The problem is human nature not religion

[QMan]

I deny it. The role that you want to describe is not played by religion it is always only and exclusively played by human beings. Religion (I do not include cults in that) is generally a moral and benevolent belief system that was and is often ignored by many, in the middle ages as well as now. So, blame humanity, not religion per se. You are disingenuous if you claim, for example, that Christ's teaching in any way shape or form can be used as a basis for sinful human behavior. The difficulty with your argument is that you are confounding his teaching with the illicit actions of people who may claim to be his followers but, as you well know, cannot be because of their intent and actions.

If you fail to make that distinction, you can correctly be accused of intellectual dishonesty and bias towards religion!

Intellectually dishonesty is equivocating the word "religion" with "Christ's Teachings". I will remind you there are millions of Muslims all over the world on nearly every continent. There are millions of Buddhists all over eastern Asia. Do you know how many people in India follow Hinduism as adherents? There is like hundreds of millions of them. There were once pagans all over northern Europe (well, before Charlemagne slaughtered most of them in the name of the Christian God.. anyways..).

Do you have anything coherent to say regarding the recent "sectarian" violence between Shia and Sunni muslims? That is happening right now as we type into this forum. At this point, I guess I would need to ask if you even consider Islam to constitute a religion? Because as far as I can tell from your posts you are operating under the premise that Religion=Christ's Teachings. Otherwise I wouldn't ask.

I do accuse you of intellectual dishonesty then because you find it necessary to put up a straw man.
It is clear from my append that I am referring to religion as a benevolent system not only Christian religion, even though that is my background.

You also, like most atheists in this forum (correct me if you are not one) sidestep the issue being dealt with since your Shia/Sunni comment re-enforces my point and you would like to mislead people into thinking that it distracts from what I said.

[HexHammer]

@ metachuck

You are partially wrong. The curan incites in 13 verse to erradicate infidels, where the bible isn't that agressive.

So when you have 13 verse with an easily manipulated human nature, it's bound to go wrong, terrible wrong!

[Kuznetzova]

I do accuse you of intellectual dishonesty then because you find it necessary to put up a straw man.
It is clear from my append that I am referring to religion as a benevolent system not only Christian religion, even though that is my background.

You also, like most atheists in this forum (correct me if you are not one) sidestep the issue being dealt with since your Shia/Sunni comment re-enforces my point and you would like to mislead people into thinking that it distracts from what I said.

QMan. Now that we see your behavior on this forum, we can see plainly that you are not here to do philosophy or make philosophy-related posts. You are some sort of adherent to the most supernatural form of evangelical Christianity. And you are using the TECHNOLOGY of this forum to advertise and peddle a conspicuously ghosty, supernatural form of Christianity. I would not be surprised to hear from you that people in your church service speak in tongues.

When intellectuals in a philosophy context use the word Religion, they are referring to a cultural and social phenomenon that cuts across many cultures and continents, and reaches back into the people of ancient history. "Religion" for us writers and philosophers includes also Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Norse Mythology, Greek mythology, and the various other spiritual traditions of tribal shamans. The word encapsulates both the religion and astronomy of ancient Egypt along with the Old Testament of the Judaic kingdoms.

Zoroastrianism has not survived to our century, but we still consider it a "religion" in our little context here.

I'm sorry to say that this really isn't the right place on the internet to make long posts about people who had near-death experiences and, went to hell and saw Satan or passed through a tunnel of light and met Jesus. Or talking about using your hands and prayer to heal the sick. We don't do seances and exorcisms here. There are many better places on the internet to talk to people who talk about those things. This forum is not one of them.

[HexHammer]

Kuznetzova

I'm afraid QMan does indeed do philosophy, just that you don't comprehend it, because looking at all of your posts everything you say is incoherent, thus it suggest you don't understand the deeper meaning in what you say.

[Ginkgo]

John Locke's idea of natural rights are strictly secular.

Not even remotely true. If you read the "Toleration" essay, you'll see. If you don't, you won't. It's that simple.

Immanuel, I did my homework and read Locke's letter. Some interesting quotes in relation to"rights" are:

"Nobody, therefore,in fine, neither single persons, nor churches, nay, even commonwealths, have any just title to invade civil rights and worldly goods of each other upon the pretence of religion."

Another on the separation of church and state:

"This only I say, that, whatsoever their authority be sprung, since it is ecclesiastical, it ought to be contained within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any any manner be extended to civil affairs, because the church is a thing absolutely separate and disconnect from the commonwealth"

I can see nothing in Locke's letter that is in any way in conflict with his thesis on 'natural rights'. In fact the letter is consistent with his famous "Second Treatise". Locke is of the opinion that the natural rights of man can be found when we examine people living in a state of nature. In other words, those rights that naturally exist prior to there being an organized society to grant such rights. This is an attempt at a naturalistic explanation for natural rights.It is definitely not a theistic explanation.

