“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” -Denis Diderot

I concider myself an atheist. After taking a look at the machiavellian nature of all religions I lost faith and belief in a greater power. (I was at one time very devout christian) Religions in general have brought this would to the brink of WWIII.

In my mind religion is the epitome of Hate and Intolerance. Religion breeds pycopaths.

Theism. ;-)

(I wrote this comment when the only thing at the top of the thread was one word: Atheism.)

“In my mind religion is the epitome of Hate and Intolerance. Religion breeds pycopaths.”

That might be a bit harsh… – -;

Anyway, it’s hard to tell whether it breeds psycopaths, or just attracts psycopaths, or even whether it attracts any more psycopaths than anything else, seeing as the psycos often seem to become more promonant in a spiritual setting.

I think people who take it too seriously (which is most people) are the only ones who are the problem. I think if people only made it relevant to their own lives and didn’t try to force it on anyone else then we’d all be good. I feel bad for all the africans who get “converted” and then killed by their own people who being some form of heritic toward their old religion. I don’t think the missionary people realize what they are doing when they try to “spread the word”

I agree. I believe that religion should be something personal. When it becomes too large it becomes corrupt. I believe my argument falls more on orginized religion.

I didn’t mean it to be harsh.. just being honest to my own beliefs. I have studied history my whole life and have found religion to be the basis of hate and intolerence. Look at how many people have died and how many wars have started because of religious belief. Look at how many gay people have been murdered or beat because some book says it’s wrong.

And i know people are going to say.. what about the good things that Religion has done? Well.. i dont’ beleive that it is religion itself that does this good. I know just as many giving and caring people who are athiest as i do christians or muslims or jews or buddists.. etc.. Humans can disern between good and evil without a religion to show them. For example: If it causes pain or harm to others.. it’s bad… if something helps or brings joy to others it’s good.. It’s really that simple. And i didn’t need a book to tell me it! :-]

I know my beliefs sound harsh.. they are not ment to.. I’m just being honest. And i know from experience that watering down truth.. is a lie.. and lies cause harm.. therefore.. always being honest is good.

Hi muadib, welcome to the site, Mr. Atreides. I am atheist, too. You are right, of course, good and bad things are the same for everyone, religious or irreligious. You will find plenty of discussion on these subjects here and in other threads. Look around, some of the things you mentioned are prominently featured in other threads, too. I’m sure FiNiX appreciates your latest post.

I believe too many people operate under the guise of Christianity and Atheism and give both a really bad name.

Excellent, PV!, By the way, did i welcome you to the site? Thank you for coming here.

Muad’dib, I’m curious about how your studies of history have led you to that conclusion. Let’s look at some famous non-monotheistic societies that have wrought an incredible amount more death and destruction than any of the monotheistic ones:

All of China’s history, culminating in the Cultural Revolution and death of 100 million +
Feudal and imperial Japan, with wars of samurai etc.
Ancient Egypt and Assyria/Babylon
Persia and Greece, including Alexander the Great
Pagan Rome
Ghenghis Khan and the Mongols, truly infamous for the slaughter of whole populations, plus their descendants (the Huns, Tartars, Tamurlain, etc.)
The Vikings
Native American territorial wars
Atheistic Communism in the Soviet Union, killing tens of millions
Cambodian and Vietnamese communism, killing millions
Nazi Germany, the Holocaust plus WWII, killing tens of millions

Many, many others.

No, what history tells us is that man is a political creature and his rulers tend to abuse power and seek more power and dominion over other people. Monotheistic religions have pacified these instincts somewhat in temporary time periods. Western culture today, with the international community’s outward disapproval of warfare and the relative peace of developed nations, is a product of Christianity that has led to greater prosperity than ever before in human history and far less death in proportion to the population levels.

muadib…welcome…professional wrestling attracts a few psychopaths too…I went to a match once…more than enough…

Now, now, Arandur, there is plenty of blame to go around on this one. If the church murdered even one person (and they did) isn’t it just as wrong? Also, example, Nazi Germany was a monotheistic culture, all Germans, at least party members, were supposed to be catholic? just because they didn’t hunt down protestants doesn’t mean that they were non-monotheistic. (is there a better word to describe it?) Also, doesn’t the Inquisition STILL rent a small suite in the Vatican? (I know we’ve discussed it before, and you downplayed it big time. they may not have killed millions, but still, murder is murder AND the church purports to know better, that’s what you just said.)

