March 25 good news: 84 percent of the world population has faith........

[guillaumeb]

One can search for negative news about religious adherents, and in a population of believers that number an estimated 5.8 billion out of the 6.9 billion world population, there are always negative incidents to be found.

But religion is a force for great good. In this country, for example, religious people were in the forefront of the abolition movement, in the forefront of the civil rights movement, and in the forefront of the peace movement.

So to remind us all of the positives, I have started to post short pieces about progressive people of faith to inspire and remind us all that no matter how dark it appears to be, the fight goes on, and religious people are a part of that progressive struggle.

I hope you will like the coming pieces.

Edited to add: Judging by the many views, it seems that there is great interest in hearing good news about religion.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. To me, that's bad news.

[guillaumeb]

12. Glass half full versus glass half empty? eom

[DavidDvorkin]

20. No, it's bad news that it's so high

If it were below 50% and dropping, I'd be cheered and optimistic.

[Bradical79]

2. Can't say I agree -nt

[Lordquinton]

3. Quick questions:

Who was at the forefront of what the abolition movement was against?

Who was at the forefront of what Civil Rights was fighting against?

Who was in the forefront of what the peace movement was against?

[rug]

4. Henry Dawkins for the first two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Dawkins

Sam Harris for the third.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

[Lordquinton]

5. That's a real stretch

and lol sam harris.

Your bible endorses all three, so faith is found on both sides.

Tell me again what Sam Harris has actually done to wage war? Book tours?

[Lordquinton]

7. Your first post in a week and it's a personal attack?

Perhaps you can answer some long standing questions, like LGBTQIAs meaning, and whether you support your church's stance on abortion and marriage equality?

[beam me up scottie]

8. Oh I think we can do better. For instance wasn't the first slave ship named after Jesus?

The ship that began the slave trade was comandeered by Sir John Hawkins, a devoutly religious Christian slave trader:

The Good Ship Jesus | The Beginning of the Slave Trade

Katt McKinney

What has come to be referred to as “The Good Ship Jesus” was in fact the “Jesus of Lubeck,” a 700-ton ship purchased by King Henry VIII from the Hanseatic League, a merchant alliance between the cities of Hamburg and Lubeck in Germany. Twenty years after its purchase the ship, in disrepair, was lent to Sir John Hawkins by Queen Elizabeth.

Hawkins, a cousin of Sir Francis Drake, was granted permission from Queen Elizabeth for his first voyage in 1562. He was allowed to carry Africans to the Americas “with their own free consent” and he agreed to this condition. Hawkins had a reputation for being a religious man who required his crew to “serve God daily” and to love one another. Sir Francis Drake accompanied Hawkins on this voyage and subsequent others. Drake, was himself, devoutly religious. Services were held on board twice a day.

Off the coast of Africa, near Sierra Leone, Hawkins captured 300-500 slaves, mostly by plundering Portuguese ships, but also through violence and subterfuge promising Africans free land and riches in the new world. He sold most of the slaves in what is now known as the Dominican Republic. He returned home with a profit and ships laden with ivory, hides, and sugar. Thus began the slave trade.

More:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kathrynmckinney.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/the-good-ship-jesus-the-beginning-of-the-slave-trade/amp/

[beam me up scottie]

9. Mark Twain had much to say on the subject of peace and religion:

The War Prayer
by Mark Twain
1904

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spreads of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came – next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their faces alight with material dreams-visions of a stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! – then home from the war, bronzed heros, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation – "God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was that an ever – merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory.

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting.

With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal,"Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside – which the startled minister did – and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said

"I come from the Throne – bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd and grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import – that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of – except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two – one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of His Who hearth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this – keep it in mind. If you beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer – the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it – that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

I don't believe much has changed since Twain wrote that, in fact aren't Republicans trying to start another holy war egged on by the religious right?

Trump's Inaugural Address: A Call for Holy War
by Kevin Gosztola

President Donald Trump used his inaugural address to call for the “civilized world” to unite “against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.” It received one of the most enthusiastic responses from the crowd in attendance at the National Mall.

The words evoked memory of President George W. Bush and his administration. After the September 11th attacks, Bush referred to the “war on terrorism” as a “crusade.” It suggested the Bush administration meant to fight terrorism as a kind of holy war against Muslims.

Trump did not use the word “crusade,” but there was a distinct Christian theocratic theme to his gung ho declaration to “reinforce old alliances and form new ones” in the fight against “radical Islamic terrorism.”

“At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other,” Trump said.

Immediately after pining for a newfound commitment to war, he added, “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us, ‘how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.'”

More:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/01/21/trumps-inaugural-address-call-holy-war

[Lordquinton]

10. That's a good, and overlooked point

No, I don't think they're trying to start another, they're trying to continue the one started by W.

[beam me up scottie]

16. I thought about that too but for eight years we made it clear we weren't in a holy war with Islam.

Now that Twitler is in charge and his puppet strings are being pulled by the Heritage Foundation that's changed. He even tried to give Christian refugees preference over Muslims.

Remember - according to them this is a Christian nation and they want to make sure it stays that way. Turn on any conservative religious broadcast and they make it very clear who the 'other' is.

[Lordquinton]

17. That is true.

Same war, different leaders over the years changing the tone back and forth. Although even When. Made the distinction between radical and regular Islam.

[pangaia]

36. LIKE

[beam me up scottie]

45. :)

[guillaumeb]

13. Do you subscribe to the "great man" theory of history?

Abolitionists were at the forefront, and many abolitionists were coming from a position of faith. And the slaveholders were the opposition.

Stalin had many slaves, and these slaves labored in the gulag.

[Lordquinton]

15. Many slaveholders were religious

Interesting you chose to omit that detail. They also used their faith and the Bible to justify that.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Except religious abolitionists went against their own holy book when they opposed slavery.

They weren't opposed to slavery because their religious manual said it was wrong, on the contrary - the bible fully endorses owning and selling other human beings.

Pro-slavery Christians had it much easier, all they had to do was quote the word of God to show he supported their cause.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

Leviticus 25:44–6

Unless I'm mistaken God never changed his position on owning slaves.

[guillaumeb]

25. I follow the New Testament. eom

[beam me up scottie]

46. Was slavery forbidden in the New Testament?

[guillaumeb]

54. Fit the concept into "Do unto others" and you tell me. eom

[beam me up scottie]

57. If that was such an important concept why did so many Christians support slavery?

And why do so many support laws making women and lgbt people second class citizens?

Why do so many support the death penalty?

Why do so many still thrill at the thought of holy war with Islam?

[guillaumeb]

58. If you ask me my personal opinion on these issues,

I can answer because it is my opinion.

And in all the rhetoric about conservative Christians, it is important to remember that there are also conservative atheists who hold similar conservative positions.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Yes - but again said atheists aren't citing a holy book to support those positions.

When a Christian does the right thing his brethren practically fall all over themselves to point out that his actions are because he's Christian and they point to selected excerpts from the bible to prove it.

In fact the bible has been declared THE source for morality and the word 'Christian' has become synonymous with morally upstanding behaviour.

I find that absurd considering how many millions have been oppressed, tortured and slaughtered in the name of Christianity.

[guillaumeb]

66. Absurd is one word. Sad is another. eom

[HopeAgain]

101. They cite the holy book of profit and loss and progress

I try to stay off this thread because the anti-faith bigotry on here is so hypocritical.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Oh? We have a holy book? And what's this 'atheist bible' called?

Atheism is defined as no belief in gods - here's the actual dictionary definition:

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

There are no atheist deities, there is no atheist doctrine, no atheist dogma, there are no atheist commandments and no atheist holy texts.

Knowing this can you explain how you conclude atheists worship money and progress? This is the first time I've heard that claim.

Also can you explain how quoting the bible and discussing its logical inconsistencies is hypocritical and "anti-faith bigotry"?

[HopeAgain]

109. You are painting all people with faith with a broad brush...

It's called stereotyping. So I thought those who attack faith on here as if we all interpret the Bible the same way wouldn't mind me using a broad brush as well. I guess not.

Huh!

