Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

[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.

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.

You clearly didn't read my post.

[Greta]

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).

I thought "the rest" was the only coherent part of the post. The earlier part was just religious politicking. Cliché, cliché, blah, blah. Weak.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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).

I thought "the rest" was the only coherent part of the post. The earlier part was just religious politicking. Cliché, cliché, blah, blah. Weak.

I just meant the rest of that sentence. It makes no sense. '..the logical consequences of atheism..'? What the heck is that supposed to mean, and how is it related to Hitler's association with christianity?

[attofishpi]

Noax stated:- "God commands us to kill these unbelievers so that makes it OK"

The question i posed was what religious doctrine that you know of has statements directing followers to kill unbelievers?

I was quoting a typical leader which uses the local religion to justify a war, as was done in the crusades or WWII for instance. The word unbeliever may not be used, but the doing it for God's sake is almost always there. The bible simply has record of God commanding killing of others not because of unbelief, but simply because those people (who were never a threat) had something that was coveted.

The koran is full of words stating to kill non believers. The word of Christ is the only direct lineage to God's word within the bible - find something from the Gospels that states such.

[Reflex]

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).

I thought "the rest" was the only coherent part of the post. The earlier part was just religious politicking. Cliché, cliché, blah, blah. Weak.

It's a habit I picked up from you.

What the heck is that [the logical consequences of atheism] supposed to mean, and how is it related to Hitler's association with christianity?

It's what's to be expected when men are gods onto themselves.

Another thing that amuses me is when atheists/agnostics equate "awe" with "spirituality." They seem to imagine themselves being "deep" or "spiritual" when in fact they are being superficial, secular and intellectually dishonest.

[Londoner]

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).

You twice referred to circumcision in replies addressed to me, asking why I hadn't said anything about it. I had no idea what you are referring to or why I am required to comment on it. I still don't.

I did not say anything about 'tolerance'. What I said was we should not use crude generalisations to create religious or racial prejudice, which was what the initial comment about Muslims and FGM amounted to.

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.

Sorry to keep confusing you with information, but I don't think we can even make the easy connection between FGM and misogyny. Like it or not, the practice is strongly supported by women. In some places, it is an initiation rite into a secret society for women. It also long predates both Islam and Christianity.

Also, for your information, there are no 'sub species' of humans.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Consider Hitler's eugenics, Stalin's gulags, Mao's "re-education" camps, Pol Pot's killing fields...all performed by avowed Atheists.
.

Hitler's was very religious indeed, and made a pact with the Vatican to help him round up "filthy" jews.

The other three are interesting since they had no particular interest in Atheism, but modelled their leadership styles on religion, forging themselves in the image of gods. Take a look at Kim il Un.

Countless numbers have died horribly due to the church strangling the shit out of science; preventing contraception, and pretending to be doctors with no medical knowledge.
Even today Jahovah's witnesses are killing their own children with medical neglect; and traditionalists Jews infecting children with dirty circumscision.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jew ... -1.2055911
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erpes.html


http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=16763280

Not forgetting the disgusting misogynistic muslim practice of female genital mutilation.

True. But I'm not sure if that is not pre-Muslim. Not sure if it is mandated by the Koran. It is more North African/Arab mysticism, than mainline Islam. Though I could be wrong. Do you have a reference?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Sorry to keep confusing you with information, but I don't think we can even make the easy connection between FGM and misogyny.

Er.... FGM is misogyn. Seriously I do not think a culture that practices that can be said to consider women on an equal level of man.
You do not that it's a bit more than just removing some skin, don't you?

[Londoner]

The koran is full of words stating to kill non believers. The word of Christ is the only direct lineage to God's word within the bible - find something from the Gospels that states such.

The Koran really isn't 'full of words stating to kill non believers'. As I wrote earlier, the bits that always get quoted come after the verse: Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. and finishes But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Regarding the Gospels, there is the obvious problem that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, part of God...but that God is the God of the OT who is certainly into killing non-believers. Unless one takes the Gnostic stance that really the old God was evil, and Jesus is a completely new God who is against the old God, that is a problem. Jesus comes to fulfill the Law; which means Christians can't disown the OT. And they don't, indeed a lot of Christians seem to prefer it!

Even with Jesus, although he does not say you should kill non-believers there is plenty about not tolerating them.I came not to send peace, but a sword, For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.. (etc.)

Now my point here is not that Muslims are nice and Christians are nasty, but that nobody would have any trouble picking bits out of their scriptures to justify either the persecution - or the tolerance - of other faiths. And that is just what they have always done!

So I don't think it makes sense to explain behaviour by religion; rather religion (our interpretation of scriptures) is itself a behaviour. There is going to be an underlying cause for both. To put it crudely; angry people, Christian or Muslim, will find angry gods.

[Londoner]

Sorry to keep confusing you with information, but I don't think we can even make the easy connection between FGM and misogyny.

Er.... FGM is misogyn. Seriously I do not think a culture that practices that can be said to consider women on an equal level of man.
You do not that it's a bit more than just removing some skin, don't you?

I understand by 'misogyny' dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. I do not think the women who send their daughters to be cut are doing it because they dislike their daughters, or have contempt for them. The whole reason FGM is hard to eradicate is that they think they are doing something which is good for their daughters.

