5 ms·

This problem, like many problems in the world are often examined only a few layers deep. The conclusions are always the same: Poverty/Slavery are the consequenc

by tomkin 15y ago

This problem, like many problems in the world are often examined only a few layers deep. The conclusions are always the same: Poverty/Slavery are the consequence of corruption, or an evil dictator of some kind. While it is true that dictatorship, blind eyes and cruelty are the embodiment of these issues, religion is the sword that is wielded. Each year the west makes more progress in what I would consider the eventual realization that religion has no place in our society. We make the mistake of relenting that religion is used for moral guidance – when nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems. Tolerance of intolerance is not the moral high ground. Toyota made the fatal mistake of making a faulty floor mat which, only caused a handful of deaths. In that, Toyota fired a fleet of people, re-evaluated their whole process while battling media and governments for months. We burned Toyota at the stake for a handful of deaths, but we pay no mind to the religious implications of our world's enormous head counts all tied to religion. We let millions of innocents die because, what? It makes us feel all fuzzy inside to say others benefit from religion? Really? Why doesn't that rule apply to any other regime or group of followers? And when is it ever a good thing for many people to forfeit critical thinking in place of a template? Religion on our side of the world looks rosy. If you look away from the west, you will see how religion enslaves and dilutes entire populations into believing this is what god wants. If we want to really solve the world's problems, we must finally stamp out the tools used to cause pain for millions, and if we look to the roots, the catalyst is most obvious.

