Here and I was always lead to believe Republicans were big on personal responsibility.

:fluffle:

i dont believe in morals. so people should be more concerned with doing what is more productive for society. religion has proved itself as being very counter productive in most cases.


Heh that what you are talking about is called morals.

I see nothing wrong with religion or being religious in fact it even does good (bringing people together, providing sanctuary)

though religion has done allot of bad it has also done allot of good and at the end of the day its the way you want to believe that is the decider

Basically I’m saying that song is shit and lacks and beat or rhythm

Heh that what you are talking about is called morals.

people usually base thier morals one thier religion or thier warped idea of freedom. i decide to go down a better route. logic.

Your moral obligation comes from your upbringing, which stems from your culture, which stems from religion as it's original backbone.
Morals are relative.

You can be moral without being religious. In fact, you can be a good person without religion or 'morals'.

You can also be 'moral' and religious, but not be a good person.

I am an atheist and I don't think I'm bad person. My parents raised me with secular values, which I think are superior to religious values, since I don't have to rely on an antiquated doctrine to tell me how to live my life in the 21st century with ancient values that are out of place in a socially progressive society.

I would rather follow the laws of my nation than that of a non-existent God which can't even smite my ass when I demand that he do it.

Yep. So the crusades was just one big psychosis... Freud would have so much fun with you, bub.

What the hell does the Crusades have to do with anything.

Fact: People who took part in the crusades were very religious, which motivated them to join

Fact: Their religion came from their upbringing

people usually base thier morals one thier religion or thier warped idea of freedom. i decide to go down a better route. logic.

What ever what ever, your peronsal moral choice is still morlaity. Something you declared you don't belive in.

i decide to go down a better route. logic.

are you saying that the world is logical :eek:

What the hell does the Crusades have to do with anything.

Fact: People who took part in the crusades were very religious, which motivated them to join

Fact: Their religion came from their upbringing

Fact: The crusades were a period of rape and brutality that forever mars the name of Christians everywhere.

Fact: Those religious sorts had no problem slaughtering even though their good book says "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Sure they had religion, but they lacked morals.

What the hell does the Crusades have to do with anything.

Fact: People who took part in the crusades were very religious, which motivated them to join

Fact: Their religion came from their upbringing
Fact: people who have tried to deny homosexual rights for years, including the right to marry, have used the Bible to justify it, and have nothing outside of it to justify this discrimination.

Fact: religion is used to justify hatred and discrimination.

are you saying that the world is logical :eek:

no. i'm saying thats a better route to go down. too many people are controlled by thier religion.

Fact: people who have tried to deny homosexual rights for years, including the right to marry, have used the Bible to justify it, and have nothing outside of it to justify this discrimination.

Fact: religion is used to justify hatred and discrimination.


Fact: You are quite correct morlaity does not come from any religoin, but from culture and timeline.

are you saying that the world is logical :eek:

Some of it is ;)

Fact: people who have tried to deny homosexual rights for years, including the right to marry, have used the Bible to justify it, and have nothing outside of it to justify this discrimination.

Fact: religion is used to justify hatred and discrimination.

So what, it is still morality. Morality is relative.

Yep. So the crusades was just one big psychosis... Freud would have so much fun with you, bub.

Freud made up evil and perverted stuff and to say he was a psychiatrist is akin to saying Tony Blair always tells the truth or that fish will never be able to swim - absolute crap. His qualifications (if he had any) weren't worth the paper they were written on.

no. i'm saying thats a better route to go down. too many people are controlled by thier religion.


I think that what you think about religoin is just thinking with no objective substance behind it.

In which case I beg the question, how is that differant from the thinking that a religous person does without objective substance?

no. i'm saying thats a better route to go down. too many people are controlled by thier religion.

no too many people are easily controlled by a good speaker whatever that speakers intensions are

Fact: people who have tried to deny homosexual rights for years, including the right to marry, have used the Bible to justify it, and have nothing outside of it to justify this discrimination.


no. people have better reasons than religion to not allow gay marraige to be recognised. if you live in america its a different story, where i live it does make any sense to allow it.

I think that what you think about religoin is just thinking with no objective substance behind it.

