Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I would have thought all the blowing up of random people would do more to create hatred against muslims than a simple comment. I'd never heard of anyone else doing it until now. It's only muslims you ever read about practising it. I suppose 'honour' killings aren't a muslim thing either. And your analogy is ridiculous, although the way the catholic church covers up for and protects perverted priests you have to wonder if your comment isn't true. You didn't mention previous posts on orthodox jewish circumcision. That could 'create hate'.

Yes, you are right, it is only Muslims you read about practicing it - at least in the mainstream media. However, if you look at reports from the specialist agencies that study these things you get a different story. Now I would say that tells us something about the mainstream media.

I'm not sure why you say my analogy with calling child abuse 'a Catholic practice' is ridiculous when you follow up immediately by saying 'you have to wonder if your comment isn't true'. But in case it wasn't clear, I am the one saying it would be ridiculous, for the obvious and simple reasons that (a) most Catholics are not child abusers and (b) not all child abusers are Catholics. Therefore it cannot be the case that being a Catholic makes you a child abuser. The same goes for Muslims and FGM.

Regarding Jews, the reason we should be guarded against the sort of remarks that link a whole group with the behaviour of a few members is because that is what was done to the Jews. 'Jewish capitalists', 'Jewish criminals', 'Jewish cheats', 'Jewish Bolsheviks'....keep making the connection and sooner or later people will get it into their heads that all Jews are malevolent by nature.

The Jewish 'Bolsheviks/own all the banks/run-the-world/control the US..' blah, blah claims, fall into the category of conspiracytard theories with no basis in fact. That's hardly the same thing as FGM, which we know for a fact occurs. I was merely pointing out that you became miffed at my mentioning of muslims and FGM, yet you didn't say anything about the Jewish circumcision comments. You have a habit of missing the point of pretty well everything I write.

[Greta]

...we might not know Hitler's actual beliefs, which seem almost irrelevant in the rise to power. What matters is that he claimed to be doing God's work, and the claim fueled his power. Trump is an example of that sort of thing...

Yes, as did GWB when he invaded Iraq.

Theists can spin it any way they like, but claiming to be doing God's work is not atheistic behaviour.

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."[104]

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler said: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."

[Greta]

...we might not know Hitler's actual beliefs, which seem almost irrelevant in the rise to power. What matters is that he claimed to be doing God's work, and the claim fueled his power. Trump is an example of that sort of thing...

Yes, as did GWB when he invaded Iraq.

Theists can spin it any way they like, but claiming to be doing God's work is not atheistic behaviour.

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."[104]

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler said: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."

So this means that Hitler's atrocities can technically be included in the very long list of atrocities committed by theists and theism throughout history.

This is not to downplay the many good things provided by religions throughout history, but to properly address misleading theist claims about "atheist governments". The latter are cults of personality whose crazy claims come across as being at least as dodgy to skeptical secularists as theistic superstitions. At least theistic claims can be interpreted as metaphorical life lessons, but cults of personality are simply crazy - the worship impulse directed towards mortal individuals. As with normal religions, the thinking is not tempered by the rigour and discipline of a skeptical secularist approach. The ancient philosophers of Greece and in the Islamic "golden age" in the 13th century all promoted the idea of skepticism, to seek evidence rather than accept without question.

I use the broader term "secular skepticism" because I am agnostic so, despite being personally unsure, I can relate to atheistic skepticism and its closely related humanism, especially when the concerns of humanism extend beyond humanity.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

...we might not know Hitler's actual beliefs, which seem almost irrelevant in the rise to power. What matters is that he claimed to be doing God's work, and the claim fueled his power. Trump is an example of that sort of thing...

Yes, as did GWB when he invaded Iraq.

Theists can spin it any way they like, but claiming to be doing God's work is not atheistic behaviour.

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."[104]

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler said: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."

So this means that Hitler's atrocities can technically be included in the very long list of atrocities committed by theists and theism throughout history.

This is not to downplay the many good things provided by religions throughout history, but to properly address misleading theist claims about "atheist governments". The latter are cults of personality whose crazy claims come across as being at least as dodgy to skeptical secularists as theistic superstitions. At least theistic claims can be interpreted as metaphorical life lessons, but cults of personality are simply crazy - the worship impulse directed towards mortal individuals. As with normal religions, the thinking is not tempered by the rigour and discipline of a skeptical secularist approach. The ancient philosophers of Greece and in the Islamic "golden age" in the 13th century all promoted the idea of skepticism, to seek evidence rather than accept without question.

I use the broader term "secular skepticism" because I am agnostic so, despite being personally unsure, I can relate to atheistic skepticism and its closely related humanism, especially when the concerns of humanism extend beyond humanity.

