So the right to engage in it should be taken away? Do we need the government to protect us from ourselves? I disagree with your assessment, but I am not even debating that point. I am debating the rigtht to religion. If you believe the right should be taken away because you believe religion is a pyramid scheme, do you believe Amway should be made illegal?
Organised religion is many people being religious through an organisation that have set rules for things I guess, at its most basic form. Religion can just be the belief in a god.
sure. Religion includes the shamanistic religion of the sami people of northern scandinavia, surely that religion is a horrible tool for oppression. I'm not denying that religion can be a great tool for controlling the masses, but you have to realise those times are gone. How good or bad a religion is is dictated by it's followers morals. Id est, the religion doesn't make them do things per se but it can provide justification for things they already see as right because of their own inborn, and affected by society, morals. Thus it's the current morality of the society at large with determines what will be justified using religion. Hence why we had people referring to slavery being okay in the bible during the 19th century, and modern christians ignoring that and other parts and just quote the jesus hippy stuff. What I'm thus saying is that christianity was a mere tool to justify slavery, but it was society at large which accepted it.
I answered that in that post if you'd only want to quote the whole instead of just a sentence. Human behaviour does have to do with religion. Isn't it obvious? Don't you think a religious person is affected by his religion?
Do you enjoy throwing fancy words around? I'll give you a tip: you don't look smart if you use them wrong. My problem lies not with hitchens or dawkins really, but the crowd of fanatic teenagers they rile up. those who are against all relgion as if christianity was still in it's middle age phase.
I read what I wrote and fail to see where I expressed the idea that the government should take away religion. After all, governments are composed of regular men and women and a lot of them are religious fanatics. Others are religious to lesser degrees. So none of them have any reason to take away anyone's religion. What I wrote was that religions provide a way for enterprising con men to set up their own small business franchises in the religious industry. It's nothing but an economic enterprise. Jesus recognized it as such when he went off on the money exchangers and animal sellers in the temple. That's why he never contributed any money himself.
Buddhism does not seem to fit the definition of religion, more a philosophy or road map to enlightenment. In my opinion, if the many religions dropped the whole God thingy they would be better institutions for everyone involved, as they would not base the way they lived on mythological forces.....instead understanding the actions they take define them as a person, and be forced to take responsibility themselves. Imagine if every person knew what they did in life was meant to make them a better and more loving person, rather than a means to please a God....perhaps they would think twice before being nasty.
religion is a very broad term. yes, they would perhaps be better of without a god. Why do buddhists want to be good? Isn't it to ultimately reach nirvana and stop being reincarnated? That's just as 'selfish' as being good to please a god is. But I don't care about why they do it, only that they do it. good is good.
Though I would not call it selfish, the end goal is indeed to reach enlightenment. Nirvana is not a place, but a level of compassionate and advanced understanding that defines a beauty we can become. There are many aspects of Buddhism (in fact most monks spend their lives studying and meditating on one small area), but the general philosophy underlies them all. Reincarnation is not one of the core aspects of the thought, as it is somewhat irrelevant to the now, but there is motivation to become more due to the concept. I agree religion is a very broad term, yet they all have the common thread of God worship....in many ways this defines the word religion, which is why Buddhism is not considered a religion. No God....No Religion.
It's as selfish as being good so you'll get to heaven in my view. I'm not saying it's bad though. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. That's religion, and I'd say buddhism fits.
Not saying I'm better just making the point that not believing in religion will not turn a person bad. And believing in religion does not guarantee a person will be good.
A "professional go-to source" huh? Well I guess I'm just SOL. Or... wait a minute... why yes, yes I do have a brain! You know what else I have? Other, far better-known sources. This statement is not intended to start a source-war - this would be a waste of my time, and an activity I would be loathe to engage in. However, I will mention just one of many sources I have as a counter and and end to this absurdity you have presented: William Prescott, now-deceased and world-reknowned historian, oft-demonized but never damned authority on many historical topics, including the Moorish Wars. As an aside criticism of your argumentum ad auctoritatem, I have known homeless people more intelligent than most University professors, and I've known University professors less wise than many children. Attempted one-upmanship based on the opinion of an individual you happen to know - be that person studied or otherwise - is pathetic and a technique of dihonest debate. If you don't know enough to disprove me, it doesn't necesarily mean you're wrong. So there isn't really any reason to use dishonest debating tactics. Please refrain. Furthermore, some person with a degree in his/her field can say anything, for any reason. Don't trust what someone else says because you think they know more than you. Use your gifts. Think for yourself. Weigh the information yourself - don't let your daughter, your media, your government, your society, or even me do it for you. Islamic nations only taxed them? Wrong. So wrong that I'm disgusted I even have to point it out to you. You are obviously not as knowledgeable as your relation to [insert super-special-awesome archaeologist here] might indicate. (Except that it actually indicates nothing). Again, I require specificity, dear - in order to show where I am wrong, you need to state specifics. I have asserted that more/worse conflicts are the result of Islam than of Christianity - and modern history is still history. Please refute.
I was trying to be humble - a difficult task for a man like myself, who is prone to exaggerating his abilities and minimizing his weaknesses. You make this task much more difficult by refusing to understand plain English. Notice the use of the term 'refuse,' not 'inability to understand;' I believe your malady may be willful misdirection. I merely pointed out to you that your posts are more difficult to decipher when you do not make use of our common language - English - accurately. Why are you so deeply offended by this? And please re-read my posts. I made no attempt to intimidate you, intellectually or otherwise. If you felt intimidated, I apologize - such was not my intent. If, however, you are deflecting the attention from your problems by insulting my intents inaccurately, I do not apologize. If you wish to attack me, I'm sure you can find a way to do so honestly. You yourself admitted you have little aptitude for the written word. I equalized our positions to place us both on the same level by revealing my glaring character flaw - lack of social intelligence - as well as my inability to shoot straight. I gathered you have said ability since your signature appears to be highly pro-gun. Again, if I am mistaken in some manner, I apologize. Finally: Your position on this thread is influenced strongly by what you believe - your biases and your beliefs. Your signature is an accurate representation of what you believe, since you, yourself, chose that signature. By revealing the severe flaw in your reasoning, I have revealed a severe flaw in the premise of your argument - which, perhaps, is why you appear irate.
That's the damn truth. Although I don't consider it a religion at all. It's a 7th century brutal, totalitarian, oppressive form of government.
Yes my grammar is not the best but I get by. And I've never come across a person that could not comprehend what I was trying to say. So It was my assumption that you were just being rude. Maybe I was wrong. I think maybe your trying to be to elaborate with the English language. I'm just a simple guy and maybe I misunderstood your intent. I did feel like you were trying to intimidate me intellectually. I was not intimidated. Good grammar doesn't have much to do with intellect and that is what I was saying about my daughter earlier. Also I fail to see were gun rights come into all of this.
As a historian one must also take sociology into consideration if one is judgmental in the regard to social violence. Social violence is criminal. That societies enforce laws and rules with "police" force isn't violence. I would like to see some of the illustrations you could point out about social violence and its criminal behavior by Christians. I would first argue that enforcement of the rules of a Theocracy is NOT violence, but police work similar to what happens in any of the seven kinds of governments known to man. Even democracies will hand traitors, and a King will cut off the head of those who commit treason. When Universal Christianity reigned supremely over all Roman/Europe, that theocracy did enforce its theological rules much the same way as does Islam now. But it isn't called social violence, but social justice.
even if burning heretics is simply following the theological rules of the medieval roman catholic church that doesn't change that it's violence.
well that's certainly creative thinking along the lines of one societies terrorist is another societies freedom fighter... so killing isn't violence if it's done in the name of god/theocracy with that logic 9/11 wasn't violence it was actually social justice....