In which case I beg the question, how is that differant from the thinking that a religous person does without objective substance?

rephrase question.

Fact: The crusades were a period of rape and brutality that forever mars the name of Christians everywhere.

Fact: Those religious sorts had no problem slaughtering even though their good book says "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Sure they had religion, but they lacked morals.

Especially the Fourth Crusade where the Christian armies sacked Constantinople - a Christian city at the time.

Some of it is ;)

like what?

Freud made up evil and perverted stuff and to say he was a psychisatrist is akin to saying Tony Blair always tells the truth or that fish will never be able to swim - absolute crap. His qualifications (if he had any) weren't worth the paper they were written on.

he was just after money,the way i see it

You're a dreamer. And I won't join you. :rolleyes:

are you saying that the world is logical :eek:

no. i'm saying thats a better route to go down. too many people are controlled by thier religion.

http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e5tomase/spock.jpg
:eek:

Which, in essence, is why communism unfortunately won't ever work. Humans are in a constant conflict between being social to benefit long-term, and being egoistic and profiting short-term.

yup

what happens in communism? someone comes along to ruin it.

stalin, mao, polpot, kim il sung, whoever. they take advantage of people of good will and warp a great idea into a vehicle for personal power.

Especially the Fourth Crusade where the Christian armies sacked Constantinople - a Christian city at the time.

not the same church though :p

You're a dreamer. And I won't join you. :rolleyes:

but but

then the world wont live as one

Commie.

Commies have been known to be fundamentalist about their beliefs, and kill people who weren't zealous enough.

I believe that if there were no religion, people would invent one.

Fact: The crusades were a period of rape and brutality that forever mars the name of Christians everywhere.

Fact: Those religious sorts had no problem slaughtering even though their good book says "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Sure they had religion, but they lacked morals.

The Crusades were a good thing. They liberated the Holy Land.

The only problem with the Crusades is that they didn't finish the job once and for all. We're paying for that today.

what happens in communism? someone comes along to ruin it.

there is always someone who has the power to influence others its a gift and a curse :(

I think that sums up the thread very nicely :)

no too many people are easily controlled by a good speaker whatever that speakers intensions are

very valid. point

as i like to suggest in every thread. go watch darren brown. try and find the show "the messiah" on youtube.

not the same church though :p

That's right, heretics aren't human, kill 'em all. :p

Fact: You are quite correct morlaity does not come from any religoin, but from culture and timeline.

QTF (though not for spelling ;))

no. people have better reasons than religion to not allow gay marraige to be recognised. if you live in america its a different story, where i live it does make any sense to allow it.
What are "better" reasons? :D I got to heart this (I need a good laugh!).

he was just after money,the way i see it

Actually, he was after going with "mainstream" (male) belief so that he would "fit in" - I did an article partially on him (I wanted to argue against an incredibly annoying tutor who seemed to think of Freud as God so I made sure I did PLENTY of research - got a 1st Class honours grade, highest possible at UK undergraduate BA level). He originally said stuff that made sense but when (male) society wouldn't accept his views and research, he "changed his mind"

The Crusades were a good thing. They liberated the Holy Land.

The only problem with the Crusades is that they didn't finish the job once and for all. We're paying for that today.

Agreed

rephrase question.


Heh not a question a statement.

You said that you think too many people are controled by their religion.

The words you think suggest that this idea of yours, is only a personal
subjective idea with no grounding in objective reality.

Okay and a question.:p

In which case how does this idea differ, (other than in content) to the personal subjective idea with no grounding in objective reality, that God exists?

QTF (though not for spelling ;))


What are "better" reasons? :D I got to heart this (I need a good laugh!).

Hehe fuck speiling it is only cultural bias that suggest ones speling has to be prfect. If though you understand me, I.E. we have no problems communicating then it isn't an issue.:D

That's right, heretics aren't human, kill 'em all. :p

well if you let a hostile army in your gates your asking for it :D

What are "better" reasons? :D I got to heart this (I need a good laugh!).

i' not religou so i dont see it as a need for the gov to monitor who loves whom. we give tax breaks for married people. the idea that they will form a family. i think they should change this so only people with children can the tax breaks. i rank home marraige as same as hetro marraige that does produce children. it does serve me so why should they pay less tax then single people?

