Imagine no religion

[greyl]

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. That would be nice

n/t

[PunkinPi]

3. Is. nt

[JackRiddler]

31. Hey there friend DoYouEverWonder

False advertising! For once I click into one of GreyL's threads expecting from the headline that we can simply agree on a fundamental principle... and instead it's a "war-on-terror" propaganda ambush. Yet another pathetic prop to the Official Fantasy of the 9/11 Attacks, a one-dimensional slam at the presumedly "Islamofascist" perpetrators...

Let's not even question the official story of a surprise attack by 19 guys with knives, etc. Even within the bounds of that narrative, the caption is an easily falsified hypothesis. The following proposals may be more complicated, but I'd care to see GreyL dispute their veracity - again taking the official narrative as though it were true:

"Imagine the infinite money-swallowing sinkholes known as the Pentagon, federal law enforcement and intelligence community actually showed due interest in performing their ostensible function of defending the people of the United States..."

or

"Imagine no taxpayer-funded unelected permanent secret-state institutions that finance, train and arm marauders, fanatics and drug dealers who later come back to bite innocent civilians on these shores..."

or

"Imagine no Machiavellian spook and military apparatus to persistently fuck up the Middle East until a cell of self-appointed 'propagandists of the deed' trained at secular Western institutions decide to get payback on behalf of the oppressed, in the form of an irrational massacre of a bunch of taxpayers who for the most part had no clue what they had been financing (though they should have!)..."

ON EDIT: Ah, let's add at least one caption that violates the Official Mythology, but better fits the evidence:

"Imagine the government didn't view the people as a malleable raw material to be brainwashed through whipping up fear against an overblown enemy following a false-flag attack arranged from within the extra-constitutional permanent spook apparatus..."

OR

"Imagine war was not a racket..."

[hfojvt]

2. Imagine no broadbrush smears

it's impossible if you try.

[Perky]

4. Amen

[greyl]

5. Have you spotted a weakness in my position?

No.

[hfojvt]

8. maybe it's a numbers thing

of the 2 billion people on this earth many of whom do good things for the sake of our religions, we all are apparently evil because of the actions of fifty lunatics.

Let me find a serial killer who is an atheist and post a thread "imagine there were no atheists". I bet there are a few.

Most religions place a very high value on human life. Often they are professed by people who fail what their religion teaches. Often they are professed by people who do not even try to follow what their religion teaches. The religions of money and nationalism have caused a bit of destruction of their own.

[Toots]

24. Maybe a few more "Inquisitions" or "Crusades" or witch burnings would be nice..

You must admit religion has been the cause of much strife through out the world and still is today..

[hfojvt]

45. actually, no I do not have to admit that

It seems to me that alot of strife that masks itself as religious is really political/economic strife. Do people sell cigarettes for religious reasons? Lung cancer has killed 576,000 in the last three years. 9/11 and Bush's holy war (over oil) have not killed that many Americans. Maybe that many Iraqis have been killed, but the American purpose has been to fill the coffers of Haliburton and secure a supply of oil, not any religious purpose.

Why is it so easy to focus on the negative? Have there been in history no religious people who helped the poor and sick because of their relgion? Does the bad outweigh the good? Billions of ordinary and extraordinary acts of kindness and mercy happen all the time, but they are not news. Who gets remembered? Dylan Clebold, Jesse James, William T Sherman, etc. The violent and the powerful get noticed and remembered. See if you grab a gun, shoot up a school and kill 20 people, you make the news, perhaps world-wide. If, however, you donate a gallon of blood over 4 years and save 24 lives nobody will hear your name. It wont even make the local TV news.

Very few American history textbooks will mention Washington Gladden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Gladden
Apparently he was less important than Jesse James.

[cyborg_jim]

46. If bad people are bad irrespective of religion

Then so are good people.

[hfojvt]

47. who said anything about irrespective?

What does the religion teach? "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Turn the other cheek" "Do unto others" "Be a good Samaritan" "Love your enemies" "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit and care for the sick and imprisoned"

True, those can be taught without alot of nonsense about Adam and snakes and 3 wise men and walking on water and walls of Jericho and lion's dens. It is the value of the baby that I am extolling, not the bathwater.