lambersley 15y ago
I completely agree with "an evil dictator of some kind." Many peoples have suffered the injustices of religion, also in agreement. "Nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems." Can you please source that? I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. It is the two-edged sword that cuts and heals, depending on its wielder. Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same. As the article suggests, freedom cannot be given, it must be demanded. There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved.
- tomkin 15y ago
  > I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. Here's the problem I have with that. Let's say that I am a member of the SS and being a member provides me with a *moral compass*. OK, wait...those are the *wrong* morals. Right. The attack shouldn't be against people's belief or spirituality – but of the idea that you shouldn't borrow ideas without evaluation or due diligence. > Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same The rosy picture of religion from the western perspective. > There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved. I agree. This is why people need to know *why* religion is being utilized and the implications of it from the very foundation. > Can you please source that? Atheist nations are more peaceful [1] Predominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime Rate According To Study [2] Atheist vs. Non-atheist Country Crime Statistics [3] Investigating Atheism, Demographics by University of Cambridge [4] [1] http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-... [2] http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countr... [3] http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Czech-Republic/United-States/Crime http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Czech-Republic/United-St... [4] http://www.investigatingatheism.info/demographics.html http://www.investigatingatheism.info/demographics.html
  - lambersley 15y ago
    > I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. Moral compass in its simplest form. 'Thou shall not murder' - I'm not sure there is an argument in terms of "right v wrong" > crucial in the abolishment Perhaps a Western view, but looking at the countries who lead the charge, they were strongly influenced by 'the church' > Sources Thank you. I only had a few minutes to quickly skim thru the articles but found a lot on inconclusive data in the studies. Comments below my article: 1) "pretty non-religious" does not equate to atheism 2) Atheism seems to represent non-JudeoChristian, non-Muslim. The countries that are mentioned here aren't exactly 'athiest'. Wikipedia suggest, "84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to Shinto and Buddhism" Norway - Norse Paganism Germany - 55M between Christianity and Muslim Dutch - Christianity still dominant, 39% being religiously affiliated Brits - is there a question here? 3) Comparison of crime statistics between Czech Republic and United States offers very little to support the argument. The USA has a plethora of issues driving higher crime rates than solely religion. 4) Could have some merit but 'belief in God' does not necessarily translate to 'Religious'
bh42222 15y ago
nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems It should be plain to see that development came first, then more atheism. This should be very obvious in Europe's history. I think you're confusing a symptom of chaos and brutal existence with the root cause of it.
- tomkin 15y ago
  It's true that the correlation is weak, but the reluctance to actually do the studies is due to the implications of them. Atheists are, by nature, less violent. Not because they are somehow enlightened, but because there is at least one major grievance removed from the equation. Atheists don't tend to burn down other buildings because they are different, or ravage an entire community because they aren't secular. This wishy-washy approach to making sense out of violence is why it exists at all. If it's not true that atheism promotes less violence, then let's see why countries with higher atheism are less violent, shouldn't we? I'm all for making an argument concrete.
  - ajuc 15y ago
    > Atheists are, by nature, less violent. Not because they are somehow enlightened, but because there is at least one major grievance removed from the equation. Atheists don't tend to burn down other buildings because they are different, or ravage an entire community because they aren't secular. Replace atheists with "people that think independly", and I could agree. As it is I cannot. One counterexample - most of the people in the Red Army were atheists. That did not changed the fact, that significant part of red army pillaged and raped what they could on their way to Berlin (including civilians and nations they were supposedly "freeing" of Germans). Not beliving in gods don't make you automaticaly less violent. Both nazi Germany and communist Russia were more or less atheists. They instead developed new rituals and mythology to serve the same purpose. Gods are not needed to make people kill people. Authority and group thinking suffices.
    - tomkin 15y ago
      > most of the people in the Red Army were atheists. Orthogonal. The Red Army, nor Nazis used their atheism as a "guiding light" or a tool to get people to do what they wanted – they used military force. > They instead developed new rituals and mythology to serve the same purpose. Yes. It's called a religion. > Gods are not needed to make people kill people. God and religion aren't the same. Scraping religion doesn't remove the possibility of a god, or the belief in one.
Produce 15y ago
>While it is true that dictatorship, blind eyes and cruelty are the embodiment of these issues, religion is the sword that is wielded. Each year the west makes more progress in what I would consider the eventual realization that religion has no place in our society. We make the mistake of relenting that religion is used for moral guidance – when nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems. Tolerance of intolerance is not the moral high ground. Communist Russia, anyone? I think that to stamp out people's exploitation of each other, we must unite, not divide. Religion is as much about culture as it is about power. Suddenly telling people that their culture is no longer accepted and that they should convert or get the fk out is exactly what Christianity did in a lot of places. It's almost funny how being against something usually makes people repeat that very thing themselves.
- ajuc 15y ago
  One can argue that USSR had state religion of Marxism-Leninism, quite strictly enforced. It was complete with prophets like Stalin, saints and martyrs like that boy that denounced his parents (I forgot his name), or stachan-workers, mythology, holidays, rituals, etc. Not that I think religion is the source of all evil. It's just the source of power, and power correlates with evil.
- tomkin 15y ago
  The binary argument of Russia is an old one. Tried and true, but completely removed from a full understanding of what makes people violent. Russia and atheism are orthogonal relationships at best. > Suddenly telling people that their culture is no longer accepted and that they should convert or get the fk out is exactly what Christianity did in a lot of places. Allowing people to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions stomps out ones abilities to use that belief as a way to herd people into a specific direction. That's it. No one needs to uproot their culture or how they go about their lives. These ideologies start with an indoctrination that carries people to their own demise without evaluation. That's what needs to stop.
Yoms 15y ago
This report shows us a terribly broken culture. It may have had foundations in religion, but that was so long ago that even if we could magically wipe away all trace of religion or God from the minds of every Mauritanian, the problem would continue. The only way to fix broken cultural aspects is through education, which is what the abolitionists in this report seem to be doing. Maybe it shows my ignorance, but if not for this report I would have never known about this problem, now that I do, I'd love to find ways to help. Pinning the blame for Mauritania's slavery problem on "religion" takes the eye off the ball, which is fixing the problems there. It also seems like creating a convenient straw man for atheism, which if the constant preaching of is any indication, seems to be turning into quite the religion...
