No, it’s been true for much longer than that; for much of my life the Democrats have been so passive that they barely matter. It’s gotten worse since then, but it was bad before.
The Democrats have gone towards extremism? Since when?
Ask smallpox.
Not really. Destroying things can take all sorts of forms; destroying data on a magnetic disk can be done by formatting it or waving a magnet near it, not just with a hammer. You don’t need to kill anyone to destroy religion; it’s counterproductive to do so in fact as I’ve already said.
Numbers, weapons, organization, money, etc. They’re losing, you know.
Oh, we could have. If nothing else we could have decimated them with nuclear weapons. We just didn’t want to badly enough.
No, they don’t. Organization and weaponry is much more important than numbers.
Indeed they do. Destruction does not imply violence. Etymologically it just means “un-building”. I’ve destroyed many a Lego building patiently, brick by brick. And when veterinarians destroy people’s pets to ease their suffering, it’s not especially violent either. It does involve poison however.
Are you high ? Because you realize we do fuck up pests left and right, and we did variola in but good, with polio well on the way. Also rinderpest, apparently.
We douse the world in antibacterial, antifungal, antiparasite stuff, insecticide… mankind has always been about brute-forcing the environment to suit *our *needs rather than adapting to existing conditions, from making fire onwards.
And for my money, we haven’t *ourselves *changed one iota since we began documenting our story.
My theory is that because it’s in our nature to want people to agree with us.
The U.S. has never been universally Catholic, but mostly a mix of mainstream Prostestants (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc) and then some Catholics. Protestants were usually the majority. Unless, of course, you’re being sarcastic, which, in that case, never mind.
In my opinion, it is because each groups have different interpretation on the bible and none of these groups would humbly accept other interpretation but rather argue and prove that you are wrong and they are right or vice versa.
I disagree. Some of the best legislation was drafted by Democrats of yore. That they are passive is fine, as long as nothing needs to be addressed. As I said, the dynamic between the parties changed after GW took office. (Although there were roots of it in the second administration of Clinton.)
Since they followed the R tactic of voting party line to a fault.
You might wonder why that’s the ONLY virus we have wiped out. It took an incredibly amount of resources to pull that off, for a single virus. It’s follow up effort, polio, was really only wiped out in western countries areas. Sure, there’s an effort and we could wipe it out, but getting that last 10% of people is as expensive as the first 90. And, now, how much will all of the other viruses that plague us cost? It would be far more effective to hold them at bay long enough to fix ourselves.
You think that you’ll get rid of the last 10% of the devout that will adhere to religion without using bloodshed?
And, like the viruses, do you think you’ll be able to eradicate one religion without another popping up in it’s place? And, even going with the idea that all religion is somehow removed, what about the other things that tribalize people and cause hate? People need to change, otherwise it’ll be the end of religion and the start of something else.
So, their struggles were in vain. Was it better to struggle and lose or was it better to not struggle at all?
Winning at all costs isn’t winning. Sure, we could have made North Korea and North Vietnam into glass lots, but that means we would have had to drop bombs on or irradiate our own troops and our allies’ troops, plus irradiated the civilians of our allies with reckless abandon.
That is not a winning scenario. That’s making all sides lose.
They do need organization to create, but numbers and tactics can outweigh weaponry. People don’t like to admit it, but we’ve been woefully ineffective at fighting the low numbers of guerrilla agents in both of our middle east wars. And that’s with only a few people. Now imagine the entire states of both of those being guerrilla agents.
Guerrilla tactics were also a component of the American revolution. Had the American troops stood only on the battle fields like regular troops, the superior armed and trained soldiers of the British likely could have retaken the colonies. Instead, we would snipe at them from trees or walls while they were in retreat or marching somewhere.
No need; they’ll get old and die. And will be irrelevant anyway.
Yes.
None are as dangerous and destructive as religion, and few are as worthless. Nor is tribalism and hate the only problem with religion.
Because we are as a nation bullies and cowards. Our casualties have in fact been incredibly low by the standards of empire building; but we are unwilling to tolerate anything but utterly one sided fights.
No, the resistance in Iraq had massive support from the populace from the beginning; it’s normal for only a small percentage of the population to actually fight.
If that’s the case then how come Judaism, the founding religions of the Abrahamic faiths doesn’t actively seek out recruits or persecute non-believers?
Are you serious?
You think American atheist have suffered from “a lifetime of abuse, oppression, hatred and general unpleasantness”?
I call bullshit.*
Please give me some specific details of how you’ve been somehow “oppressed” and “abused” because you’re an atheist?
I certainly don’t believe in God and have never once felt “oppressed” or “abused” because of it.
If what you say is correct then you should be able to build a compelling case why I’m wrong.
Thank you in advance for your answer.
*. Not saying you’re wrong, just that your claim is ludicrous and an insult to people who’ve been oppressed.
