Today I'm happy about......

[TANGODANCER]

Every time we get near this subject I'm reminded of the Roman Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc and his convincing proof of the divinity of his church:

The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.

Ain't it the truth.

[Hoboh]

Ah religion, the excuse for man to do unthinkable things to others in someone elses name!

[TANGODANCER]

Thinking about guns and hillbillies, this made me laugh. Daft, I know, but it did...

[Gary the Enfield]

Ah religion power and resources, the excuse for man to do unthinkable things to others in someone elses religion's name!

[thebish]

Ah religion power and resources, the excuse for man to do unthinkable things to others in someone elses religion's name!

that's a fairly insightful edit...

[William the White]

Ah religion power and resources, the excuse for man to do unthinkable things to others in someone elses religion's name!

that's a fairly insightful edit...

I agree.

Doesn't alter the fact that religion is an extremely powerful motivator in the commission of atrocities.

[TANGODANCER]

Ah religion power and resources, the excuse for man to do unthinkable things to others in someone elses religion's name!

that's a fairly insightful edit...

I agree.

Doesn't alter the fact that religion is an extremely powerful motivator in the commission of atrocities.

I dread to think of a world without it.

[William the White]

Ah religion power and resources, the excuse for man to do unthinkable things to others in someone elses religion's name!

that's a fairly insightful edit...

I agree.

Doesn't alter the fact that religion is an extremely powerful motivator in the commission of atrocities.

I dread to think of a world without it.

I don't think you need to worry. Hindu fundamentalists just forming a government in India. A brand new caliphate declared in Iraq and Syria will shortly be the long-desired paradise on earth. Buddhists waging war on Moslem minorities in Burma. Where would we be without it?

[Gary the Enfield]

Ah religion power and resources, the excuse for man to do unthinkable things to others in someone elses religion's name!

that's a fairly insightful edit...

I agree.

Doesn't alter the fact that religion is an extremely powerful motivator in the commission of atrocities.

I dread to think of a world without it.

I'm more and more disassociating myself from organised religion. I still have faith that there is a great power for good which means people are fundamentally decent and will help their fellow man when in need, but I have no confidence in organisations who determine doctrine to suit their own ends, turn a blind eye to abuse and instil fear and loathing in both their followers and 'unbelievers'.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the other major religions are no more than fronts for power hungry, wealth crazed despots and charlatans.

The world may well be better off without them.

[Prufrock]

Ah religion power and resources, the excuse for man to do unthinkable things to others in someone elses religion's name!

that's a fairly insightful edit...

Except it doesn't really work.

Firstly, if you take that view, power and resources aren't the 'excuse' people use, they're the actual, but hidden, reason. When the Crusaders toddled off to the Middle East, you may believe they were after power and resources, but the 'excuse' they gave was religion.

Secondly, whilst I've no doubt in some cases people are lying when they say religion motivated them, it's another example of where religion gets a free ride. If a kid goes on a shooting spree in America and says it's because he felt shunned by girls and the popular kids - no-one questions it. If a Palestinian plants a bomb in Tel-Aviv and says it's because he wants a Palestinian state - no-one questions it. If someone blows himself up leaving behind a message that this was done as part of a global jihad against the infidel on behalf of Allah - no, there must be another reason.

Sometimes people say religion is the reason they do something, but it isn't. Sometimes though, it is.

[TANGODANCER]

Doesn't alter the fact that religion is an extremely powerful motivator in the commission of atrocities.

I dread to think of a world without it.[/quote]

I don't think you need to worry. Hindu fundamentalists just forming a government in India. A brand new caliphate declared in Iraq and Syria will shortly be the long-desired paradise on earth. Buddhists waging war on Moslem minorities in Burma. Where would we be without it?

So do you actually believe that taking God and religion out of the equation is the answer to peace on earth then?

[TANGODANCER]

Firstly, if you take that view, power and resources aren't the 'excuse' people use, they're the actual, but hidden, reason. When the Crusaders toddled off to the Middle East, you may believe they were after power and resources, but the 'excuse' they gave was religion.

In every case religious wars are down to leadership, power hungry or just sheer greedy, or in some cases actual madness. Devotees don't start wars, leaders and governments do. The Crusaders didn't toddle off to the middle east of their own accord; they were sent there because: "A", they were an army; armies cost money and an army sitting at home doing nothing is breaking the ( royal) bank, and soldiers do as they are told. That's why obeying orders without question is the first thing drummed into them. Protecting the pilgrims was also another convenient reason/excuse for being there. Get them off to war, keep them busy and promise them a share of the spoils as wages. Problem solved.