The BTK killer was not a psychotic killer because he was following Jesus' teachings. Neither is Bush a liar, murderer and thief because of Jesus. Jesus never taught people to be liars, murderers or thieves. Even worse, Bush is using a supposed belief in Jesus to help hide the fact that he is a liar, murderer and thief.

[cyborg_jim]

48. Cherry picking

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

So much for being loving.

Shall I go on?

If one wants to do evil by Jesus then the Bible can provide. To pretend otherwise is to just ignore what the Bible has written in it.

[hfojvt]

54. If you were the son or brother of George W, Bush or Fred Phelps

why wouldn't that be sound advice? If a person loves his own life so much that he does not stand up to Nazis or corporate greed or war-mongers or hate-mongers, then where is the virtue in that?

You are taking it out of context and pretending it means something that it does not.

If one wants to do evil, they can find justification in their own minds, but I doubt if that is really where they learned to hate.

[cyborg_jim]

56. I disagree

You are taking it out of context and pretending it means something that it does not.

I fail to see why it cannot mean exactly what it says.

why wouldn't that be sound advice? If a person loves his own life so much that he does not stand up to Nazis or corporate greed or war-mongers or hate-mongers, then where is the virtue in that?

That is, uh, an 'interesting' way of seeing that verse.

If one wants to do evil, they can find justification in their own minds, but I doubt if that is really where they learned to hate.

By a similar token if one wants to find good in every verse in the Bible they can find justification in their own minds.

The fact remains, however, that the writings in question are from a less enlightened time. There is amply opportunity for hate to spring forth from the ideas contained within.

[Perky]

9. Bait taken: Lets execute all the athiests.

:) I am kidding obviously.

But there is a point which you should consider:

Jews, Christians, Moslems and other faiths seem to get along just fine on DU. And CHristian do not launch scurrilous attacks on people who choose not to beleive as they do. There are no faith based attacks....But athiests are obsesesed with attacking ad nauseum to the point of being complete jerks.


We let you guys alone on here why pick a fight with us?

[greyl]

10. I haven't picked a fight, I recognize one that's going on.

Can you cite one peaceful geographical border of any of the 5 major salvationist religions?

Or, are those borders the bloodiest?

[Perky]

12. Most people of faith will tell you that

their faight know no geographical border...

You insist that the sins of small minority sects invalidate the claims of entire faith movements. That is not unlike the Nazis blaming the Jews for all the problems in Germiany in the 1930s.

Its is a very smal step away ethnic cleansing or aparteid on the basis of religion.

POeople of faith don't demand such purification for the rest of society... why shouls athiest have the right to do the same??

[greyl]

14. Red herring. You're trying to avoid the question. nt

[MistressOverdone]

22. I'm not quite sure what your position is

Greyl. I can imagine no religion, but I have no idea if it would be a good or bad thing.

I know John Lennon wrote the song..did he also write or perform "Let it Be." ?

That is my mantra.

editing because I'm thinking some more: how are we defining religion? Does it necessarily have to do with god/gods? Because I think that some recent group think exercises (like Mao killing all the teachers, which has special interest to me) are not "religion" per se, but have the same characteristics.

I wonder what it is about our species that does this group stuff?

Good post, makes me think. I notice Lennon did not say "imagine there is no god." Although that might be covered indirectly in some of the lyrics.

[catbert836]

57. No. That was Paul.

And Lennon also said "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

[Meshuga]

42. If there were no broadbrush smears

then those terrorists would not attack innocent people on 911. But broadbrush smears do exist so innocent people died because of it which is sad. In the mind of the terrorist "America is evil" therefore they believe we American's are not innocent. Pretty sad and fucked up! I also wish broadbrush smears did not exist.

[zippy890]

6. wow

powerful graphic

the next evolutionary step for the human species will involve moving beyond religion.
probably partly because the religious ones will have destroyed each other, so the next generations won't have that 'religious' gene thing or whatever it is.

in that more utopian future without religion, threads like this where people discuss the general topic of religion won't be removed from general discussion.

thanks for posting that photo

[greyl]

18. Thanks. nt

[Kingshakabobo]

19. Are you saying the religiously insane won't take the rest of us with them....

.....when/if they destroy themselves?...You are more optimistic than me.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. The more we know

the less we need religion, yet in the process we become more spiritual.