The Inquisition rents a suite at the Vatican? How superb…

Kookoo, I’m ashamed to admit that Nazi Germany was heavily influenced by what we today would call Neo-Paganism. The belief in the Aryan race was not motivated by Judeo-Christian beliefs (as it is with Neo-Nazis, Christian Identity nutjobs, and other modern skinheads) but by Germanic Pagan beliefs. It’s just more proof, IMO, that any religion can be abused. (Or even a lack of religion: Just look at Stalinist Russia.)

Arandur, I’d dispute your claim that “Monotheistic religions have pacified these instincts somewhat in temporary time periods.” For every monotheist who has tried to pacify these instincts, there has been a contemporary monotheist who has sought to wage war. And anyway, what about polytheistic and atheistic pacifists, such as Mahatma Gandhi or the Buddhists in Vietnam?

That said, I agree with most of what you wrote.

Thanks Swiss. You probably responded about Germany much more succinctly than I could have, because I don’t have that gift :)

Koo, I may have stated something wrong somewhere, because it sounds like I left you with the idea that I think the Catholic Church and/or other Christian groups are/have been blameless. Far from it. I agree wholeheartedly that terrible things have been done within the Church. The Church is a community made up of sinners, like any other. The Church is FOR sinners in that it attempts to lead them out of sin, but many people still let pride, ambition, malice, etc. rule them in place of Christ.

What I was disputing in my earlier post was Muad’dib’s characterization of religion being primarily responsible for hatred, intolerance, death, and destruction, as if humanity needed any help for that and, more importantly, as if the world would be better of without religion. I disputed that with historical examples trying to show that the magnitude of hatred, intolerance, death, and destruction wrought outside of religious motives is far, far greater than that caused by religion. After all, most of the wars in Europe and the Middle East were fought for geo-political reasons rather than religious ones. The great majority didn’t even claim any religious pretense, certainly not as the primary motivator for the war. Even the primary motivation for the 1st Crusade was defense of the Eastern Roman empire from the militant spread of Arab tribes, considering that Western Europe would have been threatened by them if it allowed Byzantium to fall, as it had already allowed Spain to fall to Moors.

Swiss, I point to the period of Christianity before around 900 AD, where Christians were strictly pacifistic, not even fighting back against the Romans, and, after accepted in Rome, even tended to just convert their barbarian conquerors rather than launch religious war. It was really more when the Germanic tribes and various Vikings that had converted gained more power and started fighting each other and outsiders, and Europe was threatened by other geographic regions, that pacifism lost popularity in the necessity or desire to fight for defense or (particularly among nobility) for land. Still, those were usually secular authorities.

The other period of Christianity is the modern era, post WWI. Western culture tried to construct international law and political bodies to preserve international peace. Western wars since then have generally been fought under defensive pretenses (sure you can debate the motivations, but the justification and the assent of the people has generally only been given to defensive wars).

Open Question to All Atheists:

How many of you have read and really considered the classic proofs offered for God’s existence?

“Swiss, I point to the period of Christianity before around 900 AD, where Christians were strictly pacifistic, not even fighting back against the Romans, and, after accepted in Rome, even tended to just convert their barbarian conquerors rather than launch religious war.”