Excellent point. A genuinely sceptical atheist would be unlikely to be fooled by, and besotted with, a charismatic, authoritarian god-daddy figure, whereas it's second nature to theists.

[Reflex]

...we might not know Hitler's actual beliefs, which seem almost irrelevant in the rise to power. What matters is that he claimed to be doing God's work, and the claim fueled his power. Trump is an example of that sort of thing...

Yes, as did GWB when he invaded Iraq.

Theists can spin it any way they like, but claiming to be doing God's work is not atheistic behaviour.

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."[104]

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler said: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."

So this means that Hitler's atrocities can technically be included in the very long list of atrocities committed by theists and theism throughout history.

You're not skeptical enough: you need to do more than cherry-pick your quotes. Quote-mining to prove a false conclusion is indicative of a bigoted mind.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yes, as did GWB when he invaded Iraq.

Theists can spin it any way they like, but claiming to be doing God's work is not atheistic behaviour.

So this means that Hitler's atrocities can technically be included in the very long list of atrocities committed by theists and theism throughout history.

You're not skeptical enough: you need to do more than cherry-pick your quotes. Quote-mining to prove a false conclusion is indicative of a bigoted mind.

That's not a quote-mine, it's a quote. You should look up 'quote-mining'.

[Reflex]

So this means that Hitler's atrocities can technically be included in the very long list of atrocities committed by theists and theism throughout history.

You're not skeptical enough: you need to do more than cherry-pick your quotes. Quote-mining to prove a false conclusion is indicative of a bigoted mind.

That's not a quote-mine, it's a quote. You should look up 'quote-mining'.

Sorry to disappoint, but it was quote-mining -- a statement taken out of the context of the whole situation. I can do it, too:

"Let's be the only people who are immunized against this [Christian] disease."

See?

[Londoner]

The Jewish 'Bolsheviks/own all the banks/run-the-world/control the US..' blah, blah claims, fall into the category of conspiracytard theories with no basis in fact. That's hardly the same thing as FGM, which we know for a fact occurs. I was merely pointing out that you became miffed at my mentioning of muslims and FGM, yet you didn't say anything about the Jewish circumcision comments. You have a habit of missing the point of pretty well everything I write.

But there was a basis in fact. Some Jews were international bankers. Some Jews were Bolsheviks. Some Jews were criminals. The falsehood was in the implication that all Jews were those things, and only Jews were those things.

You don't have to make such claims directly. Suppose each time a black person was involved in a rape it is reported as a 'black rape'. But when a white person was involved there is no mention of their colour. After a while 'rape' becomes associated with 'black', so that when people hear of a rape they will just assume the perpetrator is black. That is how you create prejudice.

I have no idea what you said about Jewish circumcision. There was a post in this thread which consisted of the single line: Not forgetting the disgusting misogynistic muslim practice of female genital mutilation. I said that this was misleading, and I am saying why I think we should try to avoid making such generalisations.

[Greta]

So this means that Hitler's atrocities can technically be included in the very long list of atrocities committed by theists and theism throughout history.

You're not skeptical enough: you need to do more than cherry-pick your quotes. Quote-mining to prove a false conclusion is indicative of a bigoted mind.

I enjoyed reading your ad hominem attack following chastisement for a philosophical fallacy. One fallacy for another, eh?

It's true that I did not present the "other side". However, that single quote in itself makes clear the dishonesty and, yes, cherry-picked quotes that created the myth of Hitler's so-called atheism. Our pair of quotes make clear that Hitler qualified neither as a Christian/Catholic nor as a secular thinker. Basically, he was unstable and used whatever material that could be bent to his ideas at the time, perhaps in the same way as Charles Manson took irrational inspiration from Blackbird.

Meanwhile Stalin was as mad as a box of frogs, convinced of his divinity, whose way of thinking that was completely at odds with the kind of skeptical secular thought that arguably arrived with the likes of Xenophanes, Democritus and Pyrrho.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The Jewish 'Bolsheviks/own all the banks/run-the-world/control the US..' blah, blah claims, fall into the category of conspiracytard theories with no basis in fact. That's hardly the same thing as FGM, which we know for a fact occurs. I was merely pointing out that you became miffed at my mentioning of muslims and FGM, yet you didn't say anything about the Jewish circumcision comments. You have a habit of missing the point of pretty well everything I write.

But there was a basis in fact. Some Jews were international bankers. Some Jews were Bolsheviks. Some Jews were criminals. The falsehood was in the implication that all Jews were those things, and only Jews were those things.

You don't have to make such claims directly. Suppose each time a black person was involved in a rape it is reported as a 'black rape'. But when a white person was involved there is no mention of their colour. After a while 'rape' becomes associated with 'black', so that when people hear of a rape they will just assume the perpetrator is black. That is how you create prejudice.