The whole idea was to avoid attaching any theological implications to 'natural rights'. This is why Locke's ideas were the basis for the type of secular government you enjoy at the moment. Do you think that the Founding Fathers would have adopted a Bill of God given Rights? Not very likely likely in a system of government that recognizes the importance of the separation of powers, and the separation of church and state.

[Kuznetzova]

In other words, those rights that naturally exist prior to there being an organized society to grant such rights. This is an attempt at a naturalistic explanation for natural rights.It is definitely not a theistic explanation.

Yes.

Code: Select all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

[QMan]

I do accuse you of intellectual dishonesty then because you find it necessary to put up a straw man.
It is clear from my append that I am referring to religion as a benevolent system not only Christian religion, even though that is my background.

You also, like most atheists in this forum (correct me if you are not one) sidestep the issue being dealt with since your Shia/Sunni comment re-enforces my point and you would like to mislead people into thinking that it distracts from what I said.

QMan. Now that we see your behavior on this forum, we can see plainly that you are not here to do philosophy or make philosophy-related posts. You are some sort of adherent to the most supernatural form of evangelical Christianity. And you are using the TECHNOLOGY of this forum to advertise and peddle a conspicuously ghosty, supernatural form of Christianity. I would not be surprised to hear from you that people in your church service speak in tongues.

When intellectuals in a philosophy context use the word Religion, they are referring to a cultural and social phenomenon that cuts across many cultures and continents, and reaches back into the people of ancient history. "Religion" for us writers and philosophers includes also Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Norse Mythology, Greek mythology, and the various other spiritual traditions of tribal shamans. The word encapsulates both the religion and astronomy of ancient Egypt along with the Old Testament of the Judaic kingdoms.

Zoroastrianism has not survived to our century, but we still consider it a "religion" in our little context here.

I'm sorry to say that this really isn't the right place on the internet to make long posts about people who had near-death experiences and, went to hell and saw Satan or passed through a tunnel of light and met Jesus. Or talking about using your hands and prayer to heal the sick. We don't do seances and exorcisms here. There are many better places on the internet to talk to people who talk about those things. This forum is not one of them.

First, thanks Hexhammer for sticking up for me. Indeed, life turns most of us into philosophers with time.

Kuznetzova, you are still dodging the issue. Let me reiterate it. If Mao were a Buddhist (don't care if he was, I am trying to make a point) then I would hear solid condemnation from you and the atheist camp if I claimed that, because of people like him, Buddhism is responsible for all atrocities in China and the rest of the world. Clearly therefore, you must differentiate between people committed to mayhem under any belief system and the nature of the system itself. I am certain you would not claim that Buddhism is evil because of Mao. My beef with you and the likes of you in this forum is that you do not extent that courtesy to Christianity as well.

Now it is clear that belief systems can also go wrong in their dictates, but that clearly does not eliminate the human equation in it since people even based on conscience and natural law would have to make the morally correct choices.

Now, the rest of your append I will ignore since it's obviously baloney and any reader with some common sense will pick up on that. Also, you underestimate the reader's curiosity, they probably find that kind of material interesting.

[Immanuel Can]

An Essay Concerning Toleration (1667).

"But if God…would have men forced to heaven, it must not be by the outward violence of the magistrate on men’s bodies, but the inward constraints of his own spirit on their minds, which are not to be wrought on by any human compulsion. The way to salvation not being any forced exterior performance, but the voluntary and secret choice of the mind, and it cannot be supposed that God would make use of any means which could not reach but would rather cross the attainment of the end. Nor can it be thought that men should give the magistrate a power to choose for them their way to salvation, which is too great to give away, if not impossible to part with."

He goes on quite at length. Also see his rationale for the basic human rights:

Second Treatise of Civil Government of 1690, Chapter V. Locke writes,

"Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common…But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners…"

Sounds pretty Theistic, don't you think?

[Ginkgo]

An Essay Concerning Toleration (1667).

"But if God…would have men forced to heaven, it must not be by the outward violence of the magistrate on men’s bodies, but the inward constraints of his own spirit on their minds, which are not to be wrought on by any human compulsion. The way to salvation not being any forced exterior performance, but the voluntary and secret choice of the mind, and it cannot be supposed that God would make use of any means which could not reach but would rather cross the attainment of the end. Nor can it be thought that men should give the magistrate a power to choose for them their way to salvation, which is too great to give away, if not impossible to part with."