Actually, he was after going with "mainstream" (male) belief so that he would "fit in" - I did an article partially on him (I wanted to argue against an incredibly annoying tutor who seemed to think of Freud as God so I made sure I did PLENTY of research - got a 1st Class honours grade, highest possible at UK undergraduate BA level). He originally said stuff that made sense but when (male) society wouldn't accept his views and research, he "changed his mind"

that will do it

but they did make lots out of it

Hehe fuck speiling it is only cultural bias that suggest ones speling has to be prfect. If though you understand me, I.E. we have no problems communicating then it isn't an issue.:D

super backed.

I believe that if there were no religion, people would invent one.

Well that is where they all come from...

Well that is where they all come from...

Notice that religions is common to all societies, and is invented if there isn't one forced upon them....

Fact: People who took part in the crusades were very religious, which motivated them to join

Fact: Their religion came from their upbringing
Fact: The crusades were a period of rape and brutality that forever mars the name of Christians everywhere.

Fact: Those religious sorts had no problem slaughtering even though their good book says "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
Fact: people who have tried to deny homosexual rights for years, including the right to marry, have used the Bible to justify it, and have nothing outside of it to justify this discrimination.

Fact: religion is used to justify hatred and discrimination.

Screw this.

Fact: I am fucking amazing.

Well that is where they all come from...

What I don't belive it? What are you saying that religion was not devinly passed down to us by God?:p

Screw this.

Fact: I am fuucking amazing.

:D

In which case how does this idea differ, (other than in content) to the personal subjective idea with no grounding in objective reality, that God exists?

i do not like these words used but however.

i prefere to go buy what method has got results other going by soem idealology. in saying that that probably is ironically an idealology. i belief god exists cause it hasnt been proven to me and regard it us unlikely that the ordinary version of a god creature is the least likely to be the truth. if thier is a god, i would imagine it would be pretty hard to explain his existance.

i have a thoery of what i think is the most posible existance of a god. but like i said it is prettty dam difficult to explain.
physicists say, before time, the laws of physics did not apply. my idea is that it could be posible, that there was some kind of being before the universe that exploded and turned into the universe and time itself. and evolution dictates that organisms are aiming to get to this level. hence, hoe i think the bible got idea, "god made man in his image".
this how i mix physics and religion.

Notice that religions is common to all societies, and is invented if there isn't one forced upon them....

Though they tend to VASTLY differ.
Unless they borrow from eachother. And the Bible is actually quite good as a "best of many religions" compendium.

Screw this.

Fact: I am fuucking amazing.
You win this thread, and oen other thread of your choosing.

well if you let a hostile army in your gates your asking for it :D

If you have rival claimants for the throne, you're really asking for it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12069238&postcount=50

And here kids we have a couple good moral christians advocating genocide.

And here kids we have a couple good moral christians advocating genocide.

who says there Christian? (and I chose to ignore it because from my point of view there posts no longer exist)

who says there Christian? (and I chose to ignore it because from my point of view there posts no longer exist)

Well I tend to think neither are, though they have claimed otherwise.

i do not like these words used but however.

i prefere to go buy what method has got results other going by soem idealology. in saying that that probably is ironically an idealology. i belief god exists cause it hasnt been proven to me and regard it us unlikely that the ordinary version of a god creature is the least likely to be the truth. if thier is a god, i would imagine it would be pretty hard to explain his existance.

i have a thoery of what i think is the most posible existance of a god. but like i said it is prettty dam difficult to explain.
physicists say, before time, the laws of physics did not apply. my idea is that it could be posible, that there was some kind of being before the universe that exploded and turned into the universe and time itself. and evolution dictates that organisms are aiming to get to this level. hence, hoe i think the bible got idea, "god made man in his image".
this how i mix physics and religion.