- tomkin 15y ago
  > atheism, which if the constant preaching of is any indication, seems to be turning into quite the religion... I've actually noted this. The whole "Bless You" debate squares that point. My point is more about critical thinking and how religion takes that away from people. Is anyone in argument that it is a bad thing for large groups of people to think the same way without due diligence? Pretty sure most people see large groups thinking as one as a bad thing. You can call it atheism, or what have you, but essentially we're talking about freedom of critical thinking vs. freedom of religion. I don't care for religion, or people thinking in large groups as one, so I lean towards people's right to think critically. > Pinning the blame for Mauritania's slavery problem on "religion" takes the eye off the ball Let's ask: Why is there slavery in Mauritania? What would make people okay with their own enslavement? No education about what slavery is? Sure. Let's say it's to do with education. Now, who's putting a stop to education? Whoops. Here's to taking the eye off the ball, esoteric style. I tire of hearing how people will solve the world's ball of fire that is enslavement, brutality, ignorance by throwing a pail of water over it when the real problem is the factory making the lighter fluid.
- kls 15y ago
  if we could magically wipe away all trace of religion or God from the minds of every Mauritanian, the problem would continue. One only has to ask which came first the desire to control others or the religion that justified it, I believe the answer is self evident and if it is, then religions that control are merely a symptom of human nature and abolishing them will not cure the foundry cause which is the desire.
tomkin 15y ago
Noticing some of my comments are being down-voted. No problem with opposing opinion or criticism, but when there is a void of space under my comment where your rebuttal should be and my comment was down-voted, I have to think that you just don't like what I am saying. As I see it, if I've said something inflammatory or if I refuse to debate further beyond talking points, I should accept the fate of the down-vote. I've responded to and debated my points, without name calling, or other negative behaviour.
- ars 15y ago
  Your comments are being downvoted because claiming religion is the cause of slavery and all of the worlds ills is so patently silly that people see no reason to refute you in words. You did say the "sword that is wielded" so I guess you have some realization that it's not the cause, only the effect - but then the rest of your post (and your other ones) go on to try to claim that religion is the cause. You also don't seem to realize that the moral code you live by (i.e. the things you find OK vs not OK) just by living where you do (things like corporal punishment for adults, debt slavery, age of consent, capital punishment for economic crimes) is basically arbitrary (different countries feel differently about these things without any religious thought getting involved) and to a million mile observer is indistinguishable from a religion. So calling out religion for giving people a template (as you call it) demonstrates a lack of understanding of both religion and your own thinking - I bet you have strong opinions on all those things I mentioned, and you don't realize your opinion is basically a religious one taught to you as a child.
  - tomkin 15y ago
    > Your comments are being downvoted because claiming religion is the cause of slavery and all of the worlds ills OK. Your claim is my argument sweeps wholesale opinion, but then you make a wholesale opinion of what I meant when I said X. All of the worlds ills? No. Any specific issue? No. A major contributor? Absolutely. I didn't say that a religious-free world would be a slavery-free one. I am saying there would be less slavery overall. Not sure how that could be argued without removing parts of the story. > You also don't seem to realize that the moral code you live by... Another assumption. > is basically arbitrary (different countries feel differently about these things without any religious thought getting involved) and to a million mile observer is indistinguishable from a religion. You're taking ideals like 'capital punishment' and casting them into a 'religious ideal' for the purpose of comparing them directly. Pretty sure debt slavery, corporal punishment and capital punishment are variable dependant on the state of what you might consider a low wage, or how wrong it is to trade stocks with privileged information. We alter these ideals based on new information. Religion doesn't do this. The book that tells people to behead unbelievers today is the same book from hundreds of years ago. Religion is unyielding and doesn't evolve. Especially the kind that enslaves people. It's pretty absurd for you to suggest religion is as much of a variant as corporal punishment for adults, debt slavery, age of consent, capital punishment - regardless of distance. > I bet you have strong opinions on all those things I mentioned, Assumption. > and you don't realize your opinion is basically a religious one taught to you as a child. Except if new information is presented that is different than what I believe, I don't ignore it or stick my head in the sand hoping for the 'armageddon/rapture/other ridiculous event' to come to take me away. Facilitating ignorance isn't a strong point.
paulhauggis 15y ago
"Religion on our side of the world looks rosy. If you look away from the west, you will see how religion enslaves and dilutes entire populations into believing this is what god wants." I think religion is ingrained in humans. If all religions were gone today, people would would still be getting religious over something. Open source has turned religious in the development community. So has development languages (PHP/Ruby) or editors (VI/Emacs). The only difference is we aren't killing each other over it. Even Global warming has gotten religious. The problems aren't even about the religion itself. It's about a group or person gaining power over others and abusing that power. The right-wing of America uses that as a power-base to swing votes. On the other side, the left uses things like the unions to do the same thing. Christianity, in my mind, is a guide on how to be a good human being. Many people have bastardized this and use it to force their views onto other people through fear, which is wrong. "f we want to really solve the world's problems, we must finally stamp out the tools used to cause pain for millions, and if we look to the roots, the catalyst is most obvious." Which means taking away the right to be religious. I don't agree with you, sorry.
- tomkin 15y ago
  > I think religion is ingrained in humans. If all religions were gone today, people would would still be getting religious over something. Diluting religion into a fan club of sorts is a way to get around why actual religion is bad. You can't find a path of brutality and enslavement to Ruby enthusiasts. It's not the same thing and I think that should be pretty obvious. > Many people have bastardized this and use it to force their views onto other people through fear, which is wrong. Because we're allowed to interpret religion. In the west, talking snakes and Noah's Arc are ridiculous notions, so we can conveniently forget about that stuff. In other countries, beheading someone for having a Facebook photo that doesn't adhere to the religious doctrine isn't just allowed - it's reinforced by Sharia Law, which in some countries is the actual law. Human mutilation is even possible in the US by way of circumcision – the act of cutting parts of a person's body without their permission. But that's okay. As long as it's - what? What can I possibly put here that makes mutilation okay? I can't. As a person who sees positive in religion, you have a few tools in your belt to banter with. But none of those tools will ever be able to denounce the fact that thinking in large groups without evaluation is bad.