[Jokinomx]

29. Yeah for Zippy!

I have been saying this for years. Not very many people understand that religion is only a stepping stone to learning to live without religions. Some day all people will outgrow the need of religion in their lives. They will overcome the need of someone telling them how they should live and actually live
by doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because you will be rewarded in "heaven" or punished in "hell".

I once had a fellow employee come up to me and ask. "Well, if you don't believe in God, then why don't you rape, pillage and steal?". Now I never ever told him I didn't believe in God... I told him I wasn't smart enough to determine if there was a God or not. As for his question.... I said "Because it is wrong." However, his question made me realize, if he didn't have religion in his life, his thinking was that he may actually do these things as he thought there would be no consequences for his actions.

Anyway...

Peace

Jokinomx

[EST]

7. I have imagined no religion...

The berserkers, the crazy destroyers of society, the zero empathy manipulators of public thought would have to find some other vehicle for the projection of their hate: atheists or boy scouts, maybe?

I have a suspicion that the bent of mind which promotes religious fervor is the same proclivity that inspires gifted leadership or makes one vulnerable to that gifted leadership.

My research indicates that the sort of person who rejects religion as irrelevant is that same sort who is unlikely to be particularly affected by inspired leadership, for good or ill.
The type of person who is likely to strongly proselytize against religion is merely the obverse of one who strongly embraces religion and is just as vulnerable to strong leadership and the uncritical following it creates.

In sum, the large majority of the world's populace has a desperate need for someone or something to worship and to transfer responsibility to. No matter how much we might like to change the setup, it ain't gonna happen.
So the solution has to be to find a way to fill that need non-destructively and detect and neutralize the destructive ones who would curl up inside their own need and imagine themselves the inspired solution to their own needs-the self king makers.

[B Calm]

11. No one would have the need to feel persecuted!

[Perky]

13. including the athiests?

[B Calm]

15. feeling persecuted because I didn't say atheists?

[Hubert Flottz]

16. WEll for heaven's snakes!

Who'd relieve the foolish of their funds and fund the GOP?

[mogster]

17. Pffft. Flamebait and another attack on free debate n/t

[Sailor for Warner]

20. I grew up Catholic

But became an atheist in college like every idiot kid who thinks his professors MUST be the the smartest people to walk G-ds green earth. But when I joined the atheist groups and participated in the debates, I realized that the atheist argument was almost as arrogant and flawed as that of the religious nutjobs, and often the atheists were even more crass and rude about it. I became more and more agnostic then slowly began to associate myself with the Theists, finally my simple wittle mind couldnt take the thought of being independent anymore and I converted to Judaism, and I have been a happy little sheep ever since <sarcasm at the end of course>

[quickesst]

21. Why not ask....

the question in this manner. "What if there had never been a concept of religion?" This may or may not have been the op's intention, but worded in a confrontational way, as usual. Regardless, this is my own humble opinion for your consideration.

There seems to be a disconnect when it comes to this particular point, in that the question is always posed with the concept of religion as established. My question is where would we be if the very idea of worshiping a diety had never been born? This is not an "attack" on religion, wherein you would have to have religion in order for it to be assaulted. My own opinion is, that the human race would be leaps and bounds ahead of where we are if the energy put into organized religion had been turned elsewhere, say, the progressive maturation of a race capable of achieving greater things than ever imagined. Whether "real" or superstition, we, as an intelligent species have chosen to kill our fellow man in religion's name. So simply put, I am not against religion because it is an established fact, and many people embrace a loving, peaceful society through religion. Unfortunately, the masses have taken this belief, twisted it into something that leaves a bad taste, takes lives wantonly, and persecutes others who do not believe as they do. I simply believe that human race would be better off if the concept had never taken root. Religion is not a prerequisite to being a good person. My opinion. Thanks.
quickesst

[Oleladylib]

23. Well, I have read all the posts(smiling) and if the discussion had

read...Imagine no faith-Not happening. Imagining no religion is good for human argument ...religion has done service to much and disservice to many..Faith has rewards beyond the ability to put into words. Interesting hypothesis here though..Thanks for the read

[Cobalt Violet]

25. How can 3 words set so many people off?

I guess they have no imagination.

[undeterred]

27. Imagine no religion bashing threads.

[Lilith Velkor]

28. That's awesome

Thanks for posting that. And it applies to "no countries" and "no posessions" too, if you think about it.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Imagine no atheism.