He goes on quite at length. Also see his rationale for the basic human rights:

Second Treatise of Civil Government of 1690, Chapter V. Locke writes,

"Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common…But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners…"

Sounds pretty Theistic, don't you think?

It should. After all, Locke was a devout Christian.

The natural reason that Locke speaks about is distinct from divine law. That is, divine law in the Christian sense. That's the whole idea.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I am no fan of Daniel Dennett and it seems that Mr. Dennett is under an all too common fallacy. The problems he describes with religion can be attributed to political ideologies, nationalism, philosophical movements, etc. The trouble is not religion. It is humanity’s intolerance of those who are different. If religion were done away with, then nationalism would be sucked into the vacuum and we’d kill over that. If not nationalism then race would be the reason we vomit cruelty all over each other. If not racism, then some stereotype or one of the myriad things that make human populations different would be used to divide the various groupings into the “good” guys and the “bad” guys. White could hate black, and the white northerners could hate the white southerners, while the black Haitians could hate the Black Dominicans, etc., etc. Human nature, not religion, is the culprit. Tolerance of difference is the answer to our problems, not burning religion at the stake. When religion is burned away, the nature that needed a burning will remain, and the stake will stand ready for the next victim. Education and tolerance are what we need. Not “education and tolerance AFTER we get rid of those damned religious people”. We need education and tolerance now on all sides of the issues. Just like the oppressed can easily be oppressors, so those preaching tolerance can very easily become the most severe of the intolerant. Religion is not some virus that is transmitted via the vector of socialization. The problem isn’t the result of an infection of the human mind; the problem is the fundamental predispositions of the human mind itself. It isn’t an invasion from without; it is a manifestation of human propensities from within the psyche. The problem is an expression of human nature period. It is not the expression of an inevitably dysfunctional and intrinsically malevolent religion. These defects can be expressed in religion or politics or cultural manifestations regarding race, ethnicity, class, etc. Isolating religion as the foe is attempting to cure a symptom while leaving the disease unchecked. It is also just as pointless. It is misguided to declare jihad against religion. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly is fueling the conflicts. Religion is belief, ideas, dogma, ideology, etc. No human civilization can or ever will exist without these things. Perhaps there can be non-theistic civilizations, but they will have their higher principles, their ideas, their non-negotiables and human nature will do with those doctrines nothing less horrific than it has managed to do with religion.

On the whole I agree with you, except that it is not the "Human condition" at fault here, your aim is slightly askew. The same "type" of human that gave rise to the 'Spanish Inquisition,' in the name of religion, knows no particular group in which to fester, and rather they are those, hidden within any group of humans where their primary aim is power and control, dictators of shallow mind and narrow vision, a self serving lot, insane, neurotic, psychotic, with an insatiable need, due to the greatest bundle of fears of them all!
It's not the human condition, rather the mental condition of those few, that can hold their insanity, for a legally accepted venue, in which to unleash, and take their twisted breath of relief, as they hold their own version of an Inquisition.

To cut out any bit of human history, and what can be gleaned from it, is to not understand humanity, and allows for the same errors to be repeated, if only on a different stage.

[Kuznetzova]

Kuznetzova, you are still dodging the issue. Let me reiterate it. If Mao were a Buddhist (don't care if he was, I am trying to make a point) then I would hear solid condemnation from you and the atheist camp if I claimed that, because of people like him, Buddhism is responsible for all atrocities in China and the rest of the world. Clearly therefore, you must differentiate between people committed to mayhem under any belief system and the nature of the system itself. I am certain you would not claim that Buddhism is evil because of Mao. My beef with you and the likes of you in this forum is that you do not extent that courtesy to Christianity as well.

No. 1
You are putting words in my mouth. What I actually said was that Religion is used as an excuse to kill, oppress, imprison, censor, and destroy people. You are going to conveniently ignore that I actually wrote that, and instead you will go about attacking a strawman of your own invention. This strawman you have invented is saying "Christianity is evil, dude!" Something I never wrote, never said, never implied.

No. 2
You are continually trying to distract the readers of this thread from Immanuel C's initial claim which I was responding to directly. For the forgetful reader, the claim Immanuel C made in this thread was the following (I am quoting verbatim):

Well, as we noted beforehand, "religion" has actually been an exceedingly minor force in the history of wars and even smaller in the history of prisons. Facts, please.

That claim is historically false and patently absurd. Everything I have said to Immanuel C was a directed response towards that particular sentence. Your attempts to derail the conversation into strawmen will not be successful. Until which time you want to stop being intellectually dishonest, I will continue to refresh your attention and the attention of the readers to the reason this exchange is happening between him and I.