by tomkin 15y ago

lambersley 15y ago

I completely agree with "an evil dictator of some kind." Many peoples have suffered the injustices of religion, also in agreement. "Nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems." Can you please source that? I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. It is the two-edged sword that cuts and heals, depending on its wielder. Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same. As the article suggests, freedom cannot be given, it must be demanded. There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved.

tomkin 15y ago
> I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. Here's the problem I have with that. Let's say that I am a member of the SS and being a member provides me with a *moral compass*. OK, wait...those are the *wrong* morals. Right. The attack shouldn't be against people's belief or spirituality – but of the idea that you shouldn't borrow ideas without evaluation or due diligence. > Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same The rosy picture of religion from the western perspective. > There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved. I agree. This is why people need to know *why* religion is being utilized and the implications of it from the very foundation. > Can you please source that? Atheist nations are more peaceful [1] Predominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime Rate According To Study [2] Atheist vs. Non-atheist Country Crime Statistics [3] Investigating Atheism, Demographics by University of Cambridge [4] [1] http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-... [2] http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countr... [3] http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Czech-Republic/United-States/Crime http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Czech-Republic/United-St... [4] http://www.investigatingatheism.info/demographics.html http://www.investigatingatheism.info/demographics.html
- lambersley 15y ago
  > I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. Moral compass in its simplest form. 'Thou shall not murder' - I'm not sure there is an argument in terms of "right v wrong" > crucial in the abolishment Perhaps a Western view, but looking at the countries who lead the charge, they were strongly influenced by 'the church' > Sources Thank you. I only had a few minutes to quickly skim thru the articles but found a lot on inconclusive data in the studies. Comments below my article: 1) "pretty non-religious" does not equate to atheism 2) Atheism seems to represent non-JudeoChristian, non-Muslim. The countries that are mentioned here aren't exactly 'athiest'. Wikipedia suggest, "84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to Shinto and Buddhism" Norway - Norse Paganism Germany - 55M between Christianity and Muslim Dutch - Christianity still dominant, 39% being religiously affiliated Brits - is there a question here? 3) Comparison of crime statistics between Czech Republic and United States offers very little to support the argument. The USA has a plethora of issues driving higher crime rates than solely religion. 4) Could have some merit but 'belief in God' does not necessarily translate to 'Religious'

bh42222 15y ago

nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems It should be plain to see that development came first, then more atheism. This should be very obvious in Europe's history. I think you're confusing a symptom of chaos and brutal existence with the root cause of it.

tomkin 15y ago
It's true that the correlation is weak, but the reluctance to actually do the studies is due to the implications of them. Atheists are, by nature, less violent. Not because they are somehow enlightened, but because there is at least one major grievance removed from the equation. Atheists don't tend to burn down other buildings because they are different, or ravage an entire community because they aren't secular. This wishy-washy approach to making sense out of violence is why it exists at all. If it's not true that atheism promotes less violence, then let's see why countries with higher atheism are less violent, shouldn't we? I'm all for making an argument concrete.
- ajuc 15y ago
  > Atheists are, by nature, less violent. Not because they are somehow enlightened, but because there is at least one major grievance removed from the equation. Atheists don't tend to burn down other buildings because they are different, or ravage an entire community because they aren't secular. Replace atheists with "people that think independly", and I could agree. As it is I cannot. One counterexample - most of the people in the Red Army were atheists. That did not changed the fact, that significant part of red army pillaged and raped what they could on their way to Berlin (including civilians and nations they were supposedly "freeing" of Germans). Not beliving in gods don't make you automaticaly less violent. Both nazi Germany and communist Russia were more or less atheists. They instead developed new rituals and mythology to serve the same purpose. Gods are not needed to make people kill people. Authority and group thinking suffices.
  - tomkin 15y ago
    > most of the people in the Red Army were atheists. Orthogonal. The Red Army, nor Nazis used their atheism as a "guiding light" or a tool to get people to do what they wanted – they used military force. > They instead developed new rituals and mythology to serve the same purpose. Yes. It's called a religion. > Gods are not needed to make people kill people. God and religion aren't the same. Scraping religion doesn't remove the possibility of a god, or the belief in one.

