4 ms·

What you're describing can be replaced with philosophy. Believing, being indifferent, and or not believing in God isn't destructive. Religion is what's destruct

by yain49 5y ago

What you're describing can be replaced with philosophy. Believing, being indifferent, and or not believing in God isn't destructive. Religion is what's destructive if you examine what has happened to the natives, LGBTQ+ persons, disabled persons and anyone else throughout history that didn't fit the cult model of religion.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
Humans are perfectly capable of performing horrific acts at a massive scale without religion.
- irel90 5y ago
  That's just a rhetoric that attempts to dismiss religion from being bad throughout history towards minorities. Yes, we should all just sit back and not acknowledge truth because humans can be bad by other ways.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    It’s not rhetoric, and stating all religions are bad isn’t even the truth. Some of the most committed against slavery were its religious opponents, for instance: http://web.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/commentary/organizations/underground_railroad.php http://web.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/... If you want to discuss the evils of politicized religion, or state mandated religion then I’m all ears. But religion is a convenient scapegoat for more simple truth: Without fail every movement, party, or group that gains influence sooner or later overreaches and becomes the oppressor. Religion is a red herring.
    - irel90 5y ago
      I'm all ears as well but all you wrote is nonsense.
      - dividedbyzero 5y ago
        > all you wrote is nonsense. Meaning you disagree, but you're neither willing to discuss, nor to "agree to disagree"? I didn't catch anything overly uncivil in GP's answer, and they did present arguments and clarify their position, so I'd say this kind of reaction isn't warranted. I also don't think this extremely shallow dismissal does your views and opinions justice, but if you're not willing to engage in open-minded discussion, why not say nothing at all?
        irel90 5y ago
        I shouldn't have to answer a dimwit that cannot understand what that person wrote is actually nonsense. So I won't.

by yain49 5y ago

nobodyandproud 5y ago

Humans are perfectly capable of performing horrific acts at a massive scale without religion.

irel90 5y ago
That's just a rhetoric that attempts to dismiss religion from being bad throughout history towards minorities. Yes, we should all just sit back and not acknowledge truth because humans can be bad by other ways.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  It’s not rhetoric, and stating all religions are bad isn’t even the truth. Some of the most committed against slavery were its religious opponents, for instance: http://web.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/commentary/organizations/underground_railroad.php http://web.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/... If you want to discuss the evils of politicized religion, or state mandated religion then I’m all ears. But religion is a convenient scapegoat for more simple truth: Without fail every movement, party, or group that gains influence sooner or later overreaches and becomes the oppressor. Religion is a red herring.
  - irel90 5y ago
    I'm all ears as well but all you wrote is nonsense.
    - dividedbyzero 5y ago
      > all you wrote is nonsense. Meaning you disagree, but you're neither willing to discuss, nor to "agree to disagree"? I didn't catch anything overly uncivil in GP's answer, and they did present arguments and clarify their position, so I'd say this kind of reaction isn't warranted. I also don't think this extremely shallow dismissal does your views and opinions justice, but if you're not willing to engage in open-minded discussion, why not say nothing at all?
      - irel90 5y ago
        I shouldn't have to answer a dimwit that cannot understand what that person wrote is actually nonsense. So I won't.