Thats not a bad way of putting it!;)

Sense ?

common sense says that I should lie cheat and steal to get ahead. successful criminals are far more intellegent than most people. sense and intellect says "I can get away with it", and almost never "I shouldn't do this despite the fact....I can get away with it"

Your brain. Social animals develpoed that sense pretty early on.

some of the most intellegent creatures alive are merciless preditors. intellegence has absolutely nothing to do with morality, compassion, charity, or cooperation. calculation, subtlety, wit, and strategy are much much more associated with selfishness and evil than helping others. you don't hear of many coniving saints or guileless criminals.

So rapists and murderers were raised to be such? What about "christians" who kill abortion doctors? Are their parents to blame?

considering over a billion people on this planet are christians right now and most of their ancestors were for a long time as well, that brings the percentage of christians who have killed abortion doctors to a good .0000000001%, aproximately.

Fact: The crusades were a period of rape and brutality that forever mars the name of Christians everywhere.

Fact: Those religious sorts had no problem slaughtering even though their good book says "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Sure they had religion, but they lacked morals.

actually, the eastern orthodox church had coexisted with the muslim community for several hundred years, and the crusaders sacked and pillaged *christian* churches (like the hagia sophia in constantinople) just as much as they did muslim institutions. the crusades were about politics as much or moreso than religion, and there were nearly as many christians who got attacked by the crusaders as christians doing the crusading in the first place. euro-centric views of history are responsible for the way you people think about religion and the history of christianity. you happily borrow the majority of the presuppositions of the churches you criticise. a balanced view of history reflects that this is not, and never was, a strictly religious conflict. the churches of the east never called crusades or witch burnings - they existed in politically stable areas and as such never assumed the political power the roman patriarch did - and when the political order of their region was threatened by people like the turks, the orthodox more or less coexisted, while the romans screamed bloody murder and launched the crusades to defend their *political* power. 4 out of the 5 historical mediteranian patriarchies have existed for hundreds, some more than 1000 years under muslim rule, and have been just as marginalised by european encroachment as the muslims ever have been. again, you're expressing a eurocentric point of view that is ignorant and rather obnoxious - even if you're expressing it in the negative.

Fact: people who have tried to deny homosexual rights for years, including the right to marry, have used the Bible to justify it, and have nothing outside of it to justify this discrimination.

Fact: religion is used to justify hatred and discrimination.

Fact: at least as often, religion is used to promote equality and peace. a few generations ago people were using "science" to "prove" blacks were an inferior race and religion to insist on their equality. the entire culture of non-violent protest from which ghandi, martin luther king, and every great civil rights and anti-war figure has drawn was a CHRISTIAN tradition - ghandi's greatest influence was tolstoy, whose authoritative work on non-violent resistance is titled "THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU" - hatred and bigotry exist independant of religion, but it was religion that brought forth and nurished the highest aspirations of humanity. ghandi used religious terms like "ahimsa" to describe his ideals, not secular ones which were entirely available to him. martin luther kind was a preacher, not a scientist. the vast majority of charitable organisations are religious, and until quite recently so were the vast majority of educational institutions. I am painfully aware of the multitude of abuses people have perpetuated in the name of their religion. I am a gay man and a member of a minority religion living in the bible belt - but it is ludacris and wrong to claim that religions are as horrific as you make out.

I love the song you were probably talking about. "Imagine" by John Lennon, right? (I prefer A Perfect Circle's cover of it) - and I listen to it and find it inspirational, but he's wrong. "the brotherhood of man", "no posessions" "no countries" - all of these ideals were first expressed within a religious context. you want radical anti-capitalist anti-nationalist world sharing pacifism? look at the franciscan order, particularly at its inception in the 12th and 13th centuries. you want an anti-establishment religious big-wig attacking hypocrasy hating punk rock revolution? look at the followers of Fra Dolcino - they went around burning churches, stealing the property of rich clerics and sharing it all with the poor, proclaiming the end of countries and of religious hegemony...all in the name of god. you want the most radical compassion and pacifism that exists? look at the Jains - they won't even kill insects or plants. you want to find the movement responsible for ending slavery and starting more humanitarian aid organisations than any other movement in the world? look at the quakers, because they're responsible for the abolition movement, the heifer project, and any number of other charities. they also, incidentally, accept gay marriage and oppose nationalism. who was john lennon looking up to? people like ghandi. who was ghandi looking up to? people like tolstoy. who did tolstoy look up to? jesus fucking christ. religion is on both sides of this problem, and frankly I see religion starting way more successful, positive change than atheism ever has. the legacy of john lennon is nothing compared to the legacy of george fox.

