You keep bringing up historical examples, but you keep missing the point of pretty much all of them: history is a game of power. Pretty much every war, ever, was one of rich person/people A vs rich person/people B. Religion was used simply as a tool of control in these wars. Even the well-known crusades weren't as much of the "religious people A putting a jihad on religious people B because they have different beliefs" as you seemed to be making it out with your older post. The biggest cause for the whole thing was the fact that people in Europe were murdering eachother (tying into your moral compass discussion). The pope didn't like this (because all people in Europe are supposed to be Christian brothers) and simply found a way to direct the agression outwards. You give religion too much credit.
In regards to the actual quote; the real causes of the fervous witch hunts are currently actually still unclear. Obvious examples would point to 'religion', yes, but the fact of the matter is that these witch hunts gained popularity and activity at EXACTLY the same time when religion and religious dogma were rapidly dropping in it - which makes no sense. My own bet is that the whole thing was more of a 'mass hysteria' thing where people just went crazy on the idea of witches, without really thinking straight.
Ayatollah Khamenei's quest for a nuclear weapon to use against the "Great Satan" (his term for US)
Corrective rape
"Aids may be wicked, but not as wicked as condoms." - Pope
Believe me, I have more, these are just TODAY'S problems caused by religion that I threw together in 5 minutes.
Now really, are you going to claim that the Pope himself is "misusing" religion? Because please, if you are, head your post with it so I can skip over the remainder.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
A will, or at least the will which I am talking about, requires reason to choose between different courses of action (simplified as a good choice and an evil choice, although in reality there are varying degrees.) Animals do not ponder whether the actions they take are good or evil, therefore they lack reason, and so they lack a will.
I think you're glorifying the human mind far too much. Good and evil is a human construct, first and foremost, which is seemingly why no other animal exhibits it. Humans don't exhibit the pack mentality of wolves (disregarding kinship), nor the formations of migrating birds. It's nothing more than a causailty of human evolution.
Now, to state that animals have no morals and then draw the conclusion that they, by extension, have no will, is a leap of faith.
"Good and evil" is a concept bred into us by evolution. Men who kill other men is generally not a favourable trait due to the penalty it inflicts on a populace's ability to reproduce. Naturally, if a population is made up of 10% murderers, that tribe will fair far worse than a tribe with 0% murderers. Note that I'm not suggesting that there's a "murder gene", more that evolution favours "good" morals because "bad" morals tend to be self-defeating.
There is a lot of literature on the evolution of morality and if you are going to attempt to refute this, you're going to need some very strong evidence.
Now, compare this to wolf pack mentality. Both morality and pack mentality are both outcomes of successful natural selection. A wolf in a pack will fair better than a lone wolf. A tribe of humans with "good morals" will be less self-defeating than one with "bad morals".
My point is that morality is a product of evolution, and not a product of will, and trying to connect the two is as rediculous as stating that humans have no morals because we don't hunt in packs.
I think it's necessary to believe you have an eternal soul in order to have true happiness, as well as a mortal body. The combination of the two overcomes the fear of mortality and the need for mortal action to be impactful.
This relies entirely on the subject having a fear of his/her own mortality. If you accept that you are finite, then why would that fear play on your mind?
I mean really, you've not existed for billions of years already, so you know exactly what it feels like.
We to clarify what I was saying... with individuals have a sense of morals... what is right and what is wrong... the world would be in even more chaos. I mean people murdering people without consequence. Men and woman being violated without consequence. Religion serves several purposes. Sure a lot of wars have been declared based off of religion; but religion has been used to create social order and to control the masses even up to this day. Many laws that are created today are created based of moral codes originally developed through the practice of religion.
:D that's how I could make that statement and say that without religion their would be more violence "THEN THERE ALREADY IS".
That is unfounded bullshit.
Even piranhas don't murder eachother.
Your moral compass has existed for millions of years before Yahweh was even a word.
Besides, I'd love to see you spin "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" into something positive.
That's nice and all, but history does not agree with you. Even in modern times, I think we both know what the last words of the 911 hijackers were.
I disagree that this is an example of moral relativism. We aren't talking about morals here, we're talking about who's god is right, or in modern times, who's way of serving that same god is right.
Sunni/Shia Islam
Protestant/Catholic Christianity
The birth of Pakistan
Now, of course, stupid stuff happens without religion's hand, but the question is how much of this has religion contributed to?
Also, wisp does have a point. Bad people can use religion to manipulate good people into doing bad things. I won't really comment on Islam since I'm no expert, but in Christianity war is unacceptable unless it meets certain very restrictive requirements:
Religion creates a mindset that allows you to believe you are right.
Entertainingly, most (but not all) religions are mutually exclusive. Islam and Christianity, despite believing in the same god, are very exclusive.
So we have 2 groups of people who both believe they are right about mutually exclusive events.
you say dont feel bad for atheist... but if you are wrong... then your screwed... if your right, then no big deal.. lol.. its a Neutral/Lose situation, where for people who do believe its a win/Neutral
So you have a -1 and we have a +1, therefore atheism as a whole is illogical.
And if the right answer isn't Yahweh?
You definitely have just as much to lose as any atheist.
A betting man is safer believing than flat out denying(arrogantly/ignorantly) as to the outcome at death.
