Well, first, in the interest of fighting ignorance, there were no “KamiKazi planes” at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese did not employ kamikazis until much later in the war, when it was clear that they were fighting a losing battle. It was a desperation tactic.
Second, are you contending that, if the whole world had been atheistic, that there would have been no Imperial Japanese war machine? That, absent Christianity, there would have been no atomic bomb? Or, for that matter, that if the Middle East were solidly agnostic, but still as poor and exploited as it is today, that there would be no violence there?
I find that idea rather unlikely.
Religion isn’t the problem. It also isn’t the solution. I think, in the grand scheme of things, religion actually has very little importance. People who are inclined to conquer, murder, enslave, or oppress will do so regardless of their religious beliefs. And people who are charitable, kind, just, and merciful will likewise be all of those things, wether they believe in Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, the IPU, or nothing at all. Religion isn’t a motivator, it’s a pretext. Removing religion from human culture won’t make humans act any better, because even without God, we’re still human, with all the flaws that entails.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going to post in this thread. Religions aren’t peaceful or violent. People are peaceful or violent, and they couch their peaceful or violent methods in religious terms.
I also agree with you about removing religion. Hell, how many millions of bodies did the Soviet Union and other communist countries leave in their wake? The entire world could wake up tomorrow morning and turn to Jesus or just chuck religion altogether, and it wouldn’t make a damned bit of difference as far as violence went.
You may take this for what it’s worth but speaking as a born and raised muslim who lived in europe and the U.S, I have to say that I have not found muslims to be any more violent than atheists, jews, christians or pagans. And I know a LOT of muslims. On the flipside, I have not found atheists, jews, christians or pagans to be more violent than muslims either.
Let me repeat: they are not more violent. In fact, if there is ANYTHING that my exposure to a few different cultures has taught me, it’s that, just as miss Marple likes to say: human nature is the same everywhere. There are good people, there are bad people, there are thieves and murderers everywhere.
Islam doesn’t change that one bit. Please keep that in mind before passing judgment on a fifth of the human population.
I’d also like to point out that the acts of the weak will always be more vicious than those of the strong. That’s because the strong can afford to fight fair and the weak cannot. This is often relevant when you compare the actions of the western world to those of any other group.
I did not say the Kamikazis attacked Pearl.And yes I think religion exacerbates conflicts and causes more.I didnt say there would be no violencce, but I submit fighting with god on our side or fighting as gods warriors causes more war and makes the zeal for it worse.
The main logic behind US Indian policy in the West was that they were in the way, and that by moving them to reservations, they could give up their primitive cultures and economies, settle down, and become civilized farmers and assimilate into American society.
There was a push toward converting the Indians with Grant’s “peace policy”, but that was more because of the Grant Administration’s (correct) belief that the old government administration of the reservations was corrupt, and the hope that the religious organizations wouldn’t be. Christianity was also seen as a civilizing influence and a neccesity for assimilation.
I don’t have trouble understanding this. They’re two different sentences. The Japanese prayed before they flew Kamikaze missions AND when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Negative. While the Church imagined witchcraft to be involved with Satanic worship, they imagined everything in terms of God, it was their job.
The common people were always more concerned with harmful magic (maleficium), and always had been, since long before Christ was born. If the bishop said witches had pledged themselves to the devil, that was all well and good, but what was important was that these witches were making your livestock sick, your crops wither, your husband impotent, and your babies die in their cribs. There were religious prohibitions against witchcraft, but there were also prohibitions against murder. The crime preceeded the law.
Now, were there people casting black magic against their enemies? Not really (certainly there were a few that imagined they were, and as with the Roman practice of throwing lead tablets inscribed with curses down your foes’ well, some of them may have actually done some real harm). But I would argue that a belief in magic, even a belief in a secret society of magicians, is not the same thing as religion. It’s simply part of the worldview of a pre-scientific culture.
They probably also had a meal and something to drink before they attacked too…so I guess we should also outlaw eating and drinking as well as praying before killing. :rolleyes:
There was a pre-christian beleif in the in the power of witchcraft to harm, but the brutallity of the medival witch trials (the salem witch trials being one of the final outbursts) the result of the church’s condemnation of witchcraft. The were also also closely assciated with the church’s campaigns to irradicate heresy, if they were purely the result a universal human tendancy paranoia (not that I’m denying such a thing exists) why were concentrated in during the 14th and 15th centuies during a time of unprecendent religious extremism and anti-heritical campaigns.
Any evidence of this ? All the studies I’ve ever heard of say the opposite. Not to mention history and the behavior of religious people right this moment. This strikes me as a desperate attempt to blame the evils of religion on something, anything other than religion.
Religion tells people to do things, and they do it. All the time, especially if it’s something nasty. It is a motivator, and all the blame-shifting in the world won’t change that.
Without religion, many of our evils will lack both the motivation and the excuses they have with religion.
Really, what I see in this thread is something I see all the time : An absolute refusal to admit that religion can be at fault for anything, anywhere. Most people are willing to believe humanity is a species of devils before they’ll believe religion is at the tiniest fault for anything.
Oh, bullshit! No one is excusing religion for anything. All we’re saying is that without religion, man would still find a way to justify beating the everliving snot out of his fellow man. He’d just come up with a new excuse, that’s all. I don’t recall the Neanderthals needing an organized religion to go to the neighboring cave to do some damage.
Guess what, Trihs. The communist party tells people to do things too in North Korea and China, and people do it. All the time. Like I said, you don’t need religion. All you need is a bunch of guys with guns and bombs and one more guy to steer them in a certain direction. Preferably after getting them riled and pissed off at the people who happen to live and work in that general direction. Religion is just one more motivator.
And where are they saying that religion is the source of no evil? Religion is like everything else. It has benefits and drawbacks. Religion is no more inherently evil than science. We have great things that have come of science and truly evil things that have come with science. And yet we don’t associate science with evil.
Wow. I think we have the doublethink quote for the night.
I’m curious. How would you go about eliminating religion, and what would you replace it with to make the world a better place?
Religion is a human construct. Therefore, it inherently has all the good and bad qualities represented in human nature. All human constructs do. I don’t think eliminating religion would mean one less motivator at all…others would just pop up in its place. You can call Communism a religion if you want, but that just reinforces the fact that humans need “isms” to believe in, to join, to follow…as you say, you don’t even need a God. All you need is human nature, and there will always be SOME reason to perpetrate violence.
You said this better than I did. You are exactly right. Science has brought some of the biggest evils of the 20th century, and yet, gaining scientific knowlege is considered inherently good by most rational people. This is because it is understood that science is merely a tool. It, in and of itself, is simply neutral. Religion is the same.
Well…exactly. Even if it was in any way conceivable that you could eliminate religion, SOMETHING (like COMMUNISM, for instance, would just pop up in its place anyway. Another “ism,” used for evil instead of good.
Religion is not at all like science, although the claim they are is a common lie of the religious. Science is based on reality; it has to be, or it won’t work. Science is a passive tool; religion is a psychological disorder that commands people to do things.
If religion is a human construct, why do people follow it? Wouldn’t it be better to just give up all the crap that was created by people for people and just be good for the sake of good?