Many people throughout the world find comfort and solace believing a supernatural deity plays an integral role in their everyday lives. Many people do not.
Considering religion and/or faith in God coupled with a sense of righteousness is often the impetus for war and subsequent death, should we now not begin worldwide religious reform?
Or is the suggestion an implausible notion? Or is suggesting that the notion is implausible the first hurdle to surmount?
How exactly do you propose to achieve this?; I think you would become just one more voice/group disagreeing with all the others about what’s really important.
I’ll have to ask God what he thinks about this idea too, if you don’t mind…
Might as well get rid of oil, desire for expansionism, racial and cultural differences, nationalism, and any number of other reasons which have been used to justify war and violence, both recently and historically.
The proposal in the subject line is absurd. An attempt to exterminate religion would cause more and bloodier wars than ever.
“Worldwide religious reform” is something that many religions have been attempting for centuries. It is a slow process, and one which may or may not ever occur, depending on your beliefs.
Religion is not the problem–although it’s too often an excuse used by people who wish to impose their will on others, whether it’s the crusaders, or terrorists. These people are hardly following the precepts of the faith they profess.
Terrible tragedies have been performed in the name of the United States. Should we get rid of this country?
The world can strip you of your assets. It can take away your income. It can remove your property. It can deny you your liberty. It can strip you of your dignity. It can take away the people that you love and care about…
The last thing it can do… is take away your beliefs. Are they not the ultimate human right… the right to believe whatever you want to?
Even though you may be challenged for your beliefs; ridiculed and belittled for your beliefs; mocked and insulted for your beliefs; imprisoned, burned at the stake or persecuted for your beliefs… they are the one thing that cannot be taken from you without your consent.
IMHO, we just have to be very careful about what it is that we believe.
Sorry Lolo… how rude. Welcome to the boards.
pax
Bear in mind that Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, etc. had no trouble killing millions without appealing to a supreme being. While it’s true that horrendous things are often done in the name of religion, there’s plenty of proof that horrendous things are done in the name of atheism as well.
like what?
honestly, give me some examples.
all good points, thanks for the welcome to the boards.
I’m not suggesting I have an answer. I certainly don’t.
And while people kill each other for myriad reasons, this doesn’t mean we should accept the deaths b/c, hey, people are going to kill people.
I suppose education is what is most necessary to combat the problem. The more educated religious folk generally do not kill each other.
so, if anything, I recommend education.
and if I may say, this message board is such a pleasant surprise. So many message boards are filled with uneducated troglodytes.
Not that I’m perfect… don’t get me wrong.
I digress.
Er, lolo, I already gave examples: Stalin and the Khmer Rogue. Both were ardent atheists.
There is a difference between a killer happening to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/Atheist and killing someone “in the name of” God/atheism. I don’t think Stalin claimed his killings were good becuase they were the will of NoGod, whereas those who kill “in the name of” God do in fact claim their killings are endorsed by God.
Some resources for lolo:
Stalin’s regime and religion:
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/anti_rel.html
The Khmer Rogue:
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/dccam/kr.htm
Gaudere: Stalin and the Khmer Rouge thought the the literal destruction of religion was a necessary step in the development of a communist state. They persecuted and killed regligious people in the name of their ideology. I, for one, see no difference between that and killing in the name of your god.
(FWIW, I am a lifelong agnostic.)
Stalin killed in the name of dialectical materialism.
Think of this as a sect of atheism, as Lutheran is a sect of Christianity, which is a sect of theism.
The Khmer Rouge killed Christians and Buddhists specifically because they were Christians and Buddhists. If that isn’t killing for the cause of atheism, I don’t know what is.
Sorry, Gaudere, but it sounds suspiciously like you are attempting to define the problem so that only religious motivation can be taken into account. Obviously an atheist cannot invoke the approval of a Higher Power if he/she does not believe such a power exists.
If you could explain a little more what you see as the moral relevance of the distinction you are making, I might have a better picture of what you mean.
IIRC, Hitler (oh, no!) was Christian, and he killed Jews specifically because they were Jews. Does that mean he was working for the atheists, then?
Just IMO, getting rid of religion would be an overall improvement for the human race – the words of “god” have too often been twisted to justify all sorts of atrocious behavior, often with the excuse that having “god” involved puts the perpetraitors above human law. But it’d have to be voluntary, and I don’t see that happening any time within my lifespan…
yes, I saw the names.
I suppose I disregarded them for the reasons Graduere(sp?) suggested.
However, they killed for the spirit of political revolution, no?
Fanaticism seems the intrinsic problem. Education is key.
Well, when you kill “in the name of” something you are appealing to a higher authority to justify your actions. I am not restricting it to religious people; you can kill in the name of justice, for example, whether you are atheist or theist. But atheism is not a full belief system, it is a lack of belief about a single propostion. I find it difficult to detect any higher authority inherent in atheism that would authorize murder. Once you move beyond the simple lack of belief in a deity (atheism) to a full belief system, you again will have authorities that you can appeal to to authorize your murder: communism, justice, revenge, materialism, etc. But bare-bones atheism does not have any authorities to appeal to, and bare-bones theism does. So while you can kill in the name of theism, or materialism, or soliphism, or whatever, I can’t see how you can kill in the name of atheism.
It is not really a matter of moral relevance, I was just trying to clarify the mechanism in which you kill “in the name of” something, since I think your defintion is incorrect. While athiestic or religious beliefs may lead a person to kill, the circumstances under which you may say they are killing “in the name of” said beliefs is much smaller. For example, a Christian may read that Jesus forgives everyone, and seeing that as a loophole, kills his boss and then asks for forgiveness. He killed, in part, because of his religious beliefs, but he did not kill “in the name of” Jesus or Christianity. He did not say “my killing is good because [insert authority here] says it is good.” Do you see the distinction I am making now?
Hm, Hitler killed Jews specifically because they were Jews. Was he therefore killing in the name of atheism? 
I would say that Hitler killed in the name of Christianity because he said God endorsed his klillings. The appeal to an authority, again. Stalin killed inthe name of communism, because communism said those killings were neccesary, so they were good. Atheism doesn’t say much at all.
Thank you, these sites are excellent.
You recall selectively, if not incorrectly. This has been addressed in the Straight Dope Mailbag. IMO, Hitler was working for himself and his own glory steeped in a sick and twisted ideological view of nationalism. Maybe we should get rid of all countries and just live under one banner, after all nationalism and expansion has been used to justify just as many atrocities as religion.
To the OP:
Even though I’m somewhere between an agnostic and a pantheist (tough position to be in ;)), I don’t think the problem is religion. I think it’s all ignorance.
I think that the non-religious massacres as well as the religious atrocities points to one inescapable conclusion: human kind is a violent species. Without the proper training and upbringing, we easily fall into tribalism and can use anything as an excuse for genocide and mass murder, and regarding fellow humans as things.
It’s like chimpanzees who routinely hunt down (and generally eat) any other chimps that stumble into their tribal territory. Religion, IMHO, is just the easiest excuse and requires less effort to justify. I hate to be pessimistic, but I doubt we’ll ever change. It seems to be hard-wired into us. Idealogy doesn’t seem to matter much.
Probably sooner rather than later, the next wave of evolution will come and sweep us into history’s dustbin along with the Neanderthals. Who knows, maybe it will be the dolphins? I think personally it’s just a matter of time till we destroy ourselves, anyway.
See you in church!
The Soviet Union went to rather extreme lengths to force atheism upon its people. I’m not sure how much killing was involved, but I’d definately consider certain actions that the country took to be done for the sake of atheism.
In any event, I find the idea of forcing people to have certain beliefs unfathomably abhorrent.