[beam me up scottie]

111. Really? Quoting the bible is "attacking faith" and stating facts is "stereotyping" people?

Can you show me where I attacked "all people of faith"?

Here are my posts again:

Except religious abolitionists went against their own holy book when they opposed slavery.

They weren't opposed to slavery because their religious manual said it was wrong, on the contrary - the bible fully endorses owning and selling other human beings.

Pro-slavery Christians had it much easier, all they had to do was quote the word of God to show he supported their cause.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

Leviticus 25:44–6

Unless I'm mistaken God never changed his position on owning slaves.

If that was such an important concept why did so many Christians support slavery?

And why do so many support laws making women and lgbt people second class citizens?

Why do so many support the death penalty?

Why do so many still thrill at the thought of holy war with Islam?

Note the underlined qualifiers - I specifically referred to "so many" Christians instead of "all".

Huh indeed.



And just out of curiosity, how many different ways are there to interpret the following passage?:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

Leviticus 25:44–6

[HopeAgain]

113. Most Christians do not take everything in the Bible literally or apply ancient laws to modern life..

Why do you think we are tied to that? I suggest you read some John Campbell or Karen Armstrong to see how we can have faith without being literalists and fundamentalist. Maybe if you study the great religions of the world instead of just damning them, you would learn more about the people who practice them.

Most Democrats are tolerant, but this that not all are as this thread shows. Most Christians are good people, but certainly not all are.

There is an atheist thread, why don't you all go there and bash away. I find these types of posts in the Religion Forum to be arrogant offensive and possibly a violation of the TOS.

[beam me up scottie]

114. Since I never actually said that you're using a straw man.

straw man:

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Please address what I actually wrote instead of misrepresenting my posts, thank you. And as an aside I believe polls have indicated that atheists are more knowledgeable about religion than believers:

Survey: Atheists, Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious

Please stop making unsubstantiated claims about what atheists think and know.

And here is the Statement of Purpose for this forum:

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

Criticism of religion isn't a violation of the TOS and neither is pointing out religious hypocrisy.

If you find the debates about religion in here uncomfortable there are several groups specifically created for believers who don't want to read posts from atheists. Many find DU's more contentious forums aren't to their liking while others enjoy robust debate, I'm one of the latter.

[HopeAgain]

123. Taking the specific and generalizing it to the whole..

The OP said that religion is still a force for good. It was never argued that everything in the bible was corrector moral or that religion has at times, played a good role. So maybe the straw man thing works both ways.

But that is what generalizing is-- taking the bad instances and paint it broadly to imply that religion is a bad force over all. You are generalizing from the specific. Kinda like the way people attack Black Lives Matter and the anti-Muslim web sites argue for a Muslim Ban.

Your post with the "so many" underlined is exactly that, whether you want to see what I am saying as a straw man argument or not.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Didn't I ask you to stop misrepresenting my posts?

It was never argued that everything in the bible was corrector moral or that religion has at times, played a good role. So maybe the straw man thing works both ways.

Since I never accused the op of claiming "everything in the bible was corrector moral or that religion has at times, played a good role. " by definition I'm not using a straw man.

But that is what generalizing is-- taking the bad instances and paint it broadly to imply that religion is a bad force over all. You are generalizing from the specific.

How am I generalizing? I've asked you to point it out in my posts once and you ignored me.

Again quoting the bible and stating facts is not stereotyping or generalizing - one's dislike of well known facts is not proof of intolerance.

Kinda like the way people attack Black Lives Matter and the anti-Muslim web sites argue for a Muslim Ban.

False equivalency: again no one is attacking faith or stereotyping believers. Posting excerpts from the bible isn't an attack on religion and pointing out religious hypocrisy isn't an attack of people of faith. Citing facts in a debate is not intolerance, it's how you prove your claim.

Your post with the "so many" underlined is exactly that, whether you want to see what I am saying as a straw man argument or not.

How is pointing out that so many Christians supported slavery "generalizing"?

How is pointing out that so many support laws making women and lgbt people second class citizens "generalizing"?

How is pointing out that so many Christians support the death penalty "generalizing"?

How is pointing out that so many Christians still thrill at the thought of holy war with Islam "generalizing"?


I used the term many as a qualifier - you know instead of saying all like you claimed at first or most like you're claiming now. That's called moving the goalposts.

Here is the dictionary definition of many:

a large number of

So let's recap: specifying many is different than claiming all or most Christians support those positions.

Stating a large number of Christians support those positions isn't an attack - it's a fact.


Please stop misrepresenting my posts so you can knock down straw man arguments instead of addressing my points, I'm getting tired of repeating myself and posting definitions of simple terms.

[HopeAgain]

132. A large number of athiest

love to point out archaic terms in the bible.

Apparently, for no good reason or to prove no point, according to them.

I am done.

[beam me up scottie]

134. A large number of theists do the same every weekend in church.

Apparently to support their positions on the death penalty, lgbt rights and holy war with Islam. The same way theists used passages from the bible to support their pro-slavery position.

But it's intolerant when atheists point this out?

Interesting.

There's a very good reason to point out the fact that passages from holy books are used to oppress women and minorities - when people only focus on the feel good parts of the bible they ignore the very real damage that's done by others who use the same holy book to promote and legislate discrimination.

It's similar to whitewashing history - the victims get forgotten because at best we don't like being reminded of atrocities committed by our ancestors, or at worst because we want to rewrite history to absolve our ancestors of any blame.

If you want to focus on the feel good stuff that's fine, but in this forum we're allowed to present an opposing view - and I think it's important to do so.

[HopeAgain]

135. And we need to remember how

people have been persecuted throughout history simply because of their religion. And I'm sure that it often starts by simply pointing out passages in their holy books that were inconsistent with the beliefs of the majority.

In fact, go on Facebook and look up anti-Muslim sites, that is exactly what they do with the Koran. I'm not saying you will oppress, but sometimes one can lay a brick into the road towards discrimination without thinking about what they are really doing.

People who claim religion as a basis to oppress, misuse religion, they don't practice it.

By blaming slavery on religion, you are whitewashing the fact that it was born in America out of greed an unchecked capitalism. They didn't do it because they were religious, they used people as chattel out of greed. They found some archaic passage in the Bible to argue for it, but they would have done it anyway. Let's not whitewash how technology, unchecked by any moral or ethical system, is destroying our environment and threatening our very existence. I don't blame technology, I blame the people who misuse it.

[beam me up scottie]

136. More logical fallacies?

And we need to remember how
people have been persecuted throughout history simply because of their religion. And I'm sure that it often starts by simply pointing out passages in their holy books that were inconsistent with the beliefs of the majority.

Yes - and they were almost always persecuted by people who belonged to the same or other religions. The crusades, the inquisition, religious genocides, the Holocaust - all done in the name of religion.

In fact, go on Facebook and look up anti-Muslim sites, that is exactly what they do with the Koran. I'm not saying you will oppress, but sometimes one can lay a brick into the road towards discrimination without thinking about what they are really doing.

This isn't an anti-Muslim site - it's a liberal forum where atheists and theists alike regularly criticize religious oppression. Check out any of the threads about the right wing religious majority, you'll see theists here take as much delight in 'bashing' them as we do. In fact bashing right wing religious nut jobs has always been a favourite sport here. Posting facts about religion and bashing religious conservatives isn't oppression - and it won't lead to liberals rounding them up and putting them in camps.

People who claim religion as a basis to oppress, misuse religion, they don't practice it.

That's demonstrably false considering I already posted several excerpts from the bible showing how it instructs its followers to oppress and kill others.

When they burned heretics at the stake they were practicing religion.

When they stoned gay people to death they were practicing religion.

When they killed infidels for not believing in the same god they were practicing religion.

When they oppressed and slaughtered native Americans because of Manifest Destiny they were practicing religion.

History is littered with the corpses of religion's victims, you can't possibly believe the oppressors were all atheists.

By blaming slavery on religion, you are whitewashing the fact that it was born in America out of greed an unchecked capitalism. They didn't do it because they were religious, they used people as chattel out of greed.

Another straw man, my dog this is getting old.