No Pol Pot...no Stalin...no Mao...

[cyborg_jim]

34. Yeah, that's right

They were all driven to kill by their vicious non-belief in gods.

Nothing to do with their egomaniacal tendencies at all.

[kwassa]

38. And those that use religions for bad ends are less egomaniacal?

Funny how that works.

Let's blame religion, but let's not blame atheism.

That is certainly fair.

[cyborg_jim]

39. Yep that's what I said. Exactly. Even though I didn't.

Let's blame religion, but let's not blame atheism.

That is certainly fair.

You cannot blame atheism. It doesn't say anything.

It's as meaningless to blame atheism for Pol Pot's behaviour as it would be to blame a lack of belief in fairies.

Religion, on the other hand, says a great deal of things.

Present a system of thought and it can be criticised for its tenets.

There are no atheist tenets. It is a void of dogma. It is valid to attack communism or fascism or the like but atheism is only an incidental quality.

What exactly is hard to comprehend there? Are all us atheists here alike? Do we all adhere to the same principals and philosophies?

Must an atheist be liberal? Must he be against the death penalty? Must he be against abortion?

Being an atheist only says one thing. It says you don't believe in gods. You cannot extrapolate anything else from it. It is therefore quite deceptive to pretend that atheism was a motivating factor in the actions of any of the aforementioned dictators.

[kwassa]

49. I disagree quite completely.

I think your argument is completely bogus for a couple of different reasons.

First, I believe atheism is an affirmative belief that there is no God, not a lack of belief in gods.
I generally don't go down this argument road because atheists around here get very upset about it, and I agreed not to share this opinion of it anymore. You, however, are using it as a center of your argument, so I need to state this. This is all I will say on this subject, lest the flame wars start anew.

Second, although there is no central dogma to atheists, you really are not all that different from one another, and judging by the arguments that I see in this forum, share many common beliefs and opinions. The idea that there is no commonality among atheists is a complete canard, and I don't accept it for one second. In fact, that is a false atheist belief, in my opinion. That there may be many areas of disagreement among atheists is also true, I am sure, but the promotion of the concept that there is nothing that causes you to group together is given the lie by the forums that you jointly participate in, and the opinions of one another that you echo. How much can you guys talk about Richard Dawkins and Steve Harris, anyways?

On the subject of these different murderous dictators who were indeed atheists, I would point out that their anti-religious beliefs caused them to persecute amd murder those that were religious. If that is not an affirmative atheist belief, I don't know what is.

and just so we don't go down this road again, I will point out previous arguments have gotten hung up on differences in word meanings, and I am using both "atheist" and "belief" as defined by dictionaries.

[cyborg_jim]

51. Wrong again

First, I believe atheism is an affirmative belief that there is no God, not a lack of belief in gods.

Oh, so now YOU have the decision as to what valid god concepts are?

No?

Then it's a rejection of a whole plethora of them, not any specific deity.

Your beliefs on the matter are quite irrelevant. Is your objective is to obscure discussion by playing semantic games? No? Then kindly do not tell other people what they believe.

Second, although there is no central dogma to atheists, you really are not all that different from one another, and judging by the arguments that I see in this forum, share many common beliefs and opinions.

Well that's a shocker!

(Psst, this IS the DEMOCRATIC UNION. I also share some beliefs with the theistic liberals here).

Oh, and are you implying that I'm really similar to Pol Pot? How lovely of you.

The idea that there is no commonality among atheists is a complete canard, and I don't accept it for one second.

Well thank's for the straw-man but that is not the argument. The point is simply that commonality is not required, not that it does not exist. In particular because many atheists are so through similar routes it is unsurprising that they share similar ideas.

How much can you guys talk about Richard Dawkins and Steve Harris, anyways?

I don't think I've ever actually talked about either of these people. I have no need to prop myself up on anyone else.

On the subject of these different murderous dictators who were indeed atheists, I would point out that their anti-religious beliefs caused them to persecute amd murder those that were religious. If that is not an affirmative atheist belief, I don't know what is.

Oh dear. No.

Religion is competition for totalitarian beliefs. It is hardly dissimilar to the kind of absolutist thought found in monotheistic religions where heathens are killed.

However if it is an atheist belief I guess I must relent.