"B" Conquering territory meant loot and funds for the royal piggy bank (in their case in collusion with the Papal piggy bank). Adding God into the equation was just to convince those getting killed that they had a cause to fight. How else would they persuade the multi-thousands (the Crusader armies were just the trained soldiers amongst it all) to die for the cause.

That said, what would have happened without religion? As ever, it was/is a scapegoat for
a multitude of sins (forgive the pun) that it preaches and teaches against. As I asked Will, is banning religion the means to peace on earth, or if the unifying element of a God and the commandments are removed, will everyone just adopt a sanction free existence and fill the planet with self serving gods? North Korea anyone?

[thebish]

Sometimes people say religion is the reason they do something, but it isn't. Sometimes though, it is.

agreed. did anyone deny that?

[Prufrock]

Firstly, if you take that view, power and resources aren't the 'excuse' people use, they're the actual, but hidden, reason. When the Crusaders toddled off to the Middle East, you may believe they were after power and resources, but the 'excuse' they gave was religion.

In every case religious wars are down to leadership, power hungry or just sheer greedy, or in some cases actual madness. Devotees don't start wars, leaders and governments do. The Crusaders didn't toddle off to the middle east of their own accord; they were sent there because: "A", they were an army; armies cost money and an army sitting at home doing nothing is breaking the ( royal) bank, and soldiers do as they are told. That's why obeying orders without question is the first thing drummed into them. Protecting the pilgrims was also another convenient reason/excuse for being there. Get them off to war, keep them busy and promise them a share of the spoils as wages. Problem solved.

"B" Conquering territory meant loot and funds for the royal piggy bank (in their case in collusion with the Papal piggy bank). Adding God into the equation was just to convince those getting killed that they had a cause to fight. How else would they persuade the multi-thousands (the Crusader armies were just the trained soldiers amongst it all) to die for the cause.

That said, what would have happened without religion? As ever, it was/is a scapegoat for
a multitude of sins (forgive the pun) that it preaches and teaches against. As I asked Will, is banning religion the means to peace on earth, or if the unifying element of a God and the commandments are removed, will everyone just adopt a sanction free existence and fill the planet with self serving gods? North Korea anyone?

The point was made that the 'excuse' isn't religion. The excuse given for something, and the reasons it happened aren't always the same. If you say 'we're doing this for religion' then that sentence might not be true, but the 'excuse' is nevertheless religion.

Your A and B sounds fair enough, but they are reasons for going conquering, nor going conquering the Holy Land. Why was that specific place chosen, if not for partially religious reasons. I don't believe religion was the primary motive for going ont he Crusades at all, but I don't think it played no part either.

As for how else would they persuade the multi-thousands to die for the cause? Well, the point many anti-religionists might make is that they might not have been able to, and, that this would have been a good thing.

I read an interview with a captured terrorist where he was asked how he could justify killing innocents despite the Koran teaching peace and he explained that this had been very hard; he believed in the cause, but that wasn't enough to justify murder. He then gave some bullshit explanation I can't quite remember he'd got off a cleric about how, whilst killing was definitely wrong, it was fine to kill 'infidels'. Now, his primary motivations weren't religious (I can't remember what they were, but they were political, the sort of revenge for the West's actions in Iraq, or American drone attacks sort of thing) but the justification for murder was. It was clear that he'd hesitated before he spoke to this cleric, and that without this justification he may not have attempted to kill people.

Now I understand that religious people who believe in a good god respond to that indignantly by saying 'no that's not what god would want, that cleric was manipulating things for his own ends', but the problem is, whether it's because he doesn't exist, or for other reasons, He is silent; and that silence allows people whose ends are not religious (be they power, money, whatever) to fill that space and give their own version of what He wants.

If there's no god, no religion, then there's no supernatural deity to put words into the mouth of. It's harder to persuade people to kill indiscriminately without that tool.It's not impossible, it might sometimes not even be hard, but it is harder[/].

But the argument anyone who wants to get rid of religion has to win is not that getting rid of it would fix all the world's problems, but that the world would be slightly less f*cked up without it. Of course bad things would still happen, no-one sensible believes ALL of the world's problems are caused by religion, but some are.