I didn't "blame slavery on religion", I simply pointed out the fact that it's endorsed by the bible and that Christians participated in the slave trade, owned slaves and fought for it to remain legal. Those are facts - posting them isn't intolerant and it certainly isn't oppression to point out that many Christians were responsible and used the bible to support their position.

They found some archaic passage in the Bible to argue for it, but they would have done it anyway.

You mean the same way Christians used the other 'archaic' passages I posted to oppress and slaughter witches, lgbt people and non-Christians? And the same way they're still using the bible to oppress women and lgbt people today?

Let's not whitewash how technology, unchecked by any moral or ethical system, is destroying our environment and threatening our very existence. I don't blame technology, I blame the people who misuse it.

Is technology an ideology that's practiced by billions of followers all over the world and used to oppress and murder people who don't follow it?

If not then that's false equivalency.

[HopeAgain]

137. Wow, what a blind spot...

You are both making your argument, and denying the very same argument when I point it out.

You say:

"Is technology an ideology that's practiced by billions of followers all over the world and used to oppress and murder people who don't follow it?"

First, my answer is that yes, technology is exactly that when it is unchecked by morality and ethics, both of which were framed in religious societies. Second, if that is not generalizing (implying a relationship between oppressing and murdering and the billions who practice an ideology), than I can't imagine what is.

Also if your "tiring" of my arguments, then you can take your supercilious attitude and walk away from the discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

138. Cite your source please.

First, my answer is that yes, technology is exactly that when it is unchecked by morality and ethics, both of which were framed in religious societies

Here's the definition of technology:

the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"

machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.

the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

Please point out the part where it says it's an ideology or provide another definition from a reliable source.

Also if you could show me where followers of this nonexistent ideology used its nonexistent dogma to persecute others that would be great, thanks. Because we can clearly see that religious dogma has been used to persecute others for thousands of years.

And if I recall correctly religion was often used to block scientific and technological advances. They certainly persecuted and killed plenty of scientists.

Second, if that is not generalizing (implying a relationship between oppressing and murdering and the billions who practice an ideology), than I can't imagine what is.

It's not generalizing to state that a holy book has been used by religious people to oppress and kill others when excerpts from that holy book are cited as the reason why religious people killed and oppressed.

Let's look at those passages again:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life. Leviticus 25:44–6

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21: 9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

...everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Are you actually claiming that religion in general and those passages in particular haven't been used to oppress and kill people? Seriously?

Also if your "tiring" of my arguments, then you can take your supercilious attitude and walk away from the discussion.

Why would I do that when I'm obviously winning this debate and also using it as a teaching opportunity? I'm thoroughly enjoying this and I'm quite good at it as you can see. I also don't resort to ad homs - that's a fallacy the losing side often employs when they can't refute the winning side's points.

And didn't you already say you were done a while ago?

[beam me up scottie]

112. And how many different interpretations are there for these?:

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21: 9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

...everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

These are all in your holy book and countless victims were oppressed, tortured and slaughtered because of them. I fail to see how posting about it is an attack on faith.

[HopeAgain]

143. Straw Argument

I never said anything about interpreting those or any other verse, or that there weren't archaic verses in the Bible.

If you believe most "religious wars" were really about religion, maybe you should do more reading about history. I suggest anything by Karen Armstrong, a religious history scholar (Before you deny arguing that, note that you said these verses " made" people do those things).

My position is that it is a stilted and myopic view of religion to focus on a few versus (that most people treat as nothing more than historical) without seeing any of the myriad of good things religion has brought to the daily lives of billions.

[beam me up scottie]

144. Again - not a straw man since you suggested there were different interpretations.

After you brought up that old canard I asked you to explain how those passages could be interpreted differently. So it's not a logical fallacy. But nice try.

If you believe most "religious wars" were really about religion, maybe you should do more reading about history.

Religious wars are by definition religious - there's no need for scare quotes. Pretending that millions of people weren't oppressed and slaughtered in the name of religion is historical revisionism. It's the same argument used by southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery because they don't like how history reflects badly on their ancestors.

I suggest anything by Karen Armstrong, a religious history scholar (Before you deny arguing that, note that you said these verses " made" people do those things).

I'm not going to read books by religious scholars who are only interested in exonerating religion. If I was interested in that perspective I could simply go to Conservapedia or any right wing religious website.

If you have any evidence from unbiased sources that proves wars weren't fought over religion and/or that religious people didn't believe they were doing what their god wanted when they followed the instructions in their holy book I'll be happy to look at it. However I've seen people attempt to prove that allegation countless times before and they always fall far short.

My position is that it is a stilted and myopic view of religion to focus on a few versus (that most people treat as nothing more than historical) without seeing any of the myriad of good things religion has brought to the daily lives of billions.

Now see THAT is a straw man. No one here has a "stilted and myopic view of religion" - well at least none of the atheists do. And we don't claim that religion doesn't inspire people to do good things. We simply prefer a more realistic historical perspective - one not based on years of bible class and a chronic lack of exposure to facts about religious persecution throughout the ages.

Those who claim religious believers haven't oppressed, slaughtered and waged wars against other humans because of their religious beliefs are usually suffering from confirmation bias. They ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary and instead concentrate on carefully selected religious "scholars" who pander to believers that want a rosier picture of their history.

[beam me up scottie]

145. Interesting. I googled your religious "scholar" and it appears I was correct.

Wishful thinking: Karen Armstrong continues her quest to absolve religion from playing any role in violence

In 1095, Pope Urban II asked the knights of France to take on a sacred mission. The Christians of the East had fallen under the dominion of Muslim rulers, as had the holy city of Jerusalem, and it was time to rescue them. It was to be, the pope suggested, "an act of love" where they were to "nobly [lay] down their lives for their Eastern brothers".

The knights left in the spring, brimming with zeal to win back the Holy Land for Christendom. In Germany, they pillaged and murdered the local Jewish population. "Do we need to travel to distant lands in the East to attack the enemies of God," wondered one participant, "when there are Jews right before our eyes, a race that is the greatest enemy of God?" After arriving in Jerusalem in 1099, following years of bloody attacks on the local Muslim population, and a five-week siege of the city, the knights gathered at the tomb of Jesus, singing Easter hymns and thanking God for their success. It was the first Crusade. More would follow.


The religious historian Karen Armstrong has set herself a complex and fraught task with her new book, Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence [Amazon.com; Amazon.co.uk]. Surveying the whole of recorded human history, the former Roman Catholic nun seeks to discover the links between religious belief and violence like the Crusaders’. What inspires the faithful to take up arms in the name of God? Is religion, as Armstrong imagines its critics arguing, "responsible for more war, oppression, and suffering than any other human institution"?

***

But Fields of Blood is less history than polemic. Armstrong has a brief – to defend religion against the slings and arrows of outrageous secularism – and writes from a defensive crouch, intent on downplaying any perception of religion as a fundamental motivating factor in human violence. "Modern society has made a scapegoat of faith," she argues in the book’s introduction, and the rest of Fields of Blood aims to debunk the notion that religion is exclusively or excessively responsible for the world’s ills.

***

Armstrong makes a habit of downplaying one religiously fuelled atrocity by highlighting another. She regularly analyses cruel behaviour through the lens of the beliefs of the people committing the atrocities. Religious torturers may have meant well, but bloodthirsty savagery often appears in the guise of piety or patriotism or self-defence. Fields of Blood’s defence of religion also mostly ignores (with the exception of the Crusades) the long, squalid history of religiously motivated violence and bigotry towards practitioners of other faiths. What is the thousand-year history of anti-Semitism in Europe other than an expression of Christian fear and hatred of Judaism, often emerging in outbursts of horrific violence prompted by wild rumours of Jews killing children or poisoning wells?

Armstrong, writing for a secularised western audience, wants us to clear away our ill-informed beliefs about the corrosive effects of religious faith. Religion is forever intertwined with politics and society, and is rarely responsible for the crimes attributed to its influence. But merely to state that religion’s violent impulses are often linked to nationalist ideology, or that those who commit crimes in religion’s name are often ignorant about its tenets, is not enough.