Absolutely, but Yahweh is just one among billions of proposed gods, each with their own prophets, temples and holy books. Yahweh himself contains the attributes of dozens of prior gods.
You might have one more chip in than me, but both our chances are still mathematically insignificant.
Besides, if heaven is filled with people like Bill O'reilly, then fuck that.
The source of all things is God. It all divides back into that point. Even if `Multiverse` theory is argued to created the big-bang, the question still arises `What created the Multiverse/s`?. It all divides into something omnipotent and beyond imagination and understanding. Thats Logic.
I'm not really seeing the logic here.
"Here is a universe. It exists, hence it must have been created."
This, I can reason with. I don't agree, but I can see the line of thinking.
"Hence the creator was the Judea-Christian god; Yahweh."
This part is just illogical. Firstly, if everything needs a source, then so does Yahweh. Secondly, why a god instead of some natural phenomena, as with basically everything else in the past we used to attribute to a god?
0
Who mentioned history?
I dislike your stance. You seem to think religion starts and ends at the commandments, and anything beyond that as "misuse of power".
No.
Stem cell research
Cloning
Gay rights
Equality for women
The whole of palestine
Slavery
Witch trials
Deaths over "holy book" burnings
Ayatollah Khamenei's quest for a nuclear weapon to use against the "Great Satan" (his term for US)
Corrective rape
"Aids may be wicked, but not as wicked as condoms." - Pope
Believe me, I have more, these are just TODAY'S problems caused by religion that I threw together in 5 minutes.
Now really, are you going to claim that the Pope himself is "misusing" religion? Because please, if you are, head your post with it so I can skip over the remainder.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
0
I think you're glorifying the human mind far too much. Good and evil is a human construct, first and foremost, which is seemingly why no other animal exhibits it. Humans don't exhibit the pack mentality of wolves (disregarding kinship), nor the formations of migrating birds. It's nothing more than a causailty of human evolution.
Now, to state that animals have no morals and then draw the conclusion that they, by extension, have no will, is a leap of faith.
"Good and evil" is a concept bred into us by evolution. Men who kill other men is generally not a favourable trait due to the penalty it inflicts on a populace's ability to reproduce. Naturally, if a population is made up of 10% murderers, that tribe will fair far worse than a tribe with 0% murderers. Note that I'm not suggesting that there's a "murder gene", more that evolution favours "good" morals because "bad" morals tend to be self-defeating.
There is a lot of literature on the evolution of morality and if you are going to attempt to refute this, you're going to need some very strong evidence.
Now, compare this to wolf pack mentality. Both morality and pack mentality are both outcomes of successful natural selection. A wolf in a pack will fair better than a lone wolf. A tribe of humans with "good morals" will be less self-defeating than one with "bad morals".
My point is that morality is a product of evolution, and not a product of will, and trying to connect the two is as rediculous as stating that humans have no morals because we don't hunt in packs.
This relies entirely on the subject having a fear of his/her own mortality. If you accept that you are finite, then why would that fear play on your mind?
I mean really, you've not existed for billions of years already, so you know exactly what it feels like.
0
Look at you, getting all mad.
Saying on one hand that religion doesn't cause violence, then calling names on the other because I stated morality didn't come from Yahweh.
Thank you for providing a living example.
0
That is unfounded bullshit.
Even piranhas don't murder eachother.
Your moral compass has existed for millions of years before Yahweh was even a word.
Besides, I'd love to see you spin "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" into something positive.
0
That particular "truth" has been debunked thousands of times over.
0
@BasharTeg: Go
That's nice and all, but history does not agree with you. Even in modern times, I think we both know what the last words of the 911 hijackers were.
I disagree that this is an example of moral relativism. We aren't talking about morals here, we're talking about who's god is right, or in modern times, who's way of serving that same god is right.
Sunni/Shia Islam
Protestant/Catholic Christianity
The birth of Pakistan
Now, of course, stupid stuff happens without religion's hand, but the question is how much of this has religion contributed to?
0
Religion creates a mindset that allows you to believe you are right.
Entertainingly, most (but not all) religions are mutually exclusive. Islam and Christianity, despite believing in the same god, are very exclusive.
So we have 2 groups of people who both believe they are right about mutually exclusive events.
Not really a recipe for peace.
0
If you say so.
0
How on earth do you reach that conclusion when nigh 99% of all wars were over religion?
0
@Nerfpl: Go
You're wasting your time with this one. He's as dumb as a rock. He doesn't even understand christianity, let alone reality.
0
And if the right answer isn't Yahweh?
You definitely have just as much to lose as any atheist.
0
Absolutely, but Yahweh is just one among billions of proposed gods, each with their own prophets, temples and holy books. Yahweh himself contains the attributes of dozens of prior gods.
You might have one more chip in than me, but both our chances are still mathematically insignificant.
Besides, if heaven is filled with people like Bill O'reilly, then fuck that.
0
I'm not really seeing the logic here.
"Here is a universe. It exists, hence it must have been created."
This, I can reason with. I don't agree, but I can see the line of thinking.
"Hence the creator was the Judea-Christian god; Yahweh."
This part is just illogical. Firstly, if everything needs a source, then so does Yahweh. Secondly, why a god instead of some natural phenomena, as with basically everything else in the past we used to attribute to a god?
0
Think I found a new signature.
0
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA