Will we survive religion?

[Gilbert_Keith]

Whatever

Religious beliefs are the same they’ve always been - impotent to change human nature, a placebo for people who are inclined to do good in the first place, and a powerful weapon to inflict harm on others.

Atheism is what it has always been: a sink of spiritual sloth; an excuse for people who are inclined to do evil; a weapon with which to harm others but most of all to destroy one’s own soul.

The Psalmist had it right so long ago!

 

[Allweather]

Religious beliefs are the same they’ve always been - impotent to change human nature,

Probably true. Human nature cannot be changed by religious belief. Human nature desires the good, but often settles for the lesser good rather than the greatest good. Therein is sin.

a placebo for people who are inclined to do good in the first place,

Aha. Well. I’d have thought that the events in and around Germany between 1925 and 1945 to have put to rest any lingering theories about the goodness of human beings left uninfluenced by true religion.

and a powerful weapon to inflict harm on others.

People don’t need religion in order to inflict harm on others. Man is perfectly able hurt himself without resorting to false religion. True relgion does not inflict harm on people, but rather brings the message of a relentlessly loving creator.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

At the risk of putting this thread back on track, are religious beliefs today more harmful than helpful?

See what you started Valke2. :tsktsk:

Oh well…might as well sit down and grab a cold beer and enjoy the show. It doesn’t look like this threads going to be calming down anytime soon.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

At the risk of putting this thread back on track, are religious beliefs today more harmful than helpful?

Isn’t it amusing how threads get so off track sometimes? I’m not sure what is more amusing at this point. Is it the amount of tangents this discussion has produced? Or is it the fact that there are so many who just don’t get it? I’ve once again seen arguments for truth. What is earthly truth other than an opinion of what someone thinks everyone should be? You want a couple of truths, I’ll give them to you.

Truth#1 Religion is Man’s way of putting God into his own terms and he’ll screw that up every time.

Truth#2 Secularism is Man’s way of saying he can do it all by himself and he’ll screw that up every time.

Truth# 3 Man can not grasp the meaning of real truth. It evades him because it is usually not about him which such a concept is something he can not accept or allow to exist.

Truth# 4 Man’s world is not the world we are all standing on at this moment. That world’s creative purpose is to provide a livable biosphere for all its inhabitants. Man is just one of those life forms. If we blow ourselves up tomorrow, the world will still be here spinning around the sun just like it’s been doing for about 4 billion years or so.

That’s enough truth for now. Next will come the inevitable swarm of posts of how wrong I am and how an individual’s outlook is the true one. Of course it will no doubt be backed up by writings of someone who thinks the world is about them too. The world is not about us. It never was. Man’s world is a contrived reality made by him, for him to give him the illusion of control and Man is too arrogant and pompous to ever see that. Don’t blame God for our shortcomings. Put the blame where it belongs, on each and every one of us.

 

[whatever]

Aha. Well. I’d have thought that the events in and around Germany between 1925 and 1945 to have put to rest any lingering theories about the goodness of human beings left uninfluenced by true religion.

You refer to the Germany that was almost exclusively Christian at the time and for centuries before? Tens of millions of Christians, uninfluenced by true religion?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

whatever

You refer to the Germany that was almost exclusively Christian at the time and for centuries before? Tens of millions of Christians, uninfluenced by true religion?

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be without religion?” Ben Franklin

Franklin’s insight becomes all the more relevant in Germany. Before Hitler Germans were bad enough with religion. After Hitler, who hated religion and made it unsafe for anyone who had one to oppose him, Germany became a living hell.

 

[Allweather]

You refer to the Germany that was almost exclusively Christian at the time and for centuries before? Tens of millions of Christians, uninfluenced by true religion?

Well, to oversimplify, the people who manned the killing machine were not Christians. There were many good Christians in Germany, among whom were the Ratzinger family. Dietrich Bonhoefer was a type of Protestant who could have survived, but insisted on going back home to resist, and died for his effort.

What I meant to point at wasn’t the fact that some otherwise decent people may have done things they should have been ashamed of. It was the whole idea of the Master Race; the supremacy of the state over the individual; Eugenics. The fact that truly evil people could get “ordinary” people to do monstrous things illustrates how thin the veneer of human “goodness” really is. Anyone who, in 1925, thought that mankind is basically good, and even better without religion, must’ve been pretty shocked by 1945 at the witness of the bloodbath that took place across Europe and Asia.

This time frame would include the collectivization by Stalin of Soviet agriculture. There, you had an overtly atheistic state matter-of-factly starving millions of people to death in order to take their land away from them. The crimes of the atheists in the old Soviet Union were worse than those of the Nazis.

We couldn’t ask for better examples of what happens when the basic “goodness” of human beings is assumed, and religion is crushed or brought under state control. Take a look at the inverse of these two cultures: The United States and Britain. We had our own problems during those years, but without question we were guided in our dealings among the billigerents by our judeo-Christian ethic, through and through, and the moral superiority of our actions is obvious.

 

[whatever]

Well, to oversimplify, the people who manned the killing machine were not Christians.

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Does your definition of Christian exclude the possibility of sin?

The fact that truly evil people could get “ordinary” people to do monstrous things illustrates how thin the veneer of human “goodness” really is.

It’s quite simple. Given the right circumstances, just about all of us are capable of unspeakable atrocities.

Anyone who, in 1925, thought that mankind is basically good, and even better without religion, must’ve been pretty shocked by 1945 at the witness of the bloodbath that took place across Europe and Asia.

I don’t know how many people had this idea, but the fact remains that a deeply Christian nation committed these atrocities - while you see the evils of what you call atheism, I see an abject failure of the alleged virtues of religion.

We couldn’t ask for better examples of what happens when the basic “goodness” of human beings is assumed, and religion is crushed or brought under state control. Take a look at the inverse of these two cultures: The United States and Britain. We had our own problems during those years, but without question we were guided in our dealings among the billigerents by our judeo-Christian ethic, through and through, and the moral superiority of our actions is obvious.

And that moral superiority is the reason for the Rheinwiesenlager?

Whatever, eh.

 

[Allweather]

Does your definition of Christian exclude the possibility of sin?

Not in terms of sugar on porridge or adultery. But when it comes to operating a genocide machine, yes it does.

It’s quite simple. Given the right circumstances, just about all of us are capable of unspeakable atrocities.

“Given the right circumstances” I would tend to agree. And that is my point. A man, unmodified by the true faith, is particularly given over to performing atrocities. Someone else was saying that it is RELIGION itself, even true religion, that makes a man prone to commit atrocities. But that is not true. Genuine faith, whether Christian or Jewish, constantly argues against murder and other forms of beastliness.

I don’t know how many people had this idea, but the fact remains that a deeply Christian nation committed these atrocities - while you see the evils of what you call atheism, I see an abject failure of the alleged virtues of religion.

No doubt, religion failed in Germany. But the Germans are unique. That is the homeland of Luther. German nationalism was extreme. Hitler desired a National Church, and worked to achieve a Christianity that was commanded by nationalism, with a shared anti-semitism. At the same time, faithful Germans went to the gas chambers, along with some Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused military service.

And that moral superiority is the reason for the Rheinwiesenlager? Whatever, eh.

Well, there is more to say about this than that a few thousand German POWs died immediately following the end of hostilities due to a shortage of food and shelter. I can refer you to a good history of the Allied Occupation if you’re interested. You know, Pope Benedict spent a few days in one of these camps. He was then released and walked home. The short response is that, while it is regrettable that any soldiers on either side died, it is also a fact that military service often leads to injury and death. Not long before the gathering of these young men into the open-air camps, they were being shot and blown up by bullets and bombs. Could one say that they were in better shape in the camps than they were under the onslaught of raging allied armies and air forces? I think so.

 

[R_McGeddon]

No cigar for you. Religion does not pretend to be a fact. It is a faith. Just as atheism is not a fact … but an unprovable faith. If you disagree, prove atheism to be a fact.

Fortunately I don’t smoke, but religion is a fact. What religion is about worshipping, that is the faith part.

Atheism, the lack of religion, is also a fact.

They are in your head and in your heart. Go look for them … I dare you.

I’ve been looking for a while, still nothing.

 

[R_McGeddon]

I’m curious. What evidence exists that the human race did not begin with a male and a female?

If you re-read my post, I said that the story of Adam & Eve was made up. I never said anything about there not being a male and female.

Exactly what artifacts have you found that prove Adam & Eve never lived?

If they existed there would be artifacts.

They never existed, so no artifacts.

 

[R_McGeddon]

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be without religion?” Ben Franklin

I’m still waiting for your answer to my question;

If there were no religion, would all those people have still been killed?