This oversimplifies things by quite a bit, unfortunately. The reason Constantine called the first ecumenical council at Nicaea was because of infighting among the Christian groups which were growing in power. Now, it could be that Constantine honestly did convert to Christianity, and thus the infighting grieved him; or it could be that he was a shrewd tactician, and knew that placing all of Christianity under his indirect control would prevent Christianity from ever becoming powerful enough to topple the Empire. Either way, he was rather successful. ;-)

From that point on, and especially after the fall of the Roman Empire, there were no factions in Christiandom which were powerful enough to truly wage warfare on any regional scale. But there were many skirmishes; just look at the tribal wars in Ireland and Britain between Paidrig’s converting the Clan of Niall Noigiallach c. 433 (or, “St. Patrick driving the snakes out of Ireland”, as it’s crudely known today) and the Synod of Whitby in 664. It’s not the Vikings’ fault; they were simply powerful enough to take wars beyond their own parishes, so to speak.

“The other period of Christianity is the modern era, post WWI. Western culture tried to construct international law and political bodies to preserve international peace.”

And in this, they’ve been even less successful than the Pax Romana… and for arguably less altruistic reasons did these modern Western Christians attempt it in the first place. I know the intent is there by some; I’m not arguing that. Nor would I argue that religion is to blame. But people are people, and I don’t think we can point to any non-cloistered Christian group as being more pacifistic than those of other religions.

I agree that religion can cause wars, hatred, division, and fighting; but sometimes, it is the individuals themselves that choose to kill someone, or to do anything else.

Swiss, I’m not aware of any noticeable degree of violent conflict among Christian groups prior to Constantine, when they were still officially illegal practitioners. There were incidents during Augustine’s time, I know, among the different heresies. The Arians in power could be pretty brutal repressionists after they were given power by one of Constantine’s successor, but this was a period where generals and political leaders would put off baptism until their death beds because they believed they would be required to be pacifists and not even conduct executions. Bishops had to beg them to get baptized earlier in their lives.

Sain, I think we’re mainly arguing about degrees, and appealing to history to try to determine whether religion can be blamed any more or less than general human society for causing “wars, hatred, division, and fighting.” I have posted my examples contending that it is less, and certainly not more.

Aran, you are absolutely correct, I was just pointing out a few things for you to clarify, as usual. Thanks! And you are right about muadib’s post, he doesn’t say it exactly right. For example, I have said that murder of a homosexual as a hate crime would probably not be commited by a christian, but the murderer may think that the Church would condone it, or just thinks that it’s OK to do so because the church may have influenced secular society, murderer may hate gays for other reasons, too. The church didn’t actually murder anyone, but muadib makes it sound that way. (Is that the way Herbert spelled it, don’t remember)

SC, why ashamed, because you’re pagan, also? Don’t be. Thanks for the information!

Sain, Absolutely! how succinct! I think, not just sometimes, but usually. Arandur got into that above, too.

P.S. Aran, posted this before I saw the post directly above.

Kookoo, I’m Pagan-friendly. When more conservative types tell me I’m not a Christian, I tend to go, “You’re right, I’m a Pagan.” It’s a defense mechanism I learned from this guy who talked about turning the other cheek, and giving people your cloak when they steal your coat. Now what was his name…? ;-)

“It’s a defense mechanism I learned from this guy who talked about turning the other cheek, and giving people your cloak when they steal your coat. Now what was his name…? ;-)”

Bwaaahahahaaa…now you’re just talking blasphemy. GOOD on ya…

Awww, SC, I learned it, too, my friend, some of the best advice in there, isn’t it?

I enjoy talking with all of you so much!

rb, I’ve been told that there is still an “Office” of the Holy Inquisition or some such wording maybe now changed to “Standards and Practices” (lol), but still an off-shoot of the Inquisition. And a play on words from me as usual, actually unusual because there was only one!

to: Arandur

Yes indeed I’ve more then considered the classic proofs offered for God’s existence. I was infact a devout Christian for many many years. I have read many religious books, and other writing on the existence of God. There is just always one nagging thing that never seemed to go away. The fact that the science doesn’t add up. The universe isn’t 6000 years old.. humans and dinosaurs never lived side by side.. evolution is more then just something written in a book..

It’s hard to have faith in one certain part of a religion.. but then have no belief in all the small details. It’s like trying to build a long bridge with no form of support.. eventually it will fall down.

imagines John Cleese charging about the Vatican in his cardinal’s robes…