Debate discussion: Gramarye and Inferno's debate.

[tuxbox]

Could an atheist be convinced to fly a plane into a building under the same premises as the 9/11 hijackers?

Probably not, since atheism is not an ideology.

Would the Jews have been persecuted if it didn't say things like: "So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves. And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and our own children!", Matthew 27:24-25 and "For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.", Thessalonians 2:14-16 in the Bible?

Would there have been any excuse to torture and murder suspected witches if it weren't for verses such as this: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.", Exodus 22:18?

Would the inquisition have any justification if it weren't for verses like this: " If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt,", Deuteronomy 13:12-16 ?

I think the answer to all of these is no. So I'd say that religion itself (not just people doing things in the name of religion) is at fault for these atrocities because it does provide justification for them. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all religion is evil (the majority of religious believers are far from evil), but you can't fob these things off by saying that "it's not the religion, it's people doing things in the name of religion" there is a problem in the religion itself if you can find passages that justify your killing people.

As I have mentioned in another thread, convictions are what drive some people to do evil things. How about the 90+ million killed in the *20th century directly or indirectly by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, and Castro. None of those atrocities were committed by religious zealots nor the motives due to religious ideologies. And how about the Holocaust? That was not motivated by religious ideology either. In the former, the motivations were due to a distorted view of Marxism and the latter was a distorted view of Social Darwinism.

*edited*

 

[Anachronous Rex]

As I have mentioned in another thread, convictions are what drive some people to do evil things. How about the 90+ million killed in the *20th century directly or indirectly by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, and Castro. None of those atrocities were committed by religious zealots nor the motives due to religious ideologies. And how about the Holocaust? That was not motivated by religious ideology either. In the former, the motivations were due to a distorted view of Marxism and the latter was a distorted view of Social Darwinism.

I have to take at least two exceptions:

1) Anyone who studies the Khmer Rouge in any detail must concede that the organization was - above all else - a cult. I mean they justified their regime with ancient Cambodian prophecies for Cthulhu's sake.

2) To say the holocaust was not motivated due to religious ideology seems to me flat out wrong however you try to do it. You simply cannot divorce this genocide from a millennial tradition of Christian pogroms.

 

[tuxbox]

I have to take at least two exceptions:

1) Anyone who studies the Khmer Rouge in any detail must concede that the organization was - above all else - a cult. I mean they justified their regime with ancient Cambodian prophecies for Cthulhu's sake.

So the Khmer Rouge were not a radical agrarian revolutionary group with Marxist ideas? What prophecies was Pol Pot trying to fulfill considering he was an atheist? With that fact, the motivation could not have been religion.

2) To say the holocaust was not motivated due to religious ideology seems to me flat out wrong however you try to do it. You simply cannot divorce this genocide from a millennial tradition of Christian pogroms.

http://books.google.com/books?id=B5fJYMxufVcC&pg=PA40&dq=Hitler+churches&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wv0HT6GGDtTWtwex-JT-BA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Hitler%20churches&f=false

The above link shows that Hitler was no fan of the church. While he was most defiantly not an atheist, there is also evidence that he was not a Christian.

The link below links Hitler's plan to Social Darwinism, as does the book, 'A History of Western Society, sixth edition' by John P. McKay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#Historical_perspective


*Edit*

My bad, Pol Pot was not an atheist, he was a Buddhist. He just sucked at it.

 

[Laurens]

As I have mentioned in another thread, convictions are what drive some people to do evil things. How about the 90+ million killed in the *20th century directly or indirectly by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, and Castro. None of those atrocities were committed by religious zealots nor the motives due to religious ideologies. And how about the Holocaust? That was not motivated by religious ideology either. In the former, the motivations were due to a distorted view of Marxism and the latter was a distorted view of Social Darwinism.

*edited*

I don't claim that religion is the only thing that has driven people to commit evil, those things that you mention do not detract from my point. If the Bible had said 'treat the Jewish people with care for it was not they who are responsible for Christ's death' or words to that effect, then they would probably have found no reason to persecute them. In that respect I think there is something that needs to be addressed in regards to religion.

When you have a book, that you confidently believe was written by the omnipotent creator of the universe, and that book gives justification for killing, oppression and slavery, then we have a real problem. That does not detract from other sources and justifications of evil, and those other things you mention do not detract from the above fact. I'd say that your objections are irrelevant in this discussion, although that is not to say that I think Mao, Stalin etc. are not evil.