Produce 15y ago

>While it is true that dictatorship, blind eyes and cruelty are the embodiment of these issues, religion is the sword that is wielded. Each year the west makes more progress in what I would consider the eventual realization that religion has no place in our society. We make the mistake of relenting that religion is used for moral guidance – when nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems. Tolerance of intolerance is not the moral high ground. Communist Russia, anyone? I think that to stamp out people's exploitation of each other, we must unite, not divide. Religion is as much about culture as it is about power. Suddenly telling people that their culture is no longer accepted and that they should convert or get the fk out is exactly what Christianity did in a lot of places. It's almost funny how being against something usually makes people repeat that very thing themselves.

ajuc 15y ago
One can argue that USSR had state religion of Marxism-Leninism, quite strictly enforced. It was complete with prophets like Stalin, saints and martyrs like that boy that denounced his parents (I forgot his name), or stachan-workers, mythology, holidays, rituals, etc. Not that I think religion is the source of all evil. It's just the source of power, and power correlates with evil.
tomkin 15y ago
The binary argument of Russia is an old one. Tried and true, but completely removed from a full understanding of what makes people violent. Russia and atheism are orthogonal relationships at best. > Suddenly telling people that their culture is no longer accepted and that they should convert or get the fk out is exactly what Christianity did in a lot of places. Allowing people to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions stomps out ones abilities to use that belief as a way to herd people into a specific direction. That's it. No one needs to uproot their culture or how they go about their lives. These ideologies start with an indoctrination that carries people to their own demise without evaluation. That's what needs to stop.

Yoms 15y ago

This report shows us a terribly broken culture. It may have had foundations in religion, but that was so long ago that even if we could magically wipe away all trace of religion or God from the minds of every Mauritanian, the problem would continue. The only way to fix broken cultural aspects is through education, which is what the abolitionists in this report seem to be doing. Maybe it shows my ignorance, but if not for this report I would have never known about this problem, now that I do, I'd love to find ways to help. Pinning the blame for Mauritania's slavery problem on "religion" takes the eye off the ball, which is fixing the problems there. It also seems like creating a convenient straw man for atheism, which if the constant preaching of is any indication, seems to be turning into quite the religion...

tomkin 15y ago
> atheism, which if the constant preaching of is any indication, seems to be turning into quite the religion... I've actually noted this. The whole "Bless You" debate squares that point. My point is more about critical thinking and how religion takes that away from people. Is anyone in argument that it is a bad thing for large groups of people to think the same way without due diligence? Pretty sure most people see large groups thinking as one as a bad thing. You can call it atheism, or what have you, but essentially we're talking about freedom of critical thinking vs. freedom of religion. I don't care for religion, or people thinking in large groups as one, so I lean towards people's right to think critically. > Pinning the blame for Mauritania's slavery problem on "religion" takes the eye off the ball Let's ask: Why is there slavery in Mauritania? What would make people okay with their own enslavement? No education about what slavery is? Sure. Let's say it's to do with education. Now, who's putting a stop to education? Whoops. Here's to taking the eye off the ball, esoteric style. I tire of hearing how people will solve the world's ball of fire that is enslavement, brutality, ignorance by throwing a pail of water over it when the real problem is the factory making the lighter fluid.
kls 15y ago
if we could magically wipe away all trace of religion or God from the minds of every Mauritanian, the problem would continue. One only has to ask which came first the desire to control others or the religion that justified it, I believe the answer is self evident and if it is, then religions that control are merely a symptom of human nature and abolishing them will not cure the foundry cause which is the desire.

tomkin 15y ago

Noticing some of my comments are being down-voted. No problem with opposing opinion or criticism, but when there is a void of space under my comment where your rebuttal should be and my comment was down-voted, I have to think that you just don't like what I am saying. As I see it, if I've said something inflammatory or if I refuse to debate further beyond talking points, I should accept the fate of the down-vote. I've responded to and debated my points, without name calling, or other negative behaviour.

