To survive - lose religious faith

[Shadow Wolf]

All the nations that have practiced communism wasn't Marxist. Stalin didn't even have it right. Under True Communism, everything is equal. Similiar to an ant colony. There are no poor, no hungery, no homeless. The government makes sure people are takin care of.

The only problem with Communism is the fact that humans have a since of individual worth rather than equality. Ill admit, I know I should be payed a bit more at work since I do more. The lazy people that keep calling off shouldn't make as much. That is why communism fails.

 

[Valjean]

I think Jewscout made some excellent points.

What people so often conveniently overlook is all the injustice and horrible things that have been done by those who profess no faith or religion. Take Stalin and Hitler, for example. Neither were religious---in fact, they were anti-God---and yet they were responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in human history.

So you don't see Nazism or Bolshevism as religions?

 

[pandamonk]

i would have to disagree there ,because as far as i am concerned it was not true christianity that was involved with the crusades,witch-trials, inquisition or wars, but it was false religion

i love the bail out. When people of a certain religion commit evil they are of false religion or weren't true believers. I wunder if they would of thought this if they knew them before the evil acts? sorry for this being so late

 

[Melody]

But it was Christianity that was intolerant of what you call "false" religions. If Christianity was not thier, those would not have happened.

True. It would have been another reason. Religion was just convenient.

True Marxism, or true Communism, is in theory the second best government, the best being anarchy. If every government was under true communism, which non of the communist nations have

Communism and socialism have always looked good on paper, but add the human element and it all falls apart.

Christianities intolerance and/or corrupt leaders is to blame for many things such as the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition.

No...Christianity was just the smoke screen for bigotry and hate.

 

[jewscout]

The only problem with Communism is the fact that humans have a since of individual worth rather than equality. Ill admit, I know I should be payed a bit more at work since I do more. The lazy people that keep calling off shouldn't make as much. That is why communism fails.

exactly. Communism is real nice on paper. But when it comes to the Real World it just doesn't work. Humanity isn't there and i don't think i'll see an age when it will be. I'm sorry if i work at a shoe factory and bob makes 2000 less shoes than me a month why should he get paid the same as me?

it's a nice thought but that's as far as it goes.

 

[michel]

All the nations that have practiced communism wasn't Marxist. Stalin didn't even have it right. Under True Communism, everything is equal. Similiar to an ant colony. There are no poor, no hungery, no homeless. The government makes sure people are takin care of.

The only problem with Communism is the fact that humans have a since of individual worth rather than equality. Ill admit, I know I should be payed a bit more at work since I do more. The lazy people that keep calling off shouldn't make as much. That is why communism fails.

Communism fails, because it adverises that all people are equal; the trouble is that some are always more equal than others........

 

[may]

i love the bail out. When people of a certain religion commit evil they are of false religion or weren't true believers. I wunder if they would of thought this if they knew them before the evil acts? sorry for this being so late

well Jesus said that we would recognize the true follows by their fruits, in other words by whatthey did , so looking at the fruitage of so called christianity i would say that they are not doing the will of God ,because the fruitage of true christianity would be love. yes God has always made known how the true followers should act by telling us in the bible to listen to Jesus and his teachings. so i think i will cross those not doing the will of God off my list as being christians, at the end of the day it all boils down to weatherwe listen to false teachers or the bible thats the trouble peopleare misled by false teachers.

 

[may]

LUKE WOLF SAID But it was Christianity that was intolerant of what you call "false" religions. If Christianity was not thier, those would not have happened. True they wouldn't have happened if the church leaders of the time weren't greedy, corrupt, and had political motives behind there discision, but most church leaders even today are like that.............. But it wasnt christianity it was false christianity with false christian teachings. and yes, church leaders are like that today also, they are part of the world when jesus said that they should be no part of the world , religious leaders meddling in political things is not what jesus taught his true followers

 

[Cynic]

I think In several cases religion has provided moral standards by which people should live by, standards that promote behaviors that improve cohesion and thus, survivability. In some cases, it can become destructive. I however, highly doubt that religion is all to blame, because not everybody who is religious is destructive. I believe his point only applies to those who have acted destructively in the name of religion, in which religion looses its sole purpose. These people use religion for their own ulterior motives. More than often, I believe, they are not even fully aware that their agendas are corrupt, but genuinely believe their actions are for good cause. I blame human stupidity and ignorance. So many people seem to lack the ability to rise above selective thinking, or to think outside of their own box. So many people think with their emotions, rather than using logic behind every decision.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can't imagine a world where a belief in God was nonexistent.