Religion, as Armstrong argues in the book’s afterword, "does lots of different things". The Hindu rioters who tore down the Babri mosque may have been as ill-informed about the precepts of their religion as the crusading medieval knights, but to simply excuse them from the charmed circle of the religious elect is insufficient. Dismissing an entire religion because of the horrific acts of some of its practitioners is intellectually lazy; but dismissing those practitioners from their faiths because of the conclusions they reached about what belief meant is intellectually dishonest.

http://m.thenational.ae/arts-lifestyle/the-review/wishful-thinking-karen-armstrong-continues-her-quest-to-absolve-religion-from-playing-any-role-in-violence

See I've seen this kind of 'reasoning' before and it's always the same.

Who am I supposed to believe: religious people who commit atrocities and claim it's because of their religious beliefs or a few revisionists who tell us to ignore the words of those believers and thousands of years of evidence?

[HopeAgain]

149. You are going to believe what you want to believe

Last edited Fri Mar 31, 2017, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

I would put Armstrong's credentials and detailed citations up against a movie critic any time. Multiple books, peer reviewed articles and Ted Talks and awards mean something to me. I have read Hitchins even though I don't agree with him. Maybe you should do the same, she does a better job of describing the use of mythos in religion better than I ever could.

But that's the point, you don't understand how the Bible can be an instrument for good and it's obvious you have no interest in learning.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

[beam me up scottie]

152. This isn't about belief, it's about facts and history -apologists distort both to pimp their agenda.

I would put Armstrong's credentials and detailed citations up against a movie critic any time. Multiple books, peer reviewed articles and Ted Talks and awards mean something to me. I have read Hitchins even though I don't agree with him.

What credentials? She's a former nun and English teacher turned apologist who specializes in historical revisionism. Why would anyone besides other apologists think she's credible on the subject of history? That's like asking me to have faith in Neo-Confederates' historical revisionism because they also wrote articles and books.

Christian apologists are no different than Neo-Confederate apologists - they both blur the truth because they see it as hostile to their worldview. They both attempt to whitewash history and absolve their own of any blame. And both are extremely popular among their peers, but that doesn't make them more knowledgeable than unbiased historians. Anyone can claim to be a historian and I regularly debate Civil War 'scholars' who insist the war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. I don't find them any more credible than Armstrong.

Maybe you should do the same, she does a better job of describing the use of mythos in religion better than I ever could.

Frankly I'm not interested in her theo-babble either, I don't care for religious naval gazing. Daniel Dennett has her number and I'll put his credentials up against the former English teacher's any day:

Her most prominent rationalist critic is Daniel Dennett, who finds her views to be mushy, muddled, and confused. She arguably fits Dennett's definition of a "murky" who advocates accepting an ambiguous and mysterious world, as opposed to a "super" with clearly defined belief in supernatural miracles (or a rationalist "bright&quot . Dennett has argued that her confused worldview is part of the way that modern religion has evolved to protect its existence. Dennett's critique was presented as part of his presentation The Evolution of Confusion at the 2007 AAI conference. P. Z. Myers has also weighed in, objecting to her presentation of the history of religion.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

People with confirmation bias prefer polemicists like Armstrong who revise history and lie about the causes of religious violence because apologists care more about protecting religion's reputation and defending it from those awful secularists than they do about truth.

Apologists also absolve religion and blame other factors for violence and other immorality because that allows them to feel superior, they regularly lay the blame on secularism and science. When apologists claim faith ONLY motivates people to do good things that 'proves' religious people are inherently more moral than atheists. Religious moral superiority is a comfortable delusion but it's founded on bigotry.

But that's the point, you don't understand how the Bible can be an instrument for good and it's obvious you have no interest in learning.

Yet another straw man. Why do you keep misrepresenting my posts?

Intellectual dishonesty

Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully omitted when such things contradict one's hypothesis, or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions. Broadly speaking, any of the following behaviors would fall under intellectual dishonesty.

Deliberately ignoring facts and arguments that would undermine your position. (willful ignorance)

Knowingly using a logical fallacy.

Common forms of intellectual dishonesty include plagiarism, applying double standards, using false analogies, exaggeration and overgeneralization, presenting straw man arguments, and poisoning the well (not literally).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

Let me repeat myself one more time because it's obvious you're deliberately misrepresenting my words and I think it's important to call out that kind of tactic. I have NEVER said that religion can't inspire people to do good things.

In fact I actually stated this in my previous post and you completely ignored it:

And we don't claim that religion doesn't inspire people to do good things. We simply prefer a more realistic historical perspective - one not based on years of bible class and a chronic lack of exposure to facts about religious persecution throughout the ages.

Apparently you also missed the point of ALL of my posts in this thread and I'm tired of battling your straw man army so I'm going to simplify it.


1) The bible commands believers to oppress, torture and murder people. That is a fact, it is not up for debate, there are no alternative interpretations of the passages I cited just like there are no alternative facts.

2) Christians have followed those instructions for thousands of years resulting in the suffering and deaths of millions. That is a fact, it is part of every historical record and it is not up for debate.

3) Christians are still using the bible to oppress women, lgbt people and followers of other religions. This is a fact, it is not up for debate, you can hear them cite it every weekend in thousands of churches all over the world.

4) Religious people commit atrocities because they believe that's what their god wants them to do. This is a fact, it is not up for debate, they willingly admit they're motivated by religion.

5) I do not dispute that people also do good things because of religion. This fact is irrelevant because it doesn't disprove my point - which is that millions of people still suffered and died because of religion throughout history.

Stating over and over again that religion can be a force for good doesn't absolve religion or religious people who commit atrocities. Attempting to rewrite history to absolve religion and religious people is disrespectful to the victims of of those atrocities - and I care more about telling their stories than I do about the feelings of believers who are offended by them.

When it comes to agreeing to disagree you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. No one has been able to prove religious oppression and violence isn't motivated by religion and that hasn't changed because popular apologists sold a few books.

[HopeAgain]

155. So to sum it all up

Let’s face it, to say there would be more or less violence historically with or without religion is mere conjecture on either side.

One can say ISIS is motivated by religion, that's what they claim, but I believe ISIS is the result of disenfranchisement caused by a century plus of western colonization, western subjugation, and illegal invasion by western forces. It is likely that they would just have a different justification for their actions if there were no Islam. Tribalism predates religion and it can follow religious, ethnic, geographical, political, historical lines and I believe it’s easy to blame religion because bad people frequently used it to as cover for other motivations.

Maybe we can agree to disagree as follows:

1. You have pointed out that there are archaic commands in the Bible that you believe have caused followers to oppress, murder and torture people; I believe people’s motives are complex and often religion is misused to justify actions more deeply caused by bigotry, economic struggles, territorial disputes and the like.

1. You have argued religion has been used as a force for evil and I have said that science and technology can be misused for other purposes as well (think atom bomb and all the civilians killed in Japan, Dresden, Dachau etc.). I believe the blind pursuit of technology and progress is in itself very religion-like; you do not.

I believe religion can play an important role to still provide ethics and morals; you seem to believe that religious ethics are dominated by the fundamentalists, to which I don’t agree –there’s no real way quantify and to know who is right. For every violent act, I could point to a shelter or meal provided by a religious institution.

You have agreed there are good things in the Bible; I believe that such good may in fact have caused more mercy and goodwill than death and destruction; apparently you not so much. There’s no way to know who would be right, because again, there is no way to quantify it.

Finally, I don't care what atheists think and I would prefer it if they felt the same way about how we think and not talk about our "babble" so I don't have to point out their "arrogance." But I have learned through my spirituality that we just need to live and let live.

[beam me up scottie]

156. Not quite but we're getting there.

Let’s face it, to say there would be more or less violence historically with or without religion is mere conjecture on either side.

I don't speculate on whether or not there would be more or less violence because it's irrelevant. The fact remains that millions suffered and died because of bigoted religious beliefs and many are still being oppressed and slaughtered today. I only care about preventing it. Imo educating people about religion's role in thousands of years of oppression, slavery, genocide and war is important and denying it is irresponsible.

