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

[bobo the clown]

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.

I have Stalin at between 20-26million & Mao at 40million. Which are you thinking of Worthy ?

[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.

I have Stalin at between 20-26million & Mao at 40million. Which are you thinking of Worthy ?

They're as good as any - you could pitch WW2 @ 60/70m and WW1 @ 40m - hmmmm maybe they're casualties.

Point is, it sorta puts Crusades in the shade a bit. Minor ruck.

[thebish]

not that this sounds very "happy" anymore! - but there is a list of conflicts/genocides by death-toll (in as much as any of these estimates can be entirely accurate) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... death_toll

[Prufrock]

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...

I find your second point really interesting; I read one of Mary Karr's autobiographies recently in which she talked about her conversion to Catholocism which happened through her treatment for alcoholism following the twelve-step programme. She started a non-believer but was persuaded to 'try' prayer anyway and eventually found her way to faith. Other recovering addicts who didn't go as far as religious conversion have talked about the benefits of 'externalising' (for want of a less wanky word) their hopes and regrets. I think that's also with the benefit psychiatric treatment can have. I don't think it's a benefit you need religion for, more a happy side-effect but I agree that 'need' is part of the human condition.

[Montreal Wanderer]

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.

Are you sure you don't mean Philip the Fair of France?

[thebish]

Or Philip the Neville of Tediumland...

[Prufrock]

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.

There are plenty of Atheists who live 'moral' lives. The argument that they only do so because they have inherited Judeo-Christian customs is patently a nonsense, because those same morals existed before Christianity and Judaism.

That's without considering the idea that a morality which exists only to please a supernatural being, and avoid his rancour, is no morality at all.

[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.

There are plenty of Atheists who live 'moral' lives. The argument that they only do so because they have inherited Judeo-Christian customs is patently a nonsense, because those same morals existed before Christianity and Judaism.

That's without considering the idea that a morality which exists only to please a supernatural being, and avoid his rancour, is no morality at all.

indeed - basically what I said above...

[Prufrock]

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.

I feel like I answered your question before you'd even asked it

"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."

[Prufrock]

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.

There are plenty of Atheists who live 'moral' lives. The argument that they only do so because they have inherited Judeo-Christian customs is patently a nonsense, because those same morals existed before Christianity and Judaism.

That's without considering the idea that a morality which exists only to please a supernatural being, and avoid his rancour, is no morality at all.

indeed - basically what I said above...

So you did, you got cut off the 'other people have replied to this thread' bit by the turn of the page.

[thebish]

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.

I feel like I answered your question before you'd even asked it

"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."

hmmm... how on earth can you even begin to make any kind of judgement about whether it was easier to persuade people in the crusades to kill people than it was to persuade people in the 1st or 2nd world war to kill people.

you can SAY it's harder - but on what basis do you say that? is it just a vague "I reckon"?

[Prufrock]

Eh? I'm not drawing that comparison.

My point is that religion is a tool by which you can persuade someone to kill someone. Take that tool away and it's harder. I'm not comparing specific conflicts, rather a single situation where you wanted to persuade someone to kill someone else for your own means, and the ease with which you could do that with religion as a possible tool, and without. If you have, for example's sake, 9 ways to do something, and then someone takes one away meaning you only have 8 ways to do it, I think it can be described as being 'harder'.

Worthy then mentioned WWs 1 and 2 as examples where religion wasn't used.

Fine, but as I said, I didn't even say it would be hard without religion, just relatively more difficult. I'm not comparing WWs 1+2 with the crusdades, but comparing WWs 1+2 with a scenario where you can persuade the men fighting in WWs 1+2 that a god in which they believe wants them to kill the other side. I think it'd be easier to get them to fight in the second example.

[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.

I feel like I answered your question before you'd even asked it

"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."

hmmm... how on earth can you even begin to make any kind of judgement about whether it was easier to persuade people in the crusades to kill people than it was to persuade people in the 1st or 2nd world war to kill people.

you can SAY it's harder - but on what basis do you say that? is it just a vague "I reckon"?

Yeah Prufrock just vague...

I reckon it's much easier to go for conscription.

[Prufrock]

In fairness, I think it's a bit much to expect me to have replied in anything other than vague terms to a point you hadn't made yet !

[thebish]

Eh? I'm not drawing that comparison.

My point is that religion is a tool by which you can persuade someone to kill someone. Take that tool away and it's harder. I'm not comparing specific conflicts, rather a single situation where you wanted to persuade someone to kill someone else for your own means, and the ease with which you could do that with religion as a possible tool, and without. If you have, for example's sake, 9 ways to do something, and then someone takes one away meaning you only have 8 ways to do it, I think it can be described as being 'harder'.

Worthy then mentioned WWs 1 and 2 as examples where religion wasn't used.