Jupiter?

To get back to the OP, I certainly don't agree with this guy's negative attitude towards religious diversity and religious tolerance. There is no question that "religion" has caused many of the world's problems....right now, for example, there are around 50,000 religious schools in Pakistan who preach a violence-based radical Islamic theology, turning kids into anti-West and anti-Jew extremists. But there's no telling how many of the world's problems have been helped by religion, too (as Hope pointed out). How many more people would have died of disease and famine if it weren't for the Red Cross? How much poorer would impoverished children be around the world if it weren't for religious charities and aid groups? How many people have been comforted and found strength in their religious beliefs during a time of hardship?

What all of us on this thread want, I think, is more tolerance, and it would be far more effective to try to get people to incorporate tolerance into their current faith than to bash faith of every kind altogether. If people kept their faith but accepted secular democracy and social tolerance, it would be the best of both world i.m.o.

 

[michel]

Hi Cynic,


As I notice that yours is the first post you have made on this forum, I thought that I would welcome you to the form.

You might like to have a look at :- Articles for New Members ; from there, there is a link to the forum rules, which you ought to see.
Seeing as you have started posting, you might like to introduce yourself to the forum by posting on:
Are you new to ReligiousForums.com? Hey, enjoy yourself here!

 

[Voxton]

Okay, I missed this stuff, but it deserves to be addressed...

With no religion, there'd be no crusades, no children's crusades, no witch-trials or inquisitions, no priests fruiting up the choir-boys...

yes because all christian condone this sort of behavior:sarcastic:

...no intifadas, and no 9/11

again...because all muslims condone this sort of behavior:sarcastic

-- we'd miss quite a few wars too.

that's debatable...

These responses aren't reasonable, or decent arguments. I never implied that I thought all Christians or all Muslims condoned these acts. What is the purpose of your responses -- besides abject sarcasm? I have never used this tone with you. What's the reason for this? There's no constructive incentive behind this.

There's the old saying, that if you can't say anything nice, best not to say anything at all -- but obviously, that doesn't apply unless you're in a Mary Poppins picture or somesuch -- but ya know, I do think that unless you can contribute with something constructive, maybe best to lay off it.

 

[Voxton]

...Take Stalin and Hitler, for example. Neither were religious---in fact, they were anti-God---and yet they were responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in human history.

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
--Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Now, just to ward off the mindless, knee-jerk, and insincere, sarcastic responses: No, I don't think that all Christians are Nazis; I don't think all Christians approve of Nazism or Hitler; I don't think the Nazis were any more likely to being Christians than non-Nazis, and I don't think Hitler was a typical Christian. This should be absolutely, utterly obvious, and go without saying -- but hey...

You might claim that Jim Jones, David Koresh, or a number of Popes weren't religious, or that they were "anti-God," and it might very well be true that they merely paid lip service, but guess what? Does being a hypocrite somehow automatically disqualify you as a Christian? Nope.

Jones and Koresh were Christian primarily, and cult leaders and mass murderers secondary. Hitler obviously wasn't a Christian first and foremost -- but he clearly identified himself as a Christian in his writings.

Hitler attended the 300th anniversary performance of the Passion play (recently popularized by Mel Gibson) at Oberammergau, calling it "a convincing portrayal of the menace of Jewry."

 

[Doc]

I think of religion much like I would a car. Both can be used as vehicles of love, compassion or hate, and destruction. You could say a car is evil because it can kill people. You could also say a car is good because it can transport people quickly to destinations saving lots of time. So are we better off without cars? The same can be said for guns. They can kill someone or defend someone. Are we better off without them?

So it's not the car or gun's fault that bad things happened, it was the person controlling them that decided it. The same is with religion. It works as a motivating force and place of refuge for some or an excuse for violence and terror.

 

[michel]

I think of religion much like I would a car. Both can be used as vehicles of love, compassion or hate, and destruction. You could say a car is evil because it can kill people. You could also say a car is good because it can transport people quickly to destinations saving lots of time. So are we better off without cars? The same can be said for guns. They can kill someone or defend someone. Are we better off without them?

So it's not the car or gun's fault that bad things happened, it was the person controlling them that decided it. The same is with religion. It works as a motivating force and place of refuge for some or an excuse for violence and terror.

Excellent post doc! spot on.