You have pointed out that there are archaic commands in the Bible that you believe have caused followers to oppress, murder and torture people; I believe people’s motives are complex and often religion is misused to justify actions more deeply caused by bigotry, economic struggles, territorial disputes and the like.

Just because you think religion is misused doesn't mean it isn't the motivating factor behind religious intolerance and violence. It's arrogant to assume believers are too stupid to know their own minds. And it's ridiculous to claim that intolerant and violent believers interpret their religion incorrectly when anyone can see their holy texts and leaders instruct them to oppress and murder others.

When a Christian fundamentalist supports discrimination against lgbt people and claims he was motivated by his religion who am I to say he's mistaken when his holy book clearly instructs Christians to persecute gay people? Who am I to say he's mistaken when his religious leaders cite the bible every day as the source for these beliefs? Should I believe apologists or my own eyes?

When a Muslim extremist kills an unbeliever and claims it was because he was motivated by his religion who am I to say he's mistaken when he can easily point to a passage in his holy book that supports this action? Who am I to say he's mistaken when his religious leaders cite the Koran every day as the source for these beliefs? Should I believe apologists or my own eyes?

When an ultra-Orthodox Jewish man refuses to sit next to a woman on an airplane because his religion teaches that we're unclean who am I to say he's mistaken when he can point to a passage in his holy book that forbids contact with menstruating women? Who am I to say he's mistaken when his religious leaders cite the Talmud every day as the source for these beliefs? Should I believe apologists or my own eyes?

You cannot divorce the actions of religious people from their religious beliefs. It doesn't work that way. Holy texts are considered to be the word of God and religious leaders base their teachings on them so it's incomprehensible to me how anyone can claim they have little to no effect on behaviour.

I believe religion can play an important role to still provide ethics and morals; you seem to believe that religious ethics are dominated by the fundamentalists, to which I don’t agree –there’s no real way quantify and to know who is right. For every violent act, I could point to a shelter or meal provided by a religious institution.

Another straw man, I never claimed that religious ethics are dominated by fundamentalists.

Good deeds don't cancel out bad ones. You cannot have it both ways - if religion is powerful enough to motivate people to do good then it's powerful enough to motivate people to do evil. You cannot claim that only good deeds are attributable to religion, it doesn't work that way. It's either responsible for both or neither.

Finally, I don't care what atheists think and I would prefer it if they felt the same way about how we think and not talk about our "babble" so I don't have to point out their "arrogance." But I have learned through my spirituality that we just need to live and let live.

It's wonderful that you believe in live and let live - most liberals theists agree with that philosophy - but since other religious people are constantly trying to restrict the rights of others and worse it's obvious that many don't follow that rule.

Live and let live isn't just a religious concept and neither is the golden rule. Religion didn't invent morality, it co-opted it.

If religious people want to celebrate the good news that's fine with me, but I refuse to look the other way when I see the bad. We each focus on what we consider more important and in the end liberal believers and atheists agree more than they disagree.

Peace.

[Bretton Garcia]

158. "Slaves, obey your masters": Paul, in the New Teatament

[NeoGreen]

102. Matt 10:34

http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

As part of the man-god's apparent statement of purpose in the manifesto:

33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. 34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law 36 A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me 38 and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Me..me...me...



Is this part of the new testament?

[guillaumeb]

105. Define metaphor.

And apply that definition to this passage. Unless, of course, you are a Biblical literalist.

[NeoGreen]

108. And apply that definition too...

...what, the whole body of the book or just the naughty bits we don't like?

Whole body = all metaphor, god too

Naughty bits only = self interpreted worthless "news", bad or good

[guillaumeb]

116. There are literalists, and not-literalists.

So if you are determined to insist on a literal interpretation, you can, of course, make an argument based on your interpretation.

[NeoGreen]

119. Piffle...

...in no way did I insist on a literal interpretation.

But, if one is inclined to be a "picker and chooser" as you seem to identify with, be forewarned that consequently anyone is allowed to pick and choose, and therefore it is just as valid to say the bible is bad-news (e.g. Matt 10:34) as it is to say it is good-news. A net zero to the conversation.

[guillaumeb]

122. In that vein,

if one focuses solely on the bad news, everything and everyone can be painted as a negative. And the opposite applies for the good news crowd.

My personal view is that people can use anything to justify what they want to do, but that says nothing about the claimed source of justification and everything about the actor.

At one point Anders Breivik claimed to be a Christian, at another he said he was an atheist. No matter how he described himself, by his actions he was revealed to be a murderer.

[NeoGreen]

125. You prove my point...

...

My personal view is that people can use anything to justify what they want to do, but that says nothing about the claimed source of justification and everything about the actor.

Here endeth the lesson...

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. "But religion is a force for great good."

Except for when it isn't.

[guillaumeb]

14. Patriotism can also be a force for good,

except for when it is not.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. I assume you're trying to make some sort of point here.

Not a very good point, from the looks of it. I mean, if your best retort to thousands of years of intolerance, cruelty, and regressive superstition is "patriots do it, too", you're not standing on the thickest of ice.

And that's not even taking the concept of "civic religion" into account. You probably don't want to go there.

[guillaumeb]

26. The point is that people justify what they do by saying that they are following a code of behavior.

And patriotism is used as justification for violence.

[Lordquinton]

31. But you can't point to line and verse in the patriot book

Where you justify your actions. Religion is unique that way.

[guillaumeb]

32. I can point to the Monroe Doctrine,

and the Carter Doctrine, among other justifications for US imperialism.

Thus disposing of the unique argument.

[Lordquinton]

33. So what book are they pointing to in the writing of those documents?

Where are they getting their authority?

[guillaumeb]

37. I am not Monroe or Carter.

You must direct your question to them. Perhaps they used the Constitution for their inspiration, or the unwritten code that states that the US is a force for good, thus justifying all US actions as motivated by the good.

But, as I stated, you must ask them.

[Lordquinton]

43. So you can't support your claims?

I'm asking you.

[guillaumeb]

53. If you are familiar with the Monroe and Carter Doctrines,

and familiar with US history, you are familiar with all of this. If you are not, I would recommend the Howard Zinn book, A People's History of the United States.

[Lordquinton]

63. Ok but...

Can you actually back it up? Or just more deflection?

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. I'm pretty familiar with it.

Familiar enough to know that Zinn spends much of his chapter on the Monroe Doctrine talking about interventions of the mid to late 19th century, after the Monroe Doctrine became inseparably intertwined with Manifest Destiny.

That this was not a wholly secular enterprise, as you mistakenly present it to be, is neither here nor there, because the fundamental issue with your argument still stands: it's tu quoque nonsense. I don't care if patriotism produces cruelty and intolerance at a rate similar to or exceeding that of religion. The sins of patriotism don't excuse the sins of religion, and in this religion forum we are in every way right to discuss the relative disadvantages of religion without constantly comparing it to other, similarly ludicrous secular modes of belief.

And no, I don't buy this "bad people will justify their badness with anything" routine. People aren't born bad. They are socialized, and in a religious society like ours, religion plays a huge role in socialization.

[guillaumeb]

78. And in an atheistic society like Russia or China,

is there also socialization?

And were there any negatives associated with that socialization?

[Act_of_Reparation]

83. Russia is an "atheistic society"?

Have you watched the news since, say, 1991?

[guillaumeb]

84. Thank you for your response.

State atheism was an official policy in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states. The Soviet Union used the term gosateizm, a syllabic abbreviation of "state" (gosudarstvo) and "atheism" (ateizm), to refer to a policy of expropriation of religious property, publication of information against religion and the official promotion of anti-religious materials in the education system. Governments that have implemented official policies of anti-clericalism oppose religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

While Russia claims to be more tolerant............

[Act_of_Reparation]

99. That's a fairly audacious deployment of snark given how egregiously wrong you are.

Last edited Thu Mar 30, 2017, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

At least twice now you've provided Russia as an example of an atheistic state, in the present tense. It is not. For almost two decades now the Russian government, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, has been building a Russian identity at least partly around the Russian Orthodox church. A majority of ethnic Russians identify as Orthodox and the number is rising.