[Kuznetzova]

Sounds pretty Theistic, don't you think?

Not it really does not "sound very theistic" at all. Did you actually read it? Let me break it down so you can see what Locke is actually saying there.

Locke is differentiating between two viewpoints...
No.1 which he refers to as "Natural Reason"
No.2 which he refers to as "Revelation"


Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence:

(insert pause here)

or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons,


John Locke is telling the reader that if you make the argument by natural reason, or if by thumping the Bible around, you reach the same conclusion. Take your pick, doesn't matter.

[QMan]

Kuznetzova, you are still dodging the issue. Let me reiterate it. If Mao were a Buddhist (don't care if he was, I am trying to make a point) then I would hear solid condemnation from you and the atheist camp if I claimed that, because of people like him, Buddhism is responsible for all atrocities in China and the rest of the world. Clearly therefore, you must differentiate between people committed to mayhem under any belief system and the nature of the system itself. I am certain you would not claim that Buddhism is evil because of Mao. My beef with you and the likes of you in this forum is that you do not extent that courtesy to Christianity as well.

No. 1
You are putting words in my mouth. What I actually said was that Religion is used as an excuse to kill, oppress, imprison, censor, and destroy people. You are going to conveniently ignore that I actually wrote that, and instead you will go about attacking a strawman of your own invention. This strawman you have invented is saying "Christianity is evil, dude!" Something I never wrote, never said, never implied.

Qman:
My argument stands. Let's run it again then:

Kuznetzova:
At this point, anyone on this forum who denies the role that religion plays in military violence and war most be living under a rock, or suffering from illiteracy, delusion, or both.

Qman:
By your definition: if religion plays a role in war then it can be concluded that it is instrumental in contributing to an evil thing. That is what you are getting across with your statement. Hence religion and the property of being religious is evil.

Qman: (my previous argument)
The role that you want to describe is not played by religion it is always only and exclusively played by human beings. Religion (I do not include cults in that) is generally a moral and benevolent belief system that was and is often ignored by many, in the middle ages as well as now. So, blame humanity, not religion per se. You are disingenuous if you claim, for example, that Christ's teaching in any way shape or form can be used as a basis for sinful human behavior. The difficulty with your argument is that you are confounding his teaching with the illicit actions of people who may claim to be his followers but, as you well know, cannot be because of their intent and actions.

Most of these items were wars for political and territorial reasons. The church was not necessarily the driving force but secular ruler's greed was using the church often as a pretense.

Qman now:
Your are not admitting that people are evil in misusing religious arguments and not religion. It is also clear that God as the author of religion will hold those accountable regardless of their worldly status.

Hence, unless you clearly are making that distinction you in effect are making the claim religion is evil. Your statement does not even allow for the conclusion that religion at minimum is neutral.

Thus you are exposing your atheist bias and dislike of religion to the world. Your bias and dislike should solely be directed towards those who choose to ignore in public or private the precepts of their religion.

[Kuznetzova]

Most of these items were wars for political and territorial reasons.

This is absolutely false and historically false, and it does not even properly describe current sectarian conflict.

The distinction between Sunni and Shia is wholly and absolutely theological in nature. Sunni vs. Shia distinction has nothing to do with territorial or political disputes. You are going to have to simply admit the fact that people KILL EACH OTHER over theological disputes. They have done so in the past and they are doing so right now. This is a fact of history which you cannot and will not erase. There is absolutely nothing you could post on this forum to remove that fact from history. You are powerless against the written facts of history.

Now don't mince my words here... I said the DISTINCTION between Sunni and Shia is wholly theological and devoid of all political grounding. (You will undoubtedly come back and try to tell me that the distinction has ossified recently into political boundaries. While that is true, the actual claim I made is sound in the way I made it).

The exact argument that you are making against political and territorial disputes as being distinct from proper religion. That is exactly and precisely the argument that Martin Luther himself made against the Catholic church when he nailed his thesis to the door. That is to say, early Protestants of Germany wanted to get all the politics and territorial disputes OUT of religion and bring religion back to the pure "Christ's Teachings" that you are so loudly pronouncing on this forum. Unfortunately for Europe, the Catholic Church didn't see it that way. They were quite comfortable intermixing politics, territory, and money with religion.

Let me be very clear of the point I am making at you. You think this distinction you are making between political/territorial versus Religious is somehow a given, logical axiom. Not everyone agrees with that distinction. And what exactly are you going to do to try to bring them to your way of thinking? Will you try to preach to them the doctrines of your new-found prostestantism? And what if they don't buy what you sell? Will you resort to more tactical means? These questions were already posed to Europe hundreds of years ago.. they were already disputed left and right top to bottom. They were already fought over. Europeans already had this debate and killed each other over it. Qman, you are late to the party (so to speak).