This is the day of resurrection
let us be radiant in the festival
Let us embrace one another
Let us call brothers even those who hate us
and forgive all things in the resurrection

If there was no religion, people would latch on to something else.

Fun fact: The 20th century was the most violent century in the history of human civilization. Interestingly, it also coincides with the decline in religious belief in many parts of the world...seems like the decline of religion isn't a panacea for the world's ills.

The Crusades were a good thing. They liberated the Holy Land.

The only problem with the Crusades is that they didn't finish the job once and for all. We're paying for that today.

But both religions are from the same route religion, so how can you liberate an area (i.e. the Holy Land) from someone who already believes in the same things you do?

But both religions are from the same route religion, so how can you liberate an area (i.e. the Holy Land) from someone who already believes in the same things you do?

"Say: O ye unbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship,
And ye do not worship that which I worship;
I shall never worship that which ye worship,
Neither will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your religion; to me my religion."
--Koran, Sura 109

So much for that argument. Moslems do not believe in "the same things" Christians do.

Though they tend to VASTLY differ.
Unless they borrow from eachother.

...not really. if you dropped an amazonian native off in the midst of aborigional australia, they'd have almost identical religious ideals. drop a shinto off in pre-columbian oklahoma, once they could speak eachothers language they'd be doing great, and wouldn't disagree on much. when religion arises independant of political considerations that motivate the codification of theology and the creation of a hierarchy, religion almost always looks alike. when african slaves were taken to the new world, they and the few native american slaves that managed to survive the old-world diseases pretty much combined their religions seamlessly, as they were, again, almost identical. around the world there exists a tradition of animism, pantheism, medianic preasthood, and ritual magic that arises independantly and expresses almost exactly the same cosmology and metaphysical principles no matter what context in which it arose. if we assume each isolated and self-contained instance of such beliefs to be a seperate religion, there are tens of thousands of religious traditions that all agree with eachother upwards of 90% of the time. compare that to the piddly 5 - 20 "major" religious traditions that quibble, religion can be considered actually rather monolithic. religions *didn't* differ vastly until they became state sponsored and politically charged. in tribal societies around the globe, from siberia to africa to the americas and pacific islands, we have a more or less consistant religious culture. even in some of the major codified religions we see evidences of them all being branches of one origional religion - hinduism has Devas and Asuras as the two pantheons, zorastrianism has Ahuras and Daevas - even the Norse have a cognate pantheon, the Aesir.

anyway, no, even when "religions" (if the spiritual traditions which arise independant of political manuvering and consequentially lack centralisation and holy books can be called such) arise on their own, they tend to look alot alike.

Fun fact: The 20th century was the most violent century in the history of human civilization.

what about the 15th? (maybe 14th the centurys logic is melting my brain)

"Say: O ye unbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship,
And ye do not worship that which I worship;
I shall never worship that which ye worship,
Neither will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your religion; to me my religion."
--Koran, Sura 109

So much for that argument. Moslems do not believe in "the same things" Christians do.

Christianity and Islamboth believe that Jesus was the prophet of God.
Christianity and Islam both have their route of their religion based in Abrahamic religions.
Christianity and Islam both use the same stories of the prophets and use them within their religious teachings.

They are based from the same core religion and they do believe in many of the same things.

So much for that argument.:rolleyes:

what about the 15th? (maybe 14th the centurys logic is melting my brain)

No, the number of people killed due to war and government oppression is at least half of the population of the entire Earth in those centures. WWI and WWII killed 100 million, Mao's government 80 million, Stalin over 20 million, and that's just part of it.

Christianity and Islamboth believe that Jesus was the prophet of God.
Christianity and Islam both have their route of their religion based in Abrahamic religions.
Christianity and Islam both use the same stories of the prophets and use them within their religious teachings.

They are based from the same core religion and they do believe in many of the same things.