Now if you would kindly give me an address where I can find and slaughter you then I can get on with the business of practising my religion.

and just so we don't go down this road again, I will point out previous arguments have gotten hung up on differences in word meanings, and I am using both "atheist" and "belief" as defined by dictionaries.

So? So do I. Use a better dictionary.

[cosmik debris]

53. So how do you know

That Stalin, Pol Pot etc. used the same definition of atheism that was written by theists instead of the definition of atheism written by and commonly used by atheists. What makes you think that a non-theist would have any use for theist's insulting definitions? I don't know any atheists who give a flying fig about the theist's definition.

[Az]

43. Its actually the same thing

First off as has been mentioned the various atheists that have slaughtered countless people did not do so specifically in the name of atheism. Atheism was just a part of their view. And it was their dogmatic belief system that determined what they believed was right or wrong. Their moral dogma is not based on atheism for atheism sites no moral convictions on its own.

By the same token those who have waged war in the name of God have done so because they believed it was the right thing to do. It is not the belief in God itself that leads so many to conflict. But it is the certainty of religious conviction and dogma that give many the drive to commit horrors and terrible acts in the name of love and God.

[kwassa]

50. I disagree with you as well.

Az:
"By the same token those who have waged war in the name of God have done so because they believed it was the right thing to do."

Or, they SAID that they were doing it in the name of God because it gave their crime legitimacy, although they were lying. Their real motivation was something else.


"It is not the belief in God itself that leads so many to conflict. But it is the certainty of religious conviction and dogma that give many the drive to commit horrors and terrible acts in the name of love and God."

This is true of ANY dogmatic belief, religious or not. It is the nature of dogma, not religion. Any who believes they have the total and complete truth, the sure sign of a dangerous fool. Can I say "Bush"? It is as true of atheist dictators as it is of power-hungry "Christian" kings.

[cosmik debris]

55. That's cute!

When a Christian kills in the name of god, that may not be his motive at all. But when an atheists kills to consolidate power, clearly it is because he is an atheist.

It must be hard to maintain your equilibrium with that much spinning in your head.

[Az]

58. Um... you seem to be agreeing with me

I am not saying all religious belief leads to conflict. I am saying that in some cases fanaticism due to a particular religious belief leads to conflict. And that this is true in any system that postulates an absolute sense of right or wrong religious, political, or social. In the end the thing that makes such things dangerous is the presumption of absolute knowledge or absolute truth. Without doubt then you can posit any group as inhuman and find justification to kill them.

[cosmik debris]

41. Hateful stereotypes

The only thing atheist have in common is that theists disagree with us. Any other attributes ascribed to atheist are stereotypes reflecting the bigotry of the person ascribing those stereotypes.

[Evoman]

44. If there had been no atheism, Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao probably would not exist, right?

Because, I mean...you gotta be atheist to be an egomaniac who kills people to get in power. There is no way that you can be communist, or hold socialist thoughts, without atheism. Plus, we all know religious people don't take over countries. There is no way pol pot or Stalin would have tried to use the disaffection of the poor in over to take over the state, and the current leadership if they had been religious. Cause religious people don't do that.

Ahem. *cough*

[Annces]

32. People kill over love too

Such as jealous lovers. You want to get rid of love?

[zippy890]

33. Zing! off to the subforums with you !*sigh*

why do people get their 'patties all waded' up (freeper expression)
when this subject is discussed.

and it is SO FRUSTRATING TO HAVE JUST COMPLETED A THOUGHTFUL REPLY, GO TO POST AND THE F**KING THREAD IS LOCKED*

one of the reasons I don't post at DU much any more

:rant:

[JackRiddler]

35. not just that...

The wrong forum was chosen, since this is not actually about religion, but about GreyL's main mission (I presume self-designated mission) at DU: In all contexts by all means no matter how fallacious to prop up the official mythology of 9/11.

[cyborg_jim]

37. As George Bush says

If you're not with us you're against us.

If you don't believe every CT out there then YOU are part of it.

All hail the New World Order!

[LonelyLRLiberal]

36. or anything else that divides people into "us" and "others"

I'd like to see a list of bad and good things done in the name of religious beliefs.

[kiahzero]

40. Great "argument."

:puke:

[cain_7777]

52. It will only happen through better education

[varkam]

59. Locking

Best,
varkam
DU Moderator