 

[whatever]

Not in terms of sugar on porridge or adultery. But when it comes to operating a genocide machine, yes it does.

Then you are cherry picking and we must agree to disagree.

“Given the right circumstances” I would tend to agree. And that is my point. A man, unmodified by the true faith, is particularly given over to performing atrocities.

At any time and place where atrocities and injustice abound, there are people who stand fast and draw a line. Your implicit contention is that it’s people of “true faith” that resist. My contention is that it’s people who put principle and personal ethics above personal safety and when you adjust for revisionist bias, religion doesn’t fare too well. I am not aware of any religion, true or not in your eyes, that has an exclusive claim on those that Valke might call righteous gentiles. Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Someone else was saying that it is RELIGION itself, even true religion, that makes a man prone to commit atrocities. But that is not true. Genuine faith, whether Christian or Jewish, constantly argues against murder and other forms of beastliness.

Religion is like alcohol. Nobody does anything under the influence of alcohol or religion that he or she isn’t prone to doing sober or with a mind uncontaminated by religious teachings. Look on the bright side, though. Egregious counterexamples are prime marketing material for both religious organizations and humanists.

No doubt, religion failed in Germany. But the Germans are unique.

Not nearly as unique as you might believe. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are not exactly shining examples, are they? Yet again, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Well, there is more to say about this than that a few thousand German POWs died immediately following the end of hostilities due to a shortage of food and shelter. I can refer you to a good history of the Allied Occupation if you’re interested.

I have my own sources about the Allied Occupation, thank you very much. I doubt you can trump face to face conversations with plenty of Germans who lived through it.

Could one say that they were in better shape in the camps than they were under the onslaught of raging allied armies and air forces? I think so.

Getting blown up by bombs or shot is worse than the systematic and intentional starvation and deprivation? I don’t think so. And yet again, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Whatever

I don’t know how many people had this idea, but the fact remains that a deeply Christian nation committed these atrocities - while you see the evils of what you call atheism, I see an abject failure of the alleged virtues of religion.

Hitler and his thugs were a deeply Christian nation?

I guess you also think that whatever is done by the KKK and their thugs also reflects the will of a deeply Christian nation?

Whew!

By the way, how do you define “deeply Christian”?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

I’ve been looking for a while, still nothing.

That’s fairly obvious. But at least you’re still looking or you wouldn’t be at Catholic Answers.

If there were no religion, would all those people have still been killed?

You mean if the whole world was atheist, there would be no people of religion for atheists to kill? I suppose so. But do you think they still wouldn’t go at killing each other? Isn’t that what Hitler (the atheistic Nazis) and Stalin (the atheistic Communists) did?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Whatever

I have my own sources about the Allied Occupation…

I have no doubt you do. Of course your sources are never revisionist because atheists and agnostics never lie. Right?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Mirdath]

Hitler and his thugs were a deeply Christian nation?

I guess you also think that whatever is done by the KKK and their thugs also reflects the will of a deeply Christian nation?

Whew!

As a matter of fact, the KKK are obnoxiously Christian (Protestant; they hate Catholics just as much as they do Jews, blacks, and atheists), and they’ve certainly had societal support in the past.

I have no doubt you do. Of course your sources are never revisionist because atheists and agnostics never lie. Right?

Primary sources like those are as close to the absolute truth as you’re ever going to get.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

MIrdath

As a matter of fact, the KKK are obnoxiously Christian (Protestant; they hate Catholics just as much as they do Jews, blacks, and atheists), and they’ve certainly had societal support in the past.

So that makes them deeply Christian? I don’t get it.

 

[Valke2]

MIrdath

As a matter of fact, the KKK are obnoxiously Christian (Protestant; they hate Catholics just as much as they do Jews, blacks, and atheists), and they’ve certainly had societal support in the past.

So that makes them deeply Christian? I don’t get it.

They believe that they are acting in accordance with God’s wishes. This is the crux (I believe) of the thread. When you believe you know that God is on your side, it means that everyone who is not on your side is against God. And then anything can happen.

 

[whatever]

Primary sources like those are as close to the absolute truth as you’re ever going to get.

Mirdath, it’s not worth my time to read and respond to GK’s anti-atheistic diatribes. I don’t need to anyway, because only a clairvoyant could make the bald-faced claim that my sources are atheists and agnostics.



For the record, he’s wrong. And you are right. In my conversations, I wasn’t leading the witness, but there was a remarkable consistency in what they said and perhaps more importantly, in their silences.