The church was not necessarily the driving force but secular ruler's greed was using the church often as a pretense.

This is absolutely historically false. You are making this claim from a position of ignorance. You have no knowledge of European history. You have no working knowledge the Christianizing of Europe. You are ignorant of the beginnings of Protestantism in Europe.

I don't blame anyone on this forum for ignorance. It is when they try to make these grand sweeping historical statements, that I demand the person have some modicum of reading in history. You don't have that. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time responding to the nonsense and falsehoods you post here.

The role that you want to describe is not played by religion it is always only and exclusively played by human beings. Religion (I do not include cults in that) is generally a moral and benevolent belief system that was and is often ignored by many, in the middle ages as well as now. So, blame humanity, not religion per se. You are disingenuous if you claim, for example, that Christ's teaching in any way shape or form can be used as a basis for sinful human behavior. The difficulty with your argument is that you are confounding his teaching with the illicit actions of people who may claim to be his followers but, as you well know, cannot be because of their intent and actions.

We went over this already. My direct response to this paragraph is that you are conflating the word "religion" with this extremely narrow thing in the New Testament that you refer to as "Christ's Teaching".

NEWS FLASH QMAN --> Religion does not equal "Christ's Teachings". And I already explained this to you in clear black-and-white text. But let me repeat myself a second time since you missed it the first time. This time I will say it red text.

When intellectuals in a philosophy context use the word Religion, they are referring to a cultural and social phenomenon that cuts across many cultures and continents, and reaches back into the people of ancient history. "Religion" for us writers and philosophers includes also Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Norse Mythology, Greek mythology, and the various other spiritual traditions of tribal shamans. The word encapsulates both the religion and astronomy of ancient Egypt along with the Old Testament of the Judaic kingdoms.

Your brain neither read nor processed that red paragraph. And as long as your brain continues to not process that paragraph I will continue to copy and paste it until everyone on this forum is sick and tired of reading it. You are becoming so unbelievably stubborn that I even got to the point where I had to ask you if you even consider Islam to be a religion! And you know what is really ironic about this? You did not answer that question.

Let me ask you again, sir. Do you consider Islam to be a religion? How about Buddhism? Is buddhism a religion or not, according to you?

[Kuznetzova]

It is also clear that God as the author of religion will hold those accountable regardless of their worldly status.

This is mysticism. This is not a Bible Study, Qman. This is not a catholic seminary website. This is a philosophy forum. There are millions of better places on the internet to talk to people who are interested in this type of supernatural mysticism, but this forum is not one of them.

Thus you are exposing your atheist bias and dislike of religion to the world. Your bias and dislike should solely

Allow me to respond directly and pointedly to this.

What is NOT happening here is this: I am not quote-mining small details out of the backs of history books in order to journalize some sort of hodge-podge conclusion to you that is a "biased" interpretation of collected facts. I am not trying to trick you or be clever. I am not trying to sell you something.

This is what is happening here: I am being honest to you about what really happened in history. This has nothing to do with any bias. There is one history. Not an "Atheist history" and a "Christian history". There is one group of facts and that one group of facts is history. The 30 years war in Germany was the worst, bloodiest, longest, most violent civil war that Northern Europe had ever seen. It is not an anecdote. It was big, central, and it had enormous reach to all aspects of the history of Europe. Why did it happen? It happened because of the Protestant Reformation -- an event that arguably changed the history of the entire world. To wipe the wars of Religion and the Crusades into Jerusalem out of your history books is blatant revisionism. You cannot remove these religious wars from your history books without flat-out censoring them. It is also not an anecdote to tell you that most of Scandinavia was Christianized by the sword -- by force. It is not an anecdote to tell you that Sweden did not become Christian until the 9th century after lots and lots of people were killed.

I only bring you historical facts (and big major ones not anecdotes). If you start whining and crying that "wee-ooo! That makes religions seem evil!" that's your own interpretation, not mine, buddy. I bring you the facts -- you interpret them how you feel fit. As John Adams writings about the Separation Clause show, he was full-aware of how dangerous religion can be when it is mixed with politics. Now QMan might come back and declare his devotion to the Separation of Church and state, and wax poetic about how "secular actions did all the evil". He can go ahead and do that. But everyone here is fully aware that the number of evangelical Christians in the United States who want to mix politics and religion again numbers in the millions. We are not going to patty-cake with each other here and "pretend" this is not true.