 

[tuxbox]

I don't claim that religion is the only thing that has driven people to commit evil, those things that you mention do not detract from my point. If the Bible had said 'treat the Jewish people with care for it was not they who are responsible for Christ's death' or words to that effect, then they would probably have found no reason to persecute them. In that respect I think there is something that needs to be addressed in regards to religion.

When you have a book, that you confidently believe was written by the omnipotent creator of the universe, and that book gives justification for killing, oppression and slavery, then we have a real problem. That does not detract from other sources and justifications of evil, and those other things you mention do not detract from the above fact. I'd say that your objections are irrelevant in this discussion, although that is not to say that I think Mao, Stalin etc. are not evil.

The title of the debate is "Religion is an evil that needs to be addressed", is it not? Why single out religious ideology? If religion somehow disappeared tomorrow, people would find another ideology as an excuse to do evil. So addressing this one ideology is pointless, in my opinion. Human nature will remain long after religion disappears.

"If the Bible had said 'treat the Jewish people with care for it was not they who are responsible for Christ's death' or words to that effect, then they would probably have found no reason to persecute them."

The Bible also said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The Bible also said, "Love thy neighbor as yourself". People choose to believe what they want, and it has very little to do with what is actually written in their holy books.

 

[Laurens]

The title of the debate is "Religion is an evil that needs to be addressed", is it not? Why single out religious ideology? If religion somehow disappeared tomorrow, people would find another ideology as an excuse to do evil. So addressing this one ideology is pointless, in my opinion. Human nature will remain long after religion disappears.

"If the Bible had said 'treat the Jewish people with care for it was not they who are responsible for Christ's death' or words to that effect, then they would probably have found no reason to persecute them."

The Bible also said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The Bible also said, "Love thy neighbor as yourself". People choose to believe what they want, and it has very little to do with what is actually written in their holy books.

Yes that is the title of the debate, although I did say this in a previous post:

I think I'd personally phrase it: 'Religion gives justification to evil that would otherwise have no justification and needs to be addressed for that reason' rather than 'Religion is an evil that needs to be addressed'

Of course that does not have the same ring to it and its not as succinct, but it's a more defensible statement if you ask me.

I don't agree that addressing one ideology is pointless. That would be like saying 'well there's not any point in fighting the Nazis because some other evil people will only come along in future, it's human nature after all'. I feel that all harmful ideologies should be addressed, but given the subject of this topic, I didn't feel that there was any point in raising those here.

Yes, I cherry picked verses from the Bible, but that is precisely what people do when they want to justify their views. That is why it is such a dangerous text, because if I want to be a violent, aggressive bigot I can find perfect justification in specific verses. Of course there are peaceful and loving verses that I could cherry pick too - it's the very fact that the Bible can be cherry picked to support whichever view so easily that makes it dangerous. If the message in the Bible was consistently peaceful then there would not be a problem with it, but it's not, and the fact that verses were cherry picked to justify the persecution of the Jews, the inquisition, the witch trials, slavery, manifest destiny etc etc. demonstrates that there is a problem with it.

I do not think that ridding the world of religion would also rid the world of evil, but it would rid the world of people who believe that they have found divine justification for it in religious texts - a problem which I feel does need to be addressed, along with all the other causes of evil, which are in my opinion not relevant to this particular discussion.

 

[tuxbox]

I don't agree that addressing one ideology is pointless. That would be like saying 'well there's not any point in fighting the Nazis because some other evil people will only come along in future, it's human nature after all'. I feel that all harmful ideologies should be addressed, but given the subject of this topic, I didn't feel that there was any point in raising those here.

Yes, I cherry picked verses from the Bible, but that is precisely what people do when they want to justify their views. That is why it is such a dangerous text, because if I want to be a violent, aggressive bigot I can find perfect justification in specific verses. Of course there are peaceful and loving verses that I could cherry pick too - it's the very fact that the Bible can be cherry picked to support whichever view so easily that makes it dangerous. If the message in the Bible was consistently peaceful then there would not be a problem with it, but it's not, and the fact that verses were cherry picked to justify the persecution of the Jews, the inquisition, the witch trials, slavery, manifest destiny etc etc. demonstrates that there is a problem with it.