ars 15y ago
Your comments are being downvoted because claiming religion is the cause of slavery and all of the worlds ills is so patently silly that people see no reason to refute you in words. You did say the "sword that is wielded" so I guess you have some realization that it's not the cause, only the effect - but then the rest of your post (and your other ones) go on to try to claim that religion is the cause. You also don't seem to realize that the moral code you live by (i.e. the things you find OK vs not OK) just by living where you do (things like corporal punishment for adults, debt slavery, age of consent, capital punishment for economic crimes) is basically arbitrary (different countries feel differently about these things without any religious thought getting involved) and to a million mile observer is indistinguishable from a religion. So calling out religion for giving people a template (as you call it) demonstrates a lack of understanding of both religion and your own thinking - I bet you have strong opinions on all those things I mentioned, and you don't realize your opinion is basically a religious one taught to you as a child.
- tomkin 15y ago
  > Your comments are being downvoted because claiming religion is the cause of slavery and all of the worlds ills OK. Your claim is my argument sweeps wholesale opinion, but then you make a wholesale opinion of what I meant when I said X. All of the worlds ills? No. Any specific issue? No. A major contributor? Absolutely. I didn't say that a religious-free world would be a slavery-free one. I am saying there would be less slavery overall. Not sure how that could be argued without removing parts of the story. > You also don't seem to realize that the moral code you live by... Another assumption. > is basically arbitrary (different countries feel differently about these things without any religious thought getting involved) and to a million mile observer is indistinguishable from a religion. You're taking ideals like 'capital punishment' and casting them into a 'religious ideal' for the purpose of comparing them directly. Pretty sure debt slavery, corporal punishment and capital punishment are variable dependant on the state of what you might consider a low wage, or how wrong it is to trade stocks with privileged information. We alter these ideals based on new information. Religion doesn't do this. The book that tells people to behead unbelievers today is the same book from hundreds of years ago. Religion is unyielding and doesn't evolve. Especially the kind that enslaves people. It's pretty absurd for you to suggest religion is as much of a variant as corporal punishment for adults, debt slavery, age of consent, capital punishment - regardless of distance. > I bet you have strong opinions on all those things I mentioned, Assumption. > and you don't realize your opinion is basically a religious one taught to you as a child. Except if new information is presented that is different than what I believe, I don't ignore it or stick my head in the sand hoping for the 'armageddon/rapture/other ridiculous event' to come to take me away. Facilitating ignorance isn't a strong point.

paulhauggis 15y ago

"Religion on our side of the world looks rosy. If you look away from the west, you will see how religion enslaves and dilutes entire populations into believing this is what god wants." I think religion is ingrained in humans. If all religions were gone today, people would would still be getting religious over something. Open source has turned religious in the development community. So has development languages (PHP/Ruby) or editors (VI/Emacs). The only difference is we aren't killing each other over it. Even Global warming has gotten religious. The problems aren't even about the religion itself. It's about a group or person gaining power over others and abusing that power. The right-wing of America uses that as a power-base to swing votes. On the other side, the left uses things like the unions to do the same thing. Christianity, in my mind, is a guide on how to be a good human being. Many people have bastardized this and use it to force their views onto other people through fear, which is wrong. "f we want to really solve the world's problems, we must finally stamp out the tools used to cause pain for millions, and if we look to the roots, the catalyst is most obvious." Which means taking away the right to be religious. I don't agree with you, sorry.

tomkin 15y ago
> I think religion is ingrained in humans. If all religions were gone today, people would would still be getting religious over something. Diluting religion into a fan club of sorts is a way to get around why actual religion is bad. You can't find a path of brutality and enslavement to Ruby enthusiasts. It's not the same thing and I think that should be pretty obvious. > Many people have bastardized this and use it to force their views onto other people through fear, which is wrong. Because we're allowed to interpret religion. In the west, talking snakes and Noah's Arc are ridiculous notions, so we can conveniently forget about that stuff. In other countries, beheading someone for having a Facebook photo that doesn't adhere to the religious doctrine isn't just allowed - it's reinforced by Sharia Law, which in some countries is the actual law. Human mutilation is even possible in the US by way of circumcision – the act of cutting parts of a person's body without their permission. But that's okay. As long as it's - what? What can I possibly put here that makes mutilation okay? I can't. As a person who sees positive in religion, you have a few tools in your belt to banter with. But none of those tools will ever be able to denounce the fact that thinking in large groups without evaluation is bad.