I have no idea what you said about Jewish circumcision. There was a post in this thread which consisted of the single line: Not forgetting the disgusting misogynistic muslim practice of female genital mutilation. I said that this was misleading, and I am saying why I think we should try to avoid making such generalisations.

I'm not an idiot. Yes. I do realise that SOME bankers might be Jews etc.etc. You didn't read what I wrote. The claim that they own ALL the banks, or 'control the world' has no basis in fact. The claims are that some entity called 'the Jews' runs pretty much everything. God you are hard work. Your patronising attempts at giving lectures on 'tolerance' are more than I can stomach, especially as you seem to have some fantasy about what I've written that bears no resemblance to the actual comment. Plus, you appear to have no reading comprehension skills. I didn't mention circumcision. That was from someone else's comment (as if you didn't see that).
The fact is that muslims do perform FGM in LARGE NUMBERS. The fact is that muslims follow the koran, otherwise they wouldn't be muslim would they? Actually it doesn't surprise me that kristians practise FGM too (according to you). Both are rife with misogyny. Oh, and if you have one particular sub-species (apparently 'race' isn't PC any more) committing the bulk of rapes in a country, then that is something that should be investigated, whether or not it might 'offend' SJWs on behalf of whatever group they have chosen to be offended 'on behalf of' at a given time.

[Reflex]

What is meant by "secular," Greta? What is different between that and atheism?

[Immanuel Can]

What is meant by "secular," Greta? What is different between that and atheism?

Ironically, "secular" is a religious word. It was originally coined to designate the difference between the sacred or eternal and the temporal, worldly "other stuff," (i.e., the secular). It's actually unrelated to Atheism, because a single person who was serving some religious purpose had a "sacred" part of life and also a "secular" part.

Some ideologies, such as Atheism and Islam, do not recognize any distinction between the two: the Atheists, because for them ALL is truly "secular" -- at least so far as they are concerned it is; and the Muslims, because they recognize no area of life that is not a religious matter, not the province of Allah and his designates to arbitrate.

You're safe using "secular" as a synonym for "not specifically religious but not specifically Atheistic either."

[Greta]

What is meant by "secular," Greta? What is different between that and atheism?

It's broader. For instance, I am an agnostic rather than an atheist, but I am usually comfortable with the kind of secular skepticism that's often embraced by atheists. Without proof, along with what I hope is healthy skepticism about the reality my peak experiences, I remain unsure about the deepest aspects of reality, thus agnostic. Science, and nature are amongst "my favourite things", so I favour secular narratives even though I often don't agree with the level of certainty with which some atheistic statements are made.

[Reflex]

What is meant by "secular," Greta? What is different between that and atheism?

It's broader. For instance, I am an agnostic rather than an atheist, but I am usually comfortable with the kind of secular skepticism that's often embraced by atheists. Without proof, along with what I hope is healthy skepticism about the reality my peak experiences, I remain unsure about the deepest aspects of reality, thus agnostic. Science, and nature are amongst "my favourite things", so I favour secular narratives even though I often don't agree with the level of certainty with which some atheistic statements are made.

You didn't answer the question, but that's okay. The difference between atheism and secularism is the difference between atheism and agnosticism: none.

I never cease being amused by atheists trying to associate Hitler with Christianity. I mean, jeez, how insanely desperate can a person be to avoid the logical consequences of atheism? As to the the question whether religion has been a boon or bane to mankind, it's a mix, but the pluses outweigh the minuses -- unless you count dance, art, civilization, science and what have you as a bane.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What is meant by "secular," Greta? What is different between that and atheism?

It's broader. For instance, I am an agnostic rather than an atheist, but I am usually comfortable with the kind of secular skepticism that's often embraced by atheists. Without proof, along with what I hope is healthy skepticism about the reality my peak experiences, I remain unsure about the deepest aspects of reality, thus agnostic. Science, and nature are amongst "my favourite things", so I favour secular narratives even though I often don't agree with the level of certainty with which some atheistic statements are made.

You didn't answer the question, but that's okay. The difference between atheism and secularism is the difference between atheism and agnosticism: none.

I never cease being amused by atheists trying to associate Hitler with Christianity. I mean, jeez, how insanely desperate can a person be to avoid the logical consequences of atheism? As to the the question whether religion has been a boon or bane to mankind, it's a mix, but the pluses outweigh the minuses -- unless you count dance, art, civilization, science and what have you as a bane.

Right. Of course. 'Secular' and 'atheist' mean the same thing.
It's always amusing when theists try to associate Hitler with atheism. I mean, jeez, how insanely desperate can a person be to.. (the rest was incoherent).