Fine, but as I said, I didn't even say it would be hard without religion, just relatively more difficult. I'm not comparing WWs 1+2 with the crusdades, but comparing WWs 1+2 with a scenario where you can persuade the men fighting in WWs 1+2 that a god in which they believe wants them to kill the other side. I think it'd be easier to get them to fight in the second example.

i still don't see how you are making that judgement... it has seemed easy enough in so many conflict/genocide situations across history to make the addition or deletion of religion as a factor to be pretty much irrelevant to it's "ease".

your "tool" rationale is like saying here are LOADS of phillips screwdrivers - any number of which could tackle that screw... now - I'll take one away - so it is now MUCH harder for you to tackle that screw.. except - it's not.

[Worthy4England]

In fairness, I think it's a bit much to expect me to have replied in anything other than vague terms to a point you hadn't made yet !

I don't need to make a point, for me to believe you understand the point I haven't made. Now you're just trying to wriggle out of it.

[Prufrock]

Eh? I'm not drawing that comparison.

My point is that religion is a tool by which you can persuade someone to kill someone. Take that tool away and it's harder. I'm not comparing specific conflicts, rather a single situation where you wanted to persuade someone to kill someone else for your own means, and the ease with which you could do that with religion as a possible tool, and without. If you have, for example's sake, 9 ways to do something, and then someone takes one away meaning you only have 8 ways to do it, I think it can be described as being 'harder'.

Worthy then mentioned WWs 1 and 2 as examples where religion wasn't used.

Fine, but as I said, I didn't even say it would be hard without religion, just relatively more difficult. I'm not comparing WWs 1+2 with the crusdades, but comparing WWs 1+2 with a scenario where you can persuade the men fighting in WWs 1+2 that a god in which they believe wants them to kill the other side. I think it'd be easier to get them to fight in the second example.

i still don't see how you are making that judgement... it has seemed easy enough in so many conflict/genocide situations across history to make the addition or deletion of religion as a factor to be pretty much irrelevant to it's "ease".

your "tool" rationale is like saying here are LOADS of phillips screwdrivers - any number of which could tackle that screw... now - I'll take one away - so it is now MUCH harder for you to tackle that screw.. except - it's not.

It's not though, because the other tools to make people kill other people (politics, money, revenge) don't work in the same way as religion. To stretch the analogy, politics wouldn't be another phillips screwdriver, it would be a saw. Great if the job you need is cutting wood, not so much if it's screwing in a screw.

Wars don't come about in stock patterns. No matter how much you tried, you couldn't really use religion as a tool to make fighting the second world war easier, it doesn't fit the narrative (your screwdriver won't help you with this task, which is removing a nail). A jihad against the west? Boom, get in that rawlplug. Take religion away, it's harder to fight that war.

[Prufrock]

In fairness, I think it's a bit much to expect me to have replied in anything other than vague terms to a point you hadn't made yet !

I don't need to make a point, for me to believe you understand the point I haven't made. Now you're just trying to wriggle out of it.

I think this may be all my own fault, but I'm confused!

[CrazyHorse]

Eh? I'm not drawing that comparison.

My point is that religion is a tool by which you can persuade someone to kill someone. Take that tool away and it's harder. I'm not comparing specific conflicts, rather a single situation where you wanted to persuade someone to kill someone else for your own means, and the ease with which you could do that with religion as a possible tool, and without. If you have, for example's sake, 9 ways to do something, and then someone takes one away meaning you only have 8 ways to do it, I think it can be described as being 'harder'.

Worthy then mentioned WWs 1 and 2 as examples where religion wasn't used.

Fine, but as I said, I didn't even say it would be hard without religion, just relatively more difficult. I'm not comparing WWs 1+2 with the crusdades, but comparing WWs 1+2 with a scenario where you can persuade the men fighting in WWs 1+2 that a god in which they believe wants them to kill the other side. I think it'd be easier to get them to fight in the second example.

i still don't see how you are making that judgement... it has seemed easy enough in so many conflict/genocide situations across history to make the addition or deletion of religion as a factor to be pretty much irrelevant to it's "ease".

your "tool" rationale is like saying here are LOADS of phillips screwdrivers - any number of which could tackle that screw... now - I'll take one away - so it is now MUCH harder for you to tackle that screw.. except - it's not.

It's not though, because the other tools to make people kill other people (politics, money, revenge) don't work in the same way as religion. To stretch the analogy, politics wouldn't be another phillips screwdriver, it would be a saw. Great if the job you need is cutting wood, not so much if it's screwing in a screw.

Wars don't come about in stock patterns. No matter how much you tried, you couldn't really use religion as a tool to make fighting the second world war easier, it doesn't fit the narrative (your screwdriver won't help you with this task, which is removing a nail). A jihad against the west? Boom, get in that rawlplug. Take religion away, it's harder to fight that war.

You two don't half talk some bollocks.

[Worthy4England]

In fairness, I think it's a bit much to expect me to have replied in anything other than vague terms to a point you hadn't made yet !

I don't need to make a point, for me to believe you understand the point I haven't made. Now you're just trying to wriggle out of it.

I think this may be all my won fault, but I'm confused!

Good, just sign here, and we're done.