The Soviet Union, not Russia, was an atheistic state. And it hasn't existed since I was in grade school.

Finally, like the conservative Christians from whom you're ripping this asinine example, you're making a composition error. Communism demands an atheist state. Communists therefore, are atheists. Not all atheists, however, are communists. There is nothing inherent to atheism that demands under threat of persecution that everyone else be atheist, too. That's a communism problem, not an atheism problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. [ Citation Required ]

[guillaumeb]

106. [ Clarification of meaning required ]

[AtheistCrusader]

110. Please provide an example of nationalism being a 'good thing'.

[guillaumeb]

117. I leave that to each individual. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

140. But you made a claim... and you refuse to support it?

[guillaumeb]

141. If you insist,

defense of country is an example of nationalism,
volunteering (as in VISTA) can be an example of nationalism,
the possibilities are many.

Any belief system can be the inspiration for doing positive things.

[AtheistCrusader]

146. MIGHT be an example of nationalism. Not all soldiers do so.

I would argue that was a good thing only in a defensive war. 'Defense of country' has resulted in a great many atrocities. The Iraq invasion for instance.

Volunteering need not be nationalistic either. Pretty thin reason, really, and as a prime motivator, it would exclude the neediest people on the planet.

[NeoGreen]

120. Ohh..ohh...May I play?...

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/509906-patriotism-is-a-word-and-one-that-generally-comes-to

“Patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.”

― Patrick O'Brian, Master and Commander

[AtheistCrusader]

139. Nicey done.

That's the general opinion of Nationalism I have. It just classifies people as 'other' so that they may be marginalized.

[NeoGreen]

150. Thanks, and classifying people as the 'other' also works for...

...those fervent in mystical perspectives, but at least 'patriots' don't generally condemn an individual in the out group to an eternity of conscious immolation.



Patriots generally just deport. Far more humane response, in the aggregate.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Why isn't slavery forbidden in the ten commandments?

You're ordered to stop swearing, worshiping other gods, coveting your neighbour's stuff (including his wife who is included in his property) ... but slavery didn't make the top ten?

You would think that the morally reprehensible practice of owning other human beings would at least get a mention.

He didn't forbid bigotry or war either come to think of it.

That lame catch-all 'thou shalt not kill' has all kinds of work arounds in the bible, in fact God actually orders his followers to kill other people.

Witches:

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Gay people:

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Mediums and Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)


Adulterers:

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Loose women:

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21: 9 NAB)

People who prefer other gods:

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Infidels:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)


So much for abolition, civil rights and peace.

[guillaumeb]

27. Proving that people can quote excerpts from the Old Testament.

Explain to all of the religious abolitionists, civil rights marchers, an peace marchers that the religion that they thought was their motivation was not really their motivation because you have determined that it might not be so.

[Lordquinton]

35. That is actually not what was said

At all.

[guillaumeb]

38. But it was a point that I wished to make. eom

[Lordquinton]

44. You wanted to make an unrelated point?

What do you have to say on the topic?

[beam me up scottie]

47. Straw man. Please show me where I discussed and/or determined their motivation.

I discussed the ten commandments and the bible - how the former didn't forbid slavery and the latter actually approved of the practice and how slavery proponents used it to support their cause.

Why are you using a logical fallacy instead of answering my question?

Why isn't slavery forbidden in the ten commandments?

Why would a book millions claim is THE source for morality command its followers to own, abuse and kill people?

[guillaumeb]

55. I make no such claims.

SO your question is properly directed to those who make such allowances.

Just as I do not ask atheists to justify how an atheist like Stalin or Mao could rationalize and justify killing millions.

[beam me up scottie]

59. False equivalency. There is no holy book instructing atheists to enslave, torture and murder people.

We don't pretend to have a monopoly on morality and we don't try to absolve the actions of other nonbelievers by claiming they're not TRUE Atheists.

My questions are directed at those who want to whitewash history by only focusing on the 'nice' Christians while ignoring the ones who enslaved, tortured and murdered human beings for thousands of years.

[guillaumeb]

60. If any wish to whitewash history here I will join you.

I prefer to focus on good news because there is no shortage of those who focus solely on the negative news.

[beam me up scottie]

64. And I focus on religion's victims because they're often ignored when people discuss the good news.

Progressive believers find comfort in feel good pieces highlighting good news and that's fine. But it's equally important to remember the not-so-good news and those whose lives are affected by it.

[guillaumeb]

67. Very true. eom

[gordianot]

34. Those who decry harsh religious beliefs always need to look closer to home.

History is full of examples when organized religion was out of control.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Indeed.

The most vocal opponents of Sharia law are usually Christians who support legislating their own version of it.

They are still trying to prevent lgbt people from marrying, they regularly introduce bills to protect religious 'freedom' which is Newspeak for discrimination against people who aren't straight or Christian, and they are obsessed with restricting women's reproductive rights.

The Christian Taliban is alive and thriving right here at home.

[gordianot]

49. Correct

They even want to extend their agenda to public toilets which when you deconstruct it has its roots in twisted religious intolerance not safety.

[beam me up scottie]

50. One of those so called bathroom bills just failed in Tennessee.

Not because the good religious folks in Tennessee realized that it was at best discriminatory and at worst would endanger transgender people who are already vulnerable - no it failed because Tennessee was threatened with boycotts that would affect its biggest source of revenue - tourism.

Which is a brilliant strategy - if you can't convince religious bigots to do the right thing then hit their leaders where it hurts the most - in their wallet.

[hrmjustin]

21. For the most part religion has been a positive force in my life.

[guillaumeb]

28. Mine also.

But if one is determined to find only the bad in something, it is possible to find that bad. Especially among the billions of believers.

[Htom Sirveaux]

23. The good news, as you say, is when that faith

is interpreted in a humanistic way, for the good of people in this life. The bad news is when people justify persecutions in this life for the sake of saving souls in the next.

[guillaumeb]

29. True. Very true.

People generally do seem to justify what they do as for the greater good.

[Bretton Garcia]

24. All faith is logically arrogance

It is thought that faith is all about humility. But more closely examined?

Faith means God or churches commanding us to believe them, without their supplying us with evidence that what we are required to believe is true and good. Follow them just on their say so.

Here, all our religious authorities, who demand faith, are arrogant.

[guillaumeb]

30. Faith is about belief.

First, one must believe.

[JenniferJuniper]

39. or is it about suspending disbelief

in the supernatural?

[guillaumeb]

40. Or is it..........

the willing suspension of disbelief?

All definitions that I have read. But it amounts to believing in something that cannot be proven.

[JenniferJuniper]

41. It's not just believing in something that cannot be "proven"

it's believing in something that cannot be. There's a huge difference.

[guillaumeb]

42. And that huge difference in our viewpoints is understood.

And cannot be is not the same as if it is my worldview is forever changed.

[Bretton Garcia]

69. We were often told to believe. And not to ask for proofs

Many of us, in our youth, were commanded in church,to follow certain beliefs. And to accept those things, without proofs.

In effect, we were ordered to just believe and accept. And to turn off the critical, rational past of our brain.

In effect, our religious leaders were metaphorically performing frontal lobotomies on everyone around them.

[guillaumeb]

70. Metaphoric lobotomies?

Agreed. I was raised RCC in a town that was all RCC. And went through primary, secondary, and 5 years post-secondary in RCC schools.

So believe me when I say that I know the experience. But my post secondary was at a Jesuit institution and the ideas that I was exposed to there were quite radically different from the earlier years. Liberation theology, Jesus centered atheism, and other variants.

But much history classes are also places where a sanitized and ideologically slanted view of history is taught. Every society has its myths that are accepted as literal truth.

[Bretton Garcia]

73. Jesuit schools ARE better than Catechism class.

But still not quite as objective as secular schools.

I appreciate your honesty here. But still, note, you were in somewhat religious, Catholic schools all along, it seems....

It's very hard to totally shrug all that off. Unless you really try pretty hard.

When I began to see the religious bias in my childhood education, I made a very strong, conscious, deliberate effort, to try to counterbalance that. With a lot of reading about atheist Marxism and culture and so forth.