I do not think that ridding the world of religion would also rid the world of evil, but it would rid the world of people who believe that they have found divine justification for it in religious texts - a problem which I feel does need to be addressed, along with all the other causes of evil, which are in my opinion not relevant to this particular discussion.

Point taken...

 

[Anachronous Rex]

2) To say the holocaust was not motivated due to religious ideology seems to me flat out wrong however you try to do it. You simply cannot divorce this genocide from a millennial tradition of Christian pogroms.

http://books.google.com/books?id=B5fJYMxufVcC&pg=PA40&dq=Hitler+churches&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wv0HT6GGDtTWtwex-JT-BA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Hitler%20churches&f=false

The above link shows that Hitler was no fan of the church. While he was most defiantly not an atheist, there is also evidence that he was not a Christian.

The link below links Hitler's plan to Social Darwinism, as does the book, 'A History of Western Society, sixth edition' by John P. McKay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#Historical_perspective

You confuse anti-clericalism with anti-Christianity. You can scarcely be a German ruler without being anti-clerical. Besides, it scarcely matters what Hitler himself believed - his followers were Christian. This is not the first time eradicating the Jews of a nation was attempted in Europe, it was just the first time it was attempted with Industrial technology.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Fuck you all, too.

/discussion

 

[australopithecus]

Perhaps you'd like an opportunity to edit that...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Why?
I can't have my Persian shot of an insult to an equally insulting thread?
The entire topic shows severe lack of understanding of basic principles and a skewering of facts. It can be shown that any single ideology can be taken to absurd extremes by anyone at all - but the topic takes a single sliver of a set of ideologies and, after skewering the entire set for the atrocities of that sliver, paints a broad and absurd conclusion with any evidence that can be presented with irrationality and any set of ideals or codes.

As shitty as it might seem, just as one cannot hold all Germans accountable by association of the atrocities of the Nazi Party and Hitler, someone cannot make a blanket statement that one slivered set of ideologies in the sub-group of religion holds all within that sub-group accountable.
And, especially in today's world! Several billion people are religious, but don't hold atrocious beliefs or doctrines of hate. The only evidence being presented or cited is that of a handful of things in the Abrahamic faiths that places it as the source-material for all of religion as a whole.

If the discussion was Ideologies taken to ridiculous extremes are evil then there would be no need for such a simple response.

When the topic changes, my response will change. It is truly the sum of any constructive discussion that can come from such blanket and unreasonable statements and unfounded claims.
I do not judge threads based exclusively by who is posting them, but the content they individually contain like a reasoned gentlemen. The debate and the subsequent discussion from the debate will be equally as useless.

 

[australopithecus]

Why?

I suppose the part where you say "fuck you" to everyone. So you feel slighted by the content or execution of the debate, there was no need for that post. We're not steppig on egg shells. Inferno and Gramayre agreed on the topic, others are commenting appropriately and constructively. Any insult you feel is entirely not anyone else problem.

As a reg you know that kind of thing to be against the rules, and as you are a long standing contributor I gave you the opportunity to make it so it never happened, you've declined. Shame.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

If you'd enjoy it, I will properly humor this debacle of a debate with commentary.

My problem with the whole deal is that it is an all-inclusive generalization of an entire set that, honestly, can be argued to be non-applicable in modern society.
Someone says "Religion is Evil" - that includes each and every section and sub-section of every ideology within that subset. So far, the only evidence presented by anyone is either not valid unto modern day standards or only represents a single minority out of a majority of religious people and what they happen to believe. If we were to judge an ideology by the worst act done in it's name then, I assure you, there's plenty of bad reputation of "evil" to be handed out in the group.

 

[Laurens]

If you'd enjoy it, I will properly humor this debacle of a debate with commentary.

My problem with the whole deal is that it is an all-inclusive generalization of an entire set that, honestly, can be argued to be non-applicable in modern society.
Someone says "Religion is Evil" - that includes each and every section and sub-section of every ideology within that subset. So far, the only evidence presented by anyone is either not valid unto modern day standards or only represents a single minority out of a majority of religious people and what they happen to believe. If we were to judge an ideology by the worst act done in it's name then, I assure you, there's plenty of bad reputation of "evil" to be handed out in the group.