I know a fair bit about the subject.

[Greta]

Sorry to keep confusing you with information, but I don't think we can even make the easy connection between FGM and misogyny.

Er.... FGM is misogyn. Seriously I do not think a culture that practices that can be said to consider women on an equal level of man.
You do not that it's a bit more than just removing some skin, don't you?

I understand by 'misogyny' dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. I do not think the women who send their daughters to be cut are doing it because they dislike their daughters, or have contempt for them. The whole reason FGM is hard to eradicate is that they think they are doing something which is good for their daughters.

I know a fair bit about the subject.

The misogyny is codified into the culture. Unquestioned traditional practices pertaining to male ownership of women.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Sorry to keep confusing you with information, but I don't think we can even make the easy connection between FGM and misogyny.

Er.... FGM is misogyn. Seriously I do not think a culture that practices that can be said to consider women on an equal level of man.
You do not that it's a bit more than just removing some skin, don't you?

I understand by 'misogyny' dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. I do not think the women who send their daughters to be cut are doing it because they dislike their daughters, or have contempt for them. The whole reason FGM is hard to eradicate is that they think they are doing something which is good for their daughters.

I know a fair bit about the subject.

"women who send their daughters" = flim flam.

You do realise that it is common for people to participate in their own oppression.

[Londoner]

"women who send their daughters" = flim flam.

You do realise that it is common for people to participate in their own oppression.

I do not understand.

You quote me saying "women who send their daughters" and comment that it is 'flim flam', presumably meaning 'it doesn't happen'.

Then you ask me if I realise 'it is common for people to participate in their own oppression', presumably meaning 'it does happen'.

I say it is the second. Some women are complicit in a practice that most of the world thinks is bad for women. The rest of the world finds it horrible, but they see it differently.

I do not think putting it down to misogyny was helpful because that implies it is being forced on those women by the men. If we tried to tackle it on that assumption, that the women are only involved if they are being coerced by men then we will be ineffective. The big challenge for teachers is that their message to a young girl at risk amounts to saying that her own mother and aunts and all the people she loves are intending to do her harm. That is why it is so difficult to pitch.

[Immanuel Can]

Hitler's was very religious indeed, and made a pact with the Vatican to help him round up "filthy" jews.

He didn't care how "religious" they were. He killed secular Jews with just as much enthusiasm, as the Jews themselves have so often pointed out after the fact; there was nothing they could do...not even converting to Nazism...that would make the Nazis stop killing them. And that was because the hatred was about eugenics, not about their beliefs.

The other three are interesting since they had no particular interest in Atheism...

Just not true: they were all avowed, self-declared Marxists, not "god-emperors." The god-emperor idea has been over since Rome fell. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did not persecute religions because they "had no interest in Atheism," but precisely because the religious would never believe in the Marxist Atheist utopian program.

Countless numbers...

What people say when they don't actually know the real "count" or it's actually not high, but they still want to make a point.

The actual count is far, far below the work of Atheism. In fact, there is a 52% chance that any Atheist leader of a State will kill at least 200,000 of his own people. No religion but Islam can come close to that count of homicides. Even the "Religion of Peace" accounts for only about 3.5% of the war dead, up until this century.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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).

You twice referred to circumcision in replies addressed to me, asking why I hadn't said anything about it. I had no idea what you are referring to or why I am required to comment on it. I still don't.

I did not say anything about 'tolerance'. What I said was we should not use crude generalisations to create religious or racial prejudice, which was what the initial comment about Muslims and FGM amounted to.

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.

Sorry to keep confusing you with information, but I don't think we can even make the easy connection between FGM and misogyny. Like it or not, the practice is strongly supported by women. In some places, it is an initiation rite into a secret society for women. It also long predates both Islam and Christianity.

Also, for your information, there are no 'sub species' of humans.

Talk about thick. I will have to take you through it step by step then. Hobbes made a comment about Jewish circumcision, with links. I then made a comment about muslims and FGM. You took exception to my comment about FGM, as the good SJW that you are, so I pointed out that you hadn't made any complaint about the original comment about Jewish circumcision. Is THAT clear enough for you?? And don't pretend you couldn't find the comment. If you saw my muslim one then you must have seen the original one.
Whether FGM predates those religions or not is irrelevant. The fact is that muslims practice it today in huge numbers.
'Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence .'
Either something is a scientific fact or it isn't. The PC need to keep their meddling snouts out of science. 'Ok. Hitler did horrible things based on his warped idea of 'race', so let's just say that there's no such thing and that will end racism forever' (like that's going to happen). I couldn't care less if there is such a thing or not (actually, something has to be properly defined in order to decide whether or not it 'exists'). I think most people can see for themselves that there are populations on the planet that look vastly different from each other. It's the fact that science is playing social engineer that makes me sick, and it's ironically not very far removed from what the Nazis did. 'Race' is highly relevant in medical research, so I don't know how they dance around that one without mentioning the fact that particular groups of people (who just happen to look different from each other) have different medical problems and susceptibilities.
By the way, my 'subspecies' comment was facetious, but clearly subtlety and irony fly right over your head.