When I did that, it gradually became very clear how thoroughly we had all been manipulated by priests and ministers and churches. Especially it became clear to me that deep inside their demand that we have "faith," was also their command to us, to never really think critically or objectively, about the chief ideas of Christianity.

In effect, they were attacking intelligence, reason, science, objectivity. Or simply too? Honesty.

[guillaumeb]

79. The last shall be first:

Your words:

In effect, they were attacking intelligence, reason, science, objectivity. Or simply too? Honesty.

Some believers obviously see science as the enemy of religion. I have heard it from such believers, but I do not share that position. Many people in general are scientifically illiterate.

But even secular schools teach a history that presents a selected version of history. Secular does not equate with objective. US history as taught in schools generally presents the US in a positive light.

[Bretton Garcia]

100. In that case?

Even if secularism was not entirely accurate always, even then, neither is religion. And in any case, secularism provides an additional and sometimes obviously productive point of view, aside from blind faith.

Science is especially productive.

You can say it's not incompatable with religion in some ways. But it's quite different from at least some kinds of religion. Especially? It does not accept things on faith. Instead it demands proof.

Ultimately to be sure, I think the Bible itself backs off faith. To support science. But the vast majority of Christians don't know that.They follow the more common but false idea of religion. That sees it following faith, not science.

Religious people should follow science, over faith. But they don't.

[guillaumeb]

104. Going back to scientific illiteracy:

Obviously some Christian believers, the non-literalists, accept that science and faith are not incompatible because these believers accept that the 2 fields do not overlap.

What I find interesting is that, as far as I can remember, except for a very tiny minority, what we called les purs et durs, we did not accept the Bible as literally true. This Biblical literalism seemed to be confined mainly to US Christians.

[Bretton Garcia]

148. Paul and Jesus twisted the Old Testament into spiritual metaphors

Under Platonic dualistic influence, it came to be said that science is about material things; religion, spiritual.

So the two were compatible in that they were about different things. They were non overlapping.

However, when material promises were rewritten as just metaphors for spiritual things, many like Peter hinted that this "twisted" the original meaning..

To Moses, God had promised literal actual water. The New Testament played sly language games. And twisted it into a metaphor. Jesus hints that he gives good ideas, good news, which is our "water." Or say, "bread indeed."

Some critics of this process though, like myself, suggest this "twisting, " this "metaphoricalization, " was not honest; the original Old Testament promises HAD been literal promises, of physical things. God had promised us actual literal water in the hot dry desert of the Sinai. But when those promises often failed, the New Testament apologetically claimed he was only speaking metaphorically, spiritually.

A human snake had twisted the meaning; to disguise the fact that the old physical promises often didn't work.

Research "metaphoricalization" and "spiritualization."

[guillaumeb]

153. Consider the circumstances.

In a desert climate, water is less available so using water as a symbol resonates more. That would not be true in a temperate climate. And the idea of hell as being a hot place.

The Norse version of hell was a frozen wasteland.

[Bretton Garcia]

157. But? These hells were real. Physical.

[guillaumeb]

159. But the vision of what constitutes hell is changeable.

And varies by society.

[Bretton Garcia]

160. But the notion of a miserable place is core?

And is here based on physical misery: heat, cold.

[guillaumeb]

161. The physical misery is mainly metaphorical.

And secondary to the idea of separation from the Creator.

But many Christians and Muslims do not accept the concept of an unforgiving deity.

[Bretton Garcia]

162. To your mind, did God create anything physical at all?

And if so, why?

Just to serve as a visible metaphor or analogue for your supreme spirit?

[guillaumeb]

163. The Creator created.

So when you look at creation, the answer is there.

But as I said, some feel that hell is a term referring to separation from the Creator rather than an actual place.

[Bretton Garcia]

164. In my reading, "hell" is short for "sheol." Which stood for the underground.

Where some thought buried things half lived on; others not.

If we allow hell to be a metaphor for a spiritual state, that is one thing. But are ALL things in the Bible non literal metaphors for spirits?

If not? Then Christianity is not entirely separated from claims about physical things.

And so Christianity is not just about spiritual things like faith. Or having no implications for physical things.

It is not really a separate field or "magisterium."

[guillaumeb]

168. Interersting questions.

Ones you must decide for yourself.

[trotsky]

166. Where is your evidence for that statement?

Or is it merely your opinion, based on your religious faith?

[guillaumeb]

169. I was asked what my view was.

And gave it. As to the idea of hell as a condition, it is easy to research that if you wish to do so.

[trotsky]

171. You made it as a statement of fact, when it is absolutely not.

Please qualify your religious statements in the future.

[guillaumeb]

172. In an opinion piece, one can expect to read opinions.

As I have read many opinions of yours (and others) in various threads without insisting that you or they explicitly label them as such.

[trotsky]

173. Awesome. another quote for me to clip and save.

Thanks!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. Good news? Religion has been the cause of murder, torture, wars, oppression

and every other evil thing you can think of. It has also been the inspiration for charity, good works and great art, music and architecture. Religion is a man-made construct. It does not make people good or bad; good people can find support in religion for their good impulses, while bad people will use their religion as an excuse to do bad things. You don't need religious faith to do good.

[whathehell]

52. Yeah, along with greed, anger, jealousy and megalomania..

One doesn't need religion to be good OR bad.

[guillaumeb]

56. An excellent answer. eom

[guillaumeb]

68. There is oppression being committed by the nominally atheistic rulers in Russia.

Oppression is the problem no matter the oppressor.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. False equivalency. They may BE atheists but they don't do it in the name of atheism.

They don't cite some mysterious force that can neither be questioned nor proven as the source for their atheist based oppressions.

Because they aren't doing it FOR atheism.

And you know this.

[guillaumeb]

80. What can you know of their actual motivation?

Nothing. So any assertion that "they don't do it in the name of atheism" is an assumption.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Two reasons.

First of all, they don't claim to.
Second, there's no 'revealed truth' or doctrine or dogma or religious texts or anything else bound up in atheism. Atheism is one thing and one thing only, the rejection of the concept of a supernatural god. To get anything else, like vicious tyranny, or sweet and loving humanism, requires philosophical disciplines OUTSIDE the question of whether or not gods exist. Atheism is a single-issue proposition. Lack of theistic belief. Much like the association you are trying to make that is false, atheism can also claim no credit for the good that comes of Humanism. Humanism is humanism on it's own. It may be secular or not. Doesn't matter. Atheism doesn't get the accolades, nor in your accusation, does it get the blame.

[guillaumeb]

89. Perhaps they hide their motivation.

Even if they do not claim to, we cannot know why they acted as they did. And can we really separate out their admitted atheism from what may have been their motivations?

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Well, I'm not a mind reader, but I see no reason to think, for the additional reasons I outlined,

that might be the case.

As others have pointed out in this thread, current despots for, say, Russia, are actually theistic and moving moreso.

[Act_of_Reparation]

75. Wait. What?

"Nominally atheistic rulers in Russia"? The Russian Orthodox Church is bed with the Putin administration for chrissakes. Putin himself regularly attends Orthodox services. For years, he's been working with the Patriarch to mobilize the Church to help spread propaganda.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Good point. I assumed he was referring to the Soviet era.

[Lordquinton]

76. You mean oppression carried out by the Orthodox rulers

In Russia. The LGBTQIA ban comes straight from the patriarchy. Restoring the church has been one of Putin's priorities.

[beam me up scottie]

115. You should keep up - Putin and the ROC are responsible for oppressing lgbt people in Russia.

And atheists in this country aren't the ones trying to export those particular 'family values' :

How Russia Became the Leader of the Global Christian Right
While the U.S. passed gay-rights laws, Moscow moved hard the other way.
By CASEY MICHEL February 09, 2017

Shortly after the summit’s close, Putin announced plans to return to the presidency, supplanting then-President Dmitry Medvedev. Buffeted by a flat economy, Putin shored up his support by tacking to a nativist, nationalist—and resentful—base. In the first 18 months after his return to the presidency in 2012, Putin corralled protesters, smothered many of the remaining independent media outlets, and dissolved the distance between the Kremlin and the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. All of his moves pointed toward a hard-right shift in outlook—to a return to Tsar Nicholas I’s triumvirate of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality.”