It’s still around, isn’t it? It’s certainly made a point of spreading itself and surviving. As for persecuting nonbelievers it’s done that whenever it’s had the power.
As a whole, yes. Atheists have been fired from jobs, beaten, disowned by their families and otherwise treated badly for being atheist. And there are the constant attempts to write Christian religion into law; that is oppression. And atheists who are gay or a woman or part of any of the other groups that Christians hate have suffered from abuse in the name of Christianity just as their non-atheistic counterparts have.
I, personally have suffered little. But that’s mostly because almost no one knows I’m an atheist.
I’m not going to really get into this debate, but I just wanted to point out that India is claiming they’ve eradicated polio. Which, if true, is pretty amazing and should not be cavalierly dismissed.
Humans are full of hate, don’t need religion. Check out politics, sports, or book/video game/TV show fandoms. Besides, hating is a fun group activity that can form strong bonds. Don’t knock it.
What do you mean “even in the Abrahamic religions there’s been a lot of hate.”?
Frankly, I think the Abrahamic religions, as a rule, have been more intolerant than the others.
For example, pantheistic religions rarely engaged in religious wars because, amongst other things, they didn’t deny the existence of each other’s Gods.
What the Abrahamic religions did differently was declare themselves to be universal with the one true answer and the one true God.
I have to admit this caused me to blink for moment. That the Dope’s resident firebrand anti-religionist is in the closet about it in his real life?
To the OP, here is my take on it. Like almost any human activity, in religion there are leaders and followers. The leaders in religion who promote us/them dichotomies, with attendant hatred for all the “thems” in the world, do it to maintain their power and control over their flocks, and to bring in money. Money is sometimes an end in itself for them, but I think it’s mostly about the power and control. For these people it is not against their interest (as they perceive it) to pursue these ends in this manner. When they die powerful and rich, they consider themselves successful.
Followers are mostly interested in belonging, in security, in “knowing” that they are right, and they can get these feelings by following their leaders into hate. This is an intellectual dead-end for them, but many of them don’t care about reason or intellect. They don’t want to make up their own minds, they don’t want to learn, they want to follow. They are almost literally sheep in that regard. It’s only surprising to me that some religions are so open about this view of their “flocks.”
Note the first: the religious leaders who are – at least apparently – not in it for the power or control or money, are in the long run the most dangerous. They may be sincerely deluded, or they may just be more subtle. But they end up luring believers who might otherwise escape the influence of religion, because they are held up as good examples of religious piety and putative good character. I include among this group the current pope.
Note the second: this thread seems to belong in IMHO instead of GD, because I am seeing tons of opinions (including mine) but actual cites are pretty scarce (including this post). Even though the subject is religion, this is not a witnessing thread.
Roddy
I think that it’s pretty inarguable that humans have a fairly-hardwired tendency to define the world into “us” and “them”, and treat “us” with compassion and love and charity, and treat “them” with… not so much.
Religion didn’t invent that tendency. Religion didn’t brainwash people into thinking that way. But some, arguably many, religions have learned/evolved to take advantage of that tendency, for reasons that are, imho, not quite what others have been saying.
Why does the right wing conservative church rail so much against gay marriage? Is it because religions-spreading and gays-getting-married are mutually exclusive? Hardly. Plenty of gay people are religious, and far far more would be religious if more religions were actively gay-friendly. That is, the desire for religion (which many people clearly feel, based on how many people are religious) is there in gay people just as much as anyone else. So if you were being cynical about it and thinking that religions acted solely to swell their own numbers, then some religion would have said “hey, gee, we just had a new inspiration from God, turns out being gay is FABULOUS, although being straight is great as well… new members please!”.
(And, to their credit, some number of religions have done that, although the non-cynical interpretation is that they did so out of actual conviction and belief, rather than pure self-interest of seeing a niche to fill.)
Instead, I think the reason that so many religions preach hatred is because preaching hatred is EASY and FUN. It’s the same reason Hitler used anti-semitism rather than hey-let’s-all-just-love-everyone as a message when he was trying to unify Germany. Religion preaches hate for the same reason that even secular political extremists demonize their political opponents. It’s a much more quick and effective way to get your side pumped up than saying “well, gee, there are good points all around, and everyone is well meaning, but…”.
So religions preach hatred because preaching hatred puts butts into the seats, and keeps butts in the seats, and they have recently preached hatred against gays largely because they ran out of any other acceptable “other” groups to preach hatred against, once anti-semitism became distinctly not cool.
What’s ironic about the situation (and I’m speaking as an avowed atheist here) is that a large part of the original message of Jesus, as reported in at least a fair number of parables and so forth, is directly opposed to “love those who are close to you, hate everyone else”. Christianity OUGHT to be a counterveiling force AGAINST the general state of everyone-hates-the-other.