So much for that argument.:rolleyes:

while I dislike Islam being demonised...erm, in defense of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are not particularly based on it. Christianity owes as much or more of its thought to the pagan greeks than the jews. Islam has platonic trends within it as well. I've known several jews who understandably object to the phrase "Judeo-Christian", as it's a severe stretch to say they're the same tradition...they aren't, and the "cores" of christianity and islam are neither one based in jewish thought.

No, the number of people killed due to war and government oppression is at least half of the population of the entire Earth in those centures. WWI and WWII killed 100 million, Mao's government 80 million, Stalin over 20 million, and that's just part of it.

proportionately, does this still hold true? is we account for better sanitation and the agricultural revolution and all that, is the 20th century still more violent than the rest? I'm interested in this.

Sounds like a good idea.
But will people actually do that?

Sounds like a good idea.
But will people actually do that?

no.

[QUOTE=L-rouge;12069631]Christianity and Islamboth believe that Jesus was the prophet of God./QUOTE]

Wrong. Islam believes he was a prophet, and Christians believe he was the Son of God (i.e., he was God Incarnate, in the flesh).

Big difference. So much for your argument. :D

while I dislike Islam being demonised...erm, in defense of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are not particularly based on it. Christianity owes as much or more of its thought to the pagan greeks than the jews. Islam has platonic trends within it as well. I've known several jews who understandably object to the phrase "Judeo-Christian", as it's a severe stretch to say they're the same tradition...they aren't, and the "cores" of christianity and islam are neither one based in jewish thought.
They're based on it. Granted they deviate from the original, but both religions (Islam and Christianity) required Judaism to exist before they themselves could, so they are based on it. I do, however, accept they are not the same
[QUOTE=L-rouge;12069631]Christianity and Islamboth believe that Jesus was the prophet of God./QUOTE]

Wrong. Islam believes he was a prophet, and Christians believe he was the Son of God (i.e., he was God Incarnate, in the flesh).

Big difference. So much for your argument. :D

Prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
How much more the will of God than being God?

So much for your argument. :p :D

Prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
How much more the will of God than being God?

So much for your argument. :p :D

If you can't tell the difference between God and a prophet, lol...

Muslims will explicitly tell you - Jesus is NOT the Son of God, nor is He God himself.

A prophet, yes, but Not The Son Of God.

If you can't tell the difference between God and a prophet, lol...

Many religions do not see that difference. With the ancient Egyptians for instance, the priest putting on the mask actually became the god he represented. Not just speaking for him, but speaking as him. Or her.

Many religions do not see that difference. With the ancient Egyptians for instance, the priest putting on the mask actually became the god he represented. Not just speaking for him, but speaking as him. Or her.

Muslims do.

If you can't tell the difference between God and a prophet, lol...

Muslims will explicitly tell you - Jesus is NOT the Son of God, nor is He God himself.

A prophet, yes, but Not The Son Of God.

I know, I was just being facetious... or would that be pedantic... facetious I think...
Anyway, that's where Islam and Christianity differ, but they both agree that he spoke the word of God (in the case of Islam it was because he was a prophet strengthened by the Holy Ghost, and in the case of Christianity he spoke his own word himself being God).

Freud made up evil and perverted stuff and to say he was a psychiatrist is akin to saying Tony Blair always tells the truth or that fish will never be able to swim - absolute crap. His qualifications (if he had any) weren't worth the paper they were written on.

Yep, making up psychoanalysis was a deed worthy of the anitchrist... :rolleyes:
And what qualifications can you get in a field you just discovered?

some of the most intellegent creatures alive are merciless preditors. intellegence has absolutely nothing to do with morality, compassion, charity, or cooperation. calculation, subtlety, wit, and strategy are much much more associated with selfishness and evil than helping others. you don't hear of many coniving saints or guileless criminals.

Your brain is responsible for a lot more than just intelligence. I never claimed intelligence is making us moral. I said our brain is structured to make us social animals, and as such we will follow moral behaviour, most of the time.

Christianity owes as much or more of its thought to the pagan greeks than the jews..

there was never such thing as a greek pagan. what you mean is greek gods or the acient greek religion. only the celts were pagan.