America’s Christian fundamentalists followed Putin’s moves with glee—all the more after then-President Barack Obama earned a second term, and same-sex rights charged forward. In 2013, Moscow pushed an “anti-propaganda law” specifically targeting the country’s beleaguered LGBT population. Despite widespread condemnation throughout the West, members of America’s Religious Right tripped over themselves in supporting the Kremlin. Likewise, as a Daily Beast report found, the “anti-propaganda law,” like the anti-abortion measures before it, didn’t arise in some kind of retrograde ether, but “had emerged from a years-long, carefully crafted campaign to influence governments to adopt a Christian-Right legal framework”—stemming from the efforts of both American and Russian WCF officials who had “successfully disseminated a U.S.-born culture war that’s wreaking havoc on women and queer folks all around the world.” Even Moscow’s ban on Americans adopting Russian children that year managed to gain support within the U.S.’s far right, with Christian fundamentalists praising Putin’s move as preventing children from living with same-sex parents.

***

After all, it’s not as if it’s difficult to unearth the fundamentalists fawning over Putin’s putative turn toward God. For instance, according to Bryan Fischer, who until 2015 was a spokesman for the American Family Association, Putin is the “lion of Christianity.” Evangelical Franklin Graham has likewise lauded Putin as someone “protecting traditional Christianity,” while Buchanan only continues praising Putin. Even recent frictions—see: Russia’s recent legislation against non-Orthodox proselytizing—have hardly dampened US fundamentalists’ newfound fervor for Moscow. And if Trump decides to deprioritize rolling back same-sex or abortion rights, the U.S. far right will look to Moscow even further support, ensconcing the Kremlin’s position that much more.

We might not know, per Buchanan’s early questions, whose side God is on. But those in Russia are happy to return the support from America’s radical Christian extremists—and clutch the mantle of Christian fundamentalist leadership as long as they can, even after Trump’s election. “They’re using the history of anti-communism as a means of making a point,” Stroop told me. “They’re saying: ‘We survived communism, and so we know how to resist it.’ And they’re playing right into this whole script, which is a Cold War script, that communism and secularism are the same thing.”


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/how-russia-became-a-leader-of-the-worldwide-christian-right-214755

[guillaumeb]

118. From your source:

Putin’s putative turn toward God

Which, of course, is far from claiming that Putin is a Christian. Perhaps Putin, like Trump, sees Christianity as a cloak to wear.

[beam me up scottie]

121. Ah the return of the No True Scotsman.

Do you have any evidence that either are atheists? I'm not interested in opinions or logical fallacies, please cite facts from credible sources that prove Trump and Putin don't believe in God.

This sounds a lot like the claim that Paul Ryan isn't Catholic because he admires Ayn Rand - and we all know that's a tractor trailer full of road apples.

Oh and nice attempt to deflect - your claim was that atheist rulers were oppressing lgbt people in Russia:

There is oppression being committed by the nominally atheistic rulers in Russia.

The article I posted directly disproves that allegation.

[guillaumeb]

124. The article you posted proves nothing of the sort.

We have no proof that either is a theist or a non-theist. We can speculate.

[beam me up scottie]

126. It's proof that religious leaders are responsible for anti-lgbt discrimination in Russia.

We have no proof that either is a theist or a non-theist. We can speculate.

Actually we do have proof that they're believers, here's Trump praying:

And Putin taking communion:

Your insistence that they're atheists in spite of evidence to the contrary is a logical fallacy.

You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

[guillaumeb]

127. Clearly these videos are proof

that both people are attempting to appeal to theists.

So if the Pope participates in an interfaith service, is he then a Jew or Muslim?

[Act_of_Reparation]

130. Does the Pope go to interfaith services claiming to be a devout Jew or Muslim?

That hissing sound you hear is your argument deflating.

Again.

[beam me up scottie]

131. No they're proof that both men pray and accept communion just like other theists.

So if the Pope participates in an interfaith service, is he then a Jew or Muslim?

Does the pope claim to be Jewish or Muslim? Is anyone making that ridiculous claim?

No?

You claimed that Putin and Trump were atheists - I provided evidence that they both practice Christianity. You have yet to disprove that.

What evidence is there that any believer is telling the truth when they label themselves a believer?

All we have is their word, and unless you can read minds you're not really in a position to claim they're lying.

[Snackshack]

65. On balance...

It has not been neutral...having said that things have got better since civilization began superseding dogmatic edicts.

[edhopper]

74. Would I rather live in a secular country

where the laws of man supersede the laws of a god?

Or a country where the laws are based on religious doctrine?

hmmm? quite a quandary?

[guillaumeb]

81. "We hold these truths to be self evident....."

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

If one reads the text, it suggests that the Creator endowed all men with certain rights.

Is the US a secular country?
Was it ever a secular country?

[edhopper]

85. Yes, it always has been

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

And the definition of what was meant by Creator has been debated since it was written.

Do you doubt we live in a secular country where the government cannot favo religion.

But let's look further around the world.

By and large, which countries would you prefer, those that don't rule based on religion, or those that do.

Take your time.

[guillaumeb]

88. I believe that there is much distance between ideal and practice.

And it is apparent that many on the right do feel that the US should be a Christian theocracy.

[edhopper]

90. And do you think any country

today that is ruled based on religion is a good place to be?

Would you want to live here if the religious right gets it's way?

Tell me why living under religious doctrine is ever good?

[guillaumeb]

91. Any type of theocracy would not be my preferred country.

My personal view is that there is far too much religion in government already in the US.

[edhopper]

93. So whether

religion is a force for good in the real world overall is up for debate.

And probably does as much or more harm than good.

This is the thing according to your post that 85% of the worls bases it's morals on.

And yet we can't discern a net positive from it.

Those gods seem pretty weak since their affect has such a neutral or harmful consequence.

[guillaumeb]

94. Good and evil both exist in the actions of people.

If anyone cannot discern a net positive, I suspect that says more about the non-neutral observer.

[edhopper]

95. and the gods

have no sway on how much of either there is.

It's as ifvthere were no gods art all.

[guillaumeb]

96. Perhaps the Creator feels that free will is what is meant by

"created in the image and likeness". We can only imagine by assuming what would motivate us if we were that Creator.

[edhopper]

97. I am told

that we cannot fathom the mind of the Creator.

[guillaumeb]

98. I certainly cannot.

Probably for the best. I have enough trouble remembering things.

[radical noodle]

77. Religion can be a force for great good

but too many people use faith as a whip for those they hate.

My mother and grandmother were women of faith who actually walked the walk most of the time, but most of the people around me today who claim Christianity seem to not live it.

I do see groups like the Christian Left who promote the religion as it was intended.

We see the same in other religions as well... some good, some bad. The bad is always the loudest.

[guillaumeb]

82. I agree. Nuance is appreciated. eom

[BigRig]

129. The only time religion is good is when

it's less educated followers happen to pick and choose the tiny percentage of humane things in it to live by. If there are any highly educated followers, you can bet they are using it to take money and or power and or sex from the less educated followers.

[guillaumeb]

133. I disagree, but welcome to DU.

[NeoGreen]

142. Does the following reflect your sentiment?...

And ditto, welcome to DU.

[BigRig]

147. Close

[DetlefK]

151. Men are at the forefront of the "pissing-while-standing"-movement.

Just because somebody happens to be religious, that does not mean that the religion is somehow playing a crucial role.

[guillaumeb]

154. But who decides what is considered more influential? eom

[trotsky]

165. One doesn't really need to "search" for bad things religious people do.

Here's an idea: how about you post what you want, and then let others post what they want. If you don't want to hear negative things about religion, then either stop browsing this OPEN forum, or use the "hide thread" feature.

[guillaumeb]

167. Exactly what I AM doing.

I am happy to see you too like the "Good news about religion" feature that I started.

[trotsky]

170. You're doing part of it.

You have to let others post what they want, too. Without trying to dismiss their point of view by accusing them of having an "agenda."

You work on that, mmkay?