"I blame Christianity" -Bill Maher

Diesel said:
The warriors didn't earn more power, wealth, or land. The people who started the wars did, but what do you think was the motivation of the people on the field? Religion is a form of mind control. It's the opiate of the masses. A way to explain what can't be explained. "Moral support" is a byproduct, not a purpose.
Click to expand...

I don't think religion was the motivating factor of most soldiers (including Islamist extremists). Some were forced into service, Roman soldiers were promised cash and a plot of land, free clothing and annual pay, see the world, protect the homeland (patriotic reasons), learn a skill, lack of other careers, plunder. Probably a lot of the same reasons soldiers join today.

I don't remember that much about the Crusades but I remember reading about Crusaders killing fellow Christians to gain power and riches. Certainly the Pope played a role but his power was not limited to religion. Religion probably played a larger role for many in the Crusades, but world history is full of armies and conquests.

I remember reading a book about Lawrence of Arabia. He would plan some campaigns with important military targets but the Arabs would change those to other cities where the looting was better.
 
Diesel said:
You're an atheist, I think you said? Why are you turning yourself into knots defending religion? Ultimately, individuals are responsible for their own actions. Of course. But why are you dismissing the role that religion plays in guiding the actions of individuals? That's like saying it's not the oven's fault my pizza got hot. It's the delivery driver's fault I burned my tongue. The driver couldn't have gotten the pizza hot without the oven.
Click to expand...

I'm not turning myself in knots and I'm not really "defending" religion. I am challenging the simplistic concept that if, for example, Jim Jones tells his people to drink poison kool-aid or attack members of Congress and others boarding a plane that it is the fault of religion because he claimed to be a religious leader.

If the Pope urges involvement in the Crusades does not mean that religion is responsible for his actions and it may very well be contrary to religious doctrine.

When I see somebody who claims to be religious but then acts in a manner contrary to religions teaching, I have to remind myself that religion is not the hypocrite but the person.
 
Flash said:
I'm not turning myself in knots and I'm not really "defending" religion. I am challenging the simplistic concept that if, for example, Jim Jones tells his people to drink poison kool-aid or attack members of Congress and others boarding a plane that it is the fault of religion because he claimed to be a religious leader.

If the Pope urges involvement in the Crusades does not mean that religion is responsible for his actions and it may very well be contrary to religious doctrine.

When I see somebody who claims to be religious but then acts in a manner contrary to religions teaching, I have to remind myself that religion is not the hypocrite but the person.
Click to expand...

OK, well, we've already been over this. A delivery driver can't cook a pizza without an oven.
 
Cypress said:
I do not go out on a limb to claim that the world's five billion Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are hopelessly misguided and mindlessly enslaved to an archaic faith tradition.
Click to expand...

Diesel said:
Neither would I adopt either of those postures nor have I.

I've read your post twice now. I'm not really sure what your point is. Was your post intended for me?
Click to expand...
In part, I guess I had this statement in mind:

Diesel said:
Religion is a form of mind control. It's the opiate of the masses.
Click to expand...
 
Nordberg said:
I've said it before. Religious people show their susceptibility to being conned. They buy into a life-changing system, without a scintilla of proof. Once, they get that way, they stay prone to other cons. They buy a lot of My Pillows too. They buy that Corona is a hoax in spite of nearly half a million deaths. They accept that a very selfish rich man has their interests at heart. How?
When you are a skeptic, you question everything. When you are a conned type, you tend to believe.
Click to expand...

Teabaggers, muslim's and today's 'christians" are the most gullible people on earth.

Wonder why it's only the christian's that beg for $$$ because their "god" is always broke?

To a mortal, would think the person has a serious drug problem.
 
BidenPresident said:
The day religion tolerates me I will tolerate them.
Click to expand...

I know many Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant people who know I do not share their particular flavor of religion, but they do not harass me in the slightest way.

The Christian dominionists and fundamentalists freak me out a little.

But I try to not make a mountain out of a molehill. The Christian fundamentalists have been losing for decades.

And losing huge.

School prayer, gay marriage, stem cell research, morning after pill, legal abortion, intelligent design, creation science in public schools....fundys lost on all of it. No one even bats an eye anymore at inter racial marriage, which the southern Baptists used to freak out about.

The bible thumpers have had some modest success limiting reproductive choice services for women, but I do not see a future USA on our horizon where women are forced by the government to give birth
 
Cypress said:
In part, I guess I had this statement in mind:
Click to expand...

I understand now. I did say mind control and opiate of the masses. You said hopelessly misguided and mindlessly enslaved. I guess it's not unreasonable to make that jump, but your statement and sentiment are exaggerations of the way I feel. There are, obviously, varying degrees to which people allow their interpretations of their religion to guide their thoughts and actions. When a person relies on the best parts of their religion to inform their treatment of other people, I don't have a problem with it. I am quite sure that a person can be good and treat others well without doing so to please a god, but I don't begrudge anyone a reason to be good.

When a person uses their religion to negatively judge and adversely treat people, then yes, I acknowledge the damage that religion can inflict. We have thousands of years of history that demonstrate how religion can and sometimes does divide people until they go to war against each other. We have seen religion used as a justification to deny basic human rights to people. Most obviously, religion is simply irrational. I was religious for 20 years, so I understand it. I still have faith in lots of things, including my unprovable feeling that some sort of energy (karma, god, whatever) guides events in the universe. There simply is no good way to rationalize it nor religion. At the end of the day, when religious people leave me alone, I leave them alone. When they use their religion as a tool to try to remove my rights and others' rights and subjugate us, I fight back, including attacking their understanding of their religious tenets.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I can't say the same about you.......until Nordberg leaves.....
Click to expand...