"religion is opiate to the masses" no religion= a better place IMO

proportionately, does this still hold true? is we account for better sanitation and the agricultural revolution and all that, is the 20th century still more violent than the rest? I'm interested in this.

Good question, actually.

If we go with the raw number of deaths from war/political repression, the overall total is a lot higher. At the same time, as a percent of the population the proportion might be different; the Black Death killed a lot of people, but it wasn't due to war or violence like the deaths in WWII, the Holocaust/Holodomor, the Cultural Revolution or things like that.

Good question, actually.

If we go with the raw number of deaths from war/political repression, the overall total is a lot higher. At the same time, as a percent of the population the proportion might be different; the Black Death killed a lot of people, but it wasn't due to war or violence like the deaths in WWII, the Holocaust/Holodomor, the Cultural Revolution or things like that.
What do you expect? People though they would be cured/protected from the plague if they bathed in their own urine. (Think I'm kidding? Look this up!) They also did other extremely unorthodox things at the time to avoid it. Of course, none the "cures" were sanitary, so of course there were many deaths.

What do you expect? People though they would be cured/protected from the plague if they bathed in their own urine. (Think I'm kidding? Look this up!) They also did other extremely unorthodox things at the time to avoid it. Of course, none the "cures" were sanitary, so of course there were many deaths.

Yeah; what I'm trying to say is that there are more people dying from war/violence now than in the past.

I think religion is responsible for a lot of things... some good some bad. If religion suddenly disappeared.. people would still do things more or less the same.. some good .. some bad.

Religion is not in itself good or evil.. its really how religious power is weilded that determines that. I imagine that on the whole religious folk are nice enough. Probably no nicer than your average Joe, but no meaner either.

I think Religion has very little to do with setting morals. Its far too flexible and contradictory to be setting anything. Moral codes are bendy and change with time. Moral upbringing is in my opinion purely a cutural thing.

One problem that I do think that religion is responsible for is that religion does tend to waste an awful lot of time. Imagine where philosophical thought may have gone if it wasn't constrained by the bounds of religion. Imagine if all the great theological thinkers had actually spent their enormous amount of brain power on real unrestricted free thought. What would we know today that we don't because of the limitations that religions have placed on free thought?

Yeah; what I'm trying to say is that there are more people dying from war/violence now than in the past.

Depends on what period of the past you're looking at.
Warfare had evolved over the centuries, from all forms of total war that were the norm in tribal societies (total war = war against a whole population, including civilians, using terror and genocide, usually in order to enslave or extinguish that population) to a very sophisticated form of political warfare, using only military power to fight against the military power of the opponent, with the aim of achieving a political/strategical goal. Friedrich der Grosse won a battle without even one of his soldiers firing a single shot (I'll have to look up what battle that was, but he used the terrain in a way that made it clear to his opponent that all fighting would be futile. Much like a checkmate in chess)
Unfortunately, war in the 20th century sank back to the primal levels of total wars, but now using machinery and weapons that were in essence designed for strategic wars....

.

I think Religion has very little to do with setting morals. Its far too flexible and contradictory to be setting anything. Moral codes are bendy and change with time. Moral upbringing is in my opinion purely a cutural thing.

One problem that I do think that religion is responsible for is that religion does tend to waste an awful lot of time. Imagine where philosophical thought may have gone if it wasn't constrained by the bounds of religion. Imagine if all the great theological thinkers had actually spent their enormous amount of brain power on real unrestricted free thought. What would we know today that we don't because of the limitations that religions have placed on free thought?

good point

Yeah; what I'm trying to say is that there are more people dying from war/violence now than in the past.

But the population is increasing at a greater rate... so clearly more people are living than they used to. I think it would be a tough thing to measure .. but I would imagine the only correlation between violence would be with change.

I would imagine that the added amount of violent deaths in the 20th century (if it is in fact a larger percentage) would have more to do with the ability of people to get to each other and then once there kill each other than the reduction in religious belief.... I would think that if the technology had arrived and religious belief had stayed at the same levels that the number of deaths would have been about the same....

You win this thread, and oen other thread of your choosing.

I choose the next antisemetic forum created by The Fourth Holy Reich (or Sovietstan, if Wilgrove already got TFHR :p).