 

[robtex]

Maybe we are a faith-based species. Even without God there are thousands who believe they have been abducted by aliens, there is a bigfoot club in northern Cali that did a "hunt" two months back I think, in the northern redwoods. There are people who believe the ghosts, faries, the lockness monster, haunted houses, faith healers, witch doctors, spritual tattooing (in thailand and se aisa), vampires, doppengangers ect ect. To name every unevidencable thing in the world that someone believes in would be a monumtental task.

What could be of more interest, instead of trying to derail what seems to come naturally as a species is to find ways to channel it in a more positive direction. An ugly attachement of religion is the "killing and destruction for one's deity", the personifcation of these emotions and desires on a higher power, which is a sort of deferred morality may be a more realistic focus.

If you ask just about any theists about their God at some point they say, "Their God is love" or equal to love or the personifcation of love ect ect, than they smite somebody else using their God for justification.

Finding a way to position this mentality of "God is love" and "killing for God" as incompatable may be doable. We do , war as a species also and concur but, if we collectivly made doing so for "god" unreasonable instead of THE REASON, which he/she/it seems to be time after time we may curb violent actions in groups. The worst that could happen if a plan like this were invoked is that people would still kill maim injure one another as much but, do so without attaching their God who is love to this action.

 

[michel]

Maybe we are a faith-based species. Even without God there are thousands who believe they have been abducted by aliens, there is a bigfoot club in northern Cali that did a "hunt" two months back I think, in the northern redwoods. There are people who believe the ghosts, faries, the lockness monster, haunted houses, faith healers, witch doctors, spritual tattooing (in thailand and se aisa), vampires, doppengangers ect ect. To name every unevidencable thing in the world that someone believes in would be a monumtental task.

What could be of more interest, instead of trying to derail what seems to come naturally as a species is to find ways to channel it in a more positive direction. An ugly attachement of religion is the "killing and destruction for one's deity", the personifcation of these emotions and desires on a higher power, which is a sort of deferred morality may be a more realistic focus.

If you ask just about any theists about their God at some point they say, "Their God is love" or equal to love or the personifcation of love ect ect, than they smite somebody else using their God for justification.

Finding a way to position this mentality of "God is love" and "killing for God" as incompatable may be doable. We do , war as a species also and concur but, if we collectivly made doing so for "god" unreasonable instead of THE REASON, which he/she/it seems to be time after time we may curb violent actions in groups. The worst that could happen if a plan like this were invoked is that people would still kill maim injure one another as much but, do so without attaching their God who is love to this action.

Sorry Rob, my brain aches with the heat; could you put that in simpler words, please - unless all you are trying to say that Man needs something to be 'behind' everything.......?

 

[robtex]

Sorry Rob, my brain aches with the heat; could you put that in simpler words, please - unless all you are trying to say that Man needs something to be 'behind' everything.......?

1)As a species, we have a propensity of faith, and a higher power is one of many.
2) Most or many people if asked, equate their God to love ie god=love
3) nobody equates war with love ie war not = love
4) positioning the two as dicotomic (opposites) by stating that if

God = love and love cannot = war than God cannot = war, or that a God who is love cannot the reasoning or justication of war may be doable to some degree. Even if it is not doable than the worst that can happen is the level of violence would stay the same.

 

[michel]

1)As a species, we have a propensity of faith, and a higher power is one of many.
2) Most or many people if asked, equate their God to love ie god=love
3) nobody equates war with love ie war not = love
4) positioning the two as dicotomic (opposites) by stating that if

God = love and love cannot = war than God cannot = war, or that a God who is love cannot the reasoning or justication of war may be doable to some degree. Even if it is not doable than the worst that can happen is the level of violence would stay the same.

Whoa there; wars are carried out by man - not God. War is not justifiable to moral man - defense is though.

 

[robtex]

Whoa there; wars are carried out by man - not God. War is not justifiable to moral man - defense is though.

but justified by the christian god and praised by allah (the two biggest culpits today), I am saying that marking, and all religion is marketed, the idea that god cannot justify, condone or approve of war if God equals love might be a more humanistic campign in the marketing of the two "superpowers" of Gods Jehovah and Allah.

the object being taking away God as a jusification for war aka the reason, not stating that God caused the war. But, interesting how many theists, such as yourself, are quick to say man causes war, but than say God is everywhere and is allpowerful. if you are in contact with jesus get that fella off his apathetic tail and into the game........being apathetic to a cause is supporting it by default in many cases if one has the ablity to influence it (as an all mighty god would).