Personally, I think we'd be better off, but I don't think it's clear cut. Getting rid of religion would get rid of some bad things, but also indisputably some good too. I'm quite happy to reject any half-baked nonsense about needing religion for morality. This is clearly nonsense. One thing I have struggled with is that studies consistently show religious people give more money to charity. I don't think this is even remotely enough to win religion its place in my own utopia, but it does seem fair to mention.

[Prufrock]

Sometimes people say religion is the reason they do something, but it isn't. Sometimes though, it is.

agreed. did anyone deny that?

Not directly.

That does seem to be the implication with some commentators though when they jump to argue that the religious reason the latest terrorist gives for his actions aren't the actual reasons. As if they can't be.

[thebish]

Sometimes people say religion is the reason they do something, but it isn't. Sometimes though, it is.

agreed. did anyone deny that?

Not directly.

fair enough! nothing to see here then!

[thebish]

One thing I have struggled with is that studies consistently show religious people give more money to charity. I don't think this is even remotely enough to win religion its place in my own utopia, but it does seem fair to mention.

foodbanks... hospices... world development aid agencies...

either way - it's a bit of a pointless "what if" - because (it seems to me) that religion (in the widest sense of the word) does seem to have been part of what it means to be human - some might protest that they live quite well without it - but in most cases I suspect they will have some kind of a thing in life that functions in some of the same ways...

you can't abolish or ban or eradicate something that humans seem to need/want/be-drawn-to-invent on some kind of a deep level...

violence/warfare/general horribleness is part of the human condition - there are lots of vehicles that can accomodate those things - religion is one (a powerful one, granted) of many...

you don't need anything recognisably religious to make humans to appalling things to each other... sadly it is all too easy, hard as it is for humans to accept that...

[TANGODANCER]

Personally, I think we'd be better off, but I don't think it's clear cut. Getting rid of religion would get rid of some bad things, but also indisputably some good too. I'm quite happy to reject any half-baked nonsense about needing religion for morality. This is clearly nonsense. One thing I have struggled with is that studies consistently show religious people give more money to charity. I don't think this is even remotely enough to win religion its place in my own utopia, but it does seem fair to mention.

Whilst not disagreeing with most of your post, the above is blatantly wrong (IMO). Religion is what teaches/defines morality, and what has kept control of it by reminding people from an early age of what is right and wrong. You may claim to know these things automatically, but that's the differences between a religious believer (me) and a stated atheist (you). We break rules and the Commandments because we are human and mortal; believers accept the wrongs and repent hoping for redemption, atheists just don't believe they need to because God and heaven don't exist. Thus it will ever be. No point arguing further. See you at the pearly gates...

Just a closer: Phillip of Spain eventually owed the said Templars so much money that, even though they had fought and died on his behalf he persuaded the then Pope they were to be declared blasphemers and all their fortune and lands confiscated, and the order disbanded. He did that just so he could get his hands on their money. So much for what God willed.

[Worthy4England]

It's harder to persuade people to kill indiscriminately without that tool.

Weren't the two largest killing wars ever fought diddly squat to do with religion?

They didn't persuade folks, they just went for conscription.

[thebish]

Personally, I think we'd be better off, but I don't think it's clear cut. Getting rid of religion would get rid of some bad things, but also indisputably some good too. I'm quite happy to reject any half-baked nonsense about needing religion for morality. This is clearly nonsense. One thing I have struggled with is that studies consistently show religious people give more money to charity. I don't think this is even remotely enough to win religion its place in my own utopia, but it does seem fair to mention.

Whilst not disagreeing with most of your post, the above is blatantly wrong (IMO). Religion is what teaches/defines morality, and what has kept control of it by reminding people from an early age of what is right and wrong. You may claim to know these things automatically, but that's the differences between a religious believer (me) and a stated atheist (you). We break rules and the Commandments because we are human and mortal; believers accept the wrongs and repent hoping for redemption, atheists just don't believe they need to because God and heaven don't exist. Thus it will ever be. No point arguing further. See you at the pearly gates...

Just a closer: Phillip of Spain eventually owed the said Templars so much money that, even though they had fought and died on his behalf he persuaded the then Pope they were to be declared blasphemers and all their fortune and lands confiscated, and the order disbanded. He did that just so he could get his hands on their money. So much for what God willed.

Pru is, of course, right. nobody needs religion to teach them morality or help them to be moral. many of the most moral people i have known have nowt to do with religion and manage perfectly well to be moral.

if people are "moral" because they fear some mythical place called "hell" - then it's a very weak kind of morality - that's just a form of self-preservation...