Thanks. that is a compliment coming from a person as weak-minded as you. Your drive-by posts are almost all of 10 words or less, like the Sunday funnies. You add nothing, because you have nothing. You just say something smart ass and flee.
 
Nordberg said:
Thanks. that is a compliment coming from a person as weak-minded as you. Your drive-by posts are almost all of 10 words or less, like the Sunday funnies. You add nothing, because you have nothing. You just say something smart ass and flee.
Click to expand...

Agree. Postmodern is petty and avoidable.
 
Diesel said:
I understand now. I did say mind control and opiate of the masses. You said hopelessly misguided and mindlessly enslaved. I guess it's not unreasonable to make that jump, but your statement and sentiment are exaggerations of the way I feel. There are, obviously, varying degrees to which people allow their interpretations of their religion to guide their thoughts and actions. When a person relies on the best parts of their religion to inform their treatment of other people, I don't have a problem with it. I am quite sure that a person can be good and treat others well without doing so to please a god, but I don't begrudge anyone a reason to be good.

When a person uses their religion to negatively judge and adversely treat people, then yes, I acknowledge the damage that religion can inflict. We have thousands of years of history that demonstrate how religion can and sometimes does divide people until they go to war against each other. We have seen religion used as a justification to deny basic human rights to people. Most obviously, religion is simply irrational. I was religious for 20 years, so I understand it. I still have faith in lots of things, including my unprovable feeling that some sort of energy (karma, god, whatever) guides events in the universe. There simply is no good way to rationalize it nor religion. At the end of the day, when religious people leave me alone, I leave them alone. When they use their religion as a tool to try to remove my rights and others' rights and subjugate us, I fight back, including attacking their understanding of their religious tenets.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying.

I think there is always a danger when dogma is allowed to hold sway over governments or societies. Theocracies are obviously an anathema to a free society. But dogmatic atheism also has a bad track record, from the Great Terror of the French Revolution to the state atheism of the USSR.

The sweet spot seems to be pluralistic societies, aka western liberal democracy --- where freedom of thought is valued and dogma has a hard time getting traction.
 
Cypress said:
I get what you are saying.

I think there is always a danger when dogma is allowed to hold sway over governments or societies. Theocracies are obviously an anathema to a free society. But dogmatic atheism also has a bad track record, from the Great Terror of the French Revolution to the state atheism of the USSR.

The sweet spot seems to be pluralistic societies, aka western liberal democracy --- where freedom of thought is valued and dogma has a hard time getting traction.
Click to expand...

Those liberal democracies have to have proper safeguards in place though. That's why I see the US on the brink of collapse. We outgrew and outsmarted the Constitution in its current form. I do believe that the US is going to make it, but it needs real, revolutionary, constitutional reform. A successful representative democracy relies on at least a moderately educated citizenry with access to high quality information and adequate participation in the democratic process. The influence of money over politics cannot be unlimited. Politician is not supposed to be a lifetime career. The Electoral College is also pretty well obsolete if you ask me.
 
Flash said:
I'm not turning myself in knots and I'm not really "defending" religion. I am challenging the simplistic concept that if, for example, Jim Jones tells his people to drink poison kool-aid or attack members of Congress and others boarding a plane that it is the fault of religion because he claimed to be a religious leader.

If the Pope urges involvement in the Crusades does not mean that religion is responsible for his actions and it may very well be contrary to religious doctrine.

When I see somebody who claims to be religious but then acts in a manner contrary to religions teaching, I have to remind myself that religion is not the hypocrite but the person.
Click to expand...

Rethink that. Those people did not come up with the ideas. It was the leaders. They would not have happened without the leader and their blind belief in him. Look at the Trump insurrectionists. Trump and the other leaders gave speeches to anger and rouse them up. Then Trump said go to the capitol and I will go with you. Trump was feeding and cultivating violence for a long time. This is what the crop was.
 
Diesel said:
You are actually dumber than I thought. I had no idea that was possible. Here. I have reconstructed, in consecutive order, the entire exchange. You engaged in an exchange about transgender people, you colossally stupid asshole.
Click to expand...

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd. You still have nothing but blustering. Poor dumb bastard.
 
Sailor said:
Put into the context you want them to be. Seriously peewee, you may go now.
Click to expand...

That was the entire conversation. I didn't add, delete, or edit a single letter. That is the context. I can't stand loser cowards like you. What a worthless, pathetic cunt you must be to have to lie about words that are publicly published for everyone to see -- as you claim they're not there. You're exactly like Trump.
 
Diesel said:
That was the entire conversation. I didn't add, delete, or edit a single letter. That is the context. I can't stand loser cowards like you. What a worthless, pathetic cunt you must be to have to lie about words that are publicly published for everyone to see -- as you claim they're not there. You're exactly like Trump.
Click to expand...

Yawn. You poor sensitive confused individual.
 
Nordberg said:
Rethink that. Those people did not come up with the ideas. It was the leaders. They would not have happened without the leader and their blind belief in him.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that was my point. It was not religious doctrine or ideas that caused nations or groups to behave badly. It was the leaders who may have used religion as part of the justification.

In the attack on the Capitol it was a "stolen election," not religion, that motivated the crowd to attend the protest and storm the building.

U. S. leaders have justified military action by saying the soldiers were fighting for our freedom (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). If we ask people to die they need a patriotic cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top