I'd agree with you, the statement 'Religion is an evil that needs to be addressed' is indefensible. I personally would not even bother arguing in favour of it (see my first post in this topic).

I'm not sure whether there is any particular content in the debate itself that you find offensive, or whether it is just the statement contained in the title, but perhaps the title was agreed upon because it is harder to defend? I mean you'd have no chance debating against the statement 'Much evil has been committed by religious people throughout history' - so maybe the title was made so that there was more room for debate? Or perhaps it was proposed without too much thought going into it? I dunno. Either way I doubt that anyone involved intentionally wanted to offend you with the title, and I'm sure they don't think your beliefs are evil (I'm guessing).

 

[tuxbox]

You confuse anti-clericalism with anti-Christianity. You can scarcely be a German ruler without being anti-clerical. Besides, it scarcely matters what Hitler himself believed - his followers were Christian. This is not the first time eradicating the Jews of a nation was attempted in Europe, it was just the first time it was attempted with Industrial technology.

You are correct on one thing, and that it does not matter what religion Hitler believed. Although trying to figure out what god he believed in is like trying to figure out how many voices are in a schizophrenics head. That said, the evidence seems to point to the fact that the Holocaust was motivated by racism and a distorted view of Social Darwinism, like I pointed out in the beginning. You know who else were Christians in that war? The Americans, Brits, Canadians, French and Australians, just to name a few. But I am not here to take up for Christianity. Dogs know that the Abrahamic religions have plenty of blood on their hands. But so do a lot of ideologies, not related to religion. Which was my primary point. Laurens made some very good points, so I am not going to try to debate this any further. I will say this though. I do not believe religion is evil, nor are most of the followers of religion.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You confuse anti-clericalism with anti-Christianity. You can scarcely be a German ruler without being anti-clerical. Besides, it scarcely matters what Hitler himself believed - his followers were Christian. This is not the first time eradicating the Jews of a nation was attempted in Europe, it was just the first time it was attempted with Industrial technology.

You are correct on one thing, and that it does not matter what religion Hitler believed. Although trying to figure out what god he believed in is like trying to figure out how many voices are in a schizophrenics head. That said, the evidence seems to point to the fact that the Holocaust was motivated by racism and a distorted view of Social Darwinism, like I pointed out in the beginning. You know who else were Christians in that war? The Americans, Brits, Canadians, French and Australians, just to name a few. But I am not here to take up for Christianity. Dogs know that the Abrahamic religions have plenty of blood on their hands. But so do a lot of ideologies, not related to religion. Which was my primary point. Laurens made some very good points, so I am not going to try to debate this any further. I will say this though. I do not believe religion is evil, nor are most of the followers of religion.

This sort of misunderstands the problem. There never was, for instance, a slaughter and mass exile of Jews from any Christian nation of Europe where there was not also some other Christian (or sometimes Muslim) nation willing to take them in. Slaughter of Jews since about the 11th Century to the mid 20th Century is a endemic, but not persistent, condition of Christian culture. I highly recommend The Formation of a Persecuting Society by R. I. Moore.

Of course there were other factors, there always are.

 

[tuxbox]

This sort of misunderstands the problem. There never was, for instance, a slaughter and mass exile of Jews from any Christian nation of Europe where there was not also some other Christian (or sometimes Muslim) nation willing to take them in. Slaughter of Jews since about the 11th Century to the mid 20th Century is a endemic, but not persistent, condition of Christian culture. I highly recommend The Formation of a Persecuting Society by R. I. Moore.

Of course there were other factors, there always are.

Thanks for the book reco, I put it on my buy list.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Hytegia, AFAICT the point isn't that all religion is evil and leads to evil. The point is that in the end, most results in evil. In general, it's evil.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Inferno has requested the thread be locked and the debate closed as Gramayre has not replied in well over a week. I'm inclined to give a little leeway as there is no time limit, so if the debate does not continue within 7 days te thread will be closed.

If this debate is to be closed, than I do not see why the other debate should stay open. It has been open far longer than this one with no response.

 

[Prolescum]

I've seen TruthIsImBrianAndSosMyWife7 logged in numerous times since his last debate response, so I wonder if he's plucking up the courage to concede defeat.