Should religion be eliminated

[Uncensored2008]

A hopeless man is a dangerous man... Remove hope and men will fight for their very existence against you...

Actually, the Soviets under Lenin, then later Stalin, found that hopeless people are too embroiled in the struggle for survival to rise up against their rulers. This is why the democrats wage their war to destroy the middle class in America. Abject poverty is what the left wants for all save a tiny elite.

 

[ding]

Path not taken. Their values were informed already by those principles.

You ask a good question though albeit in a straw man fashion. Do I want to ban atheism? Is that even possible? Putting that aside my answer is no. Each person must decide the path they must travel.

My actions are reactions to the reactions of atheists to Christianity.

I wholeheartedly agree in walking a mile in the other guy’s moccasins. That’s why I don’t judge the person.

The values in the most common Religious texts predated the Religion itself i.e. theyre human values, not Religious ones.

Religions, like Laws, merely codified what we already had.

Actually at the time of Moses the standards they established were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Ironically people use those higher standards against them because they were not the standards we have today. Nonetheless we are still challenged by the ten that were first established.

But to your point it is the role of religion to teach civility. Something a government cannot do. So I dispute that religion played no role in establishing the standards and values we follow or try to follow today.

You are arguing a path not taken and are assuming it would have been a better path.

The Values at the time of Moses were barbaric. Thats why, when society advanced past that barbaric way of living during those times, Religions needed new covenants to save face when everybody else realized that slavery was wrong. Killing kids for their Fathers' sins was wrong. Raping women as your spoils of war, was wrong. Society pulled Religious values forward.

And I didnt say that Religion played "no role." Of course it had a role. Necessarily. There's people who actually believe in it.

And I said nothing of a better path..... for anything, and didnt even say that Religion was evil, as a whole.

Thats more of your twatty assuming, and it takes so many conversations onto un-pointed, needless asides.

Implied in your comments is the assumption that we would have gotten to the same place without religion. I’m not convinced of that. That is the path not chosen.

As for your understanding of what the Jews established you should read Huston Smith book on world religions.

I dont need your recommends, Im a grown man and Ive done my research.

What you believe was implied, wasn't. You were in error.

If asked which would have been the "better path" to advance ancient societies? My answer would have been, "I dont know."

Now, you no longer need to assume.

If you had done your research you would have acknowledged the Jew’s contribution to mankind and not dismissed it as mankind would have moved past it for no other reason than it was barbaric. The Jews literally raised the bar at a time when no other people did.

 

[G.T.]

The values in the most common Religious texts predated the Religion itself i.e. theyre human values, not Religious ones.

Religions, like Laws, merely codified what we already had.

Actually at the time of Moses the standards they established were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Ironically people use those higher standards against them because they were not the standards we have today. Nonetheless we are still challenged by the ten that were first established.

But to your point it is the role of religion to teach civility. Something a government cannot do. So I dispute that religion played no role in establishing the standards and values we follow or try to follow today.

You are arguing a path not taken and are assuming it would have been a better path.

The Values at the time of Moses were barbaric. Thats why, when society advanced past that barbaric way of living during those times, Religions needed new covenants to save face when everybody else realized that slavery was wrong. Killing kids for their Fathers' sins was wrong. Raping women as your spoils of war, was wrong. Society pulled Religious values forward.

And I didnt say that Religion played "no role." Of course it had a role. Necessarily. There's people who actually believe in it.

And I said nothing of a better path..... for anything, and didnt even say that Religion was evil, as a whole.

Thats more of your twatty assuming, and it takes so many conversations onto un-pointed, needless asides.

Implied in your comments is the assumption that we would have gotten to the same place without religion. I’m not convinced of that. That is the path not chosen.

As for your understanding of what the Jews established you should read Huston Smith book on world religions.

I dont need your recommends, Im a grown man and Ive done my research.

What you believe was implied, wasn't. You were in error.

If asked which would have been the "better path" to advance ancient societies? My answer would have been, "I dont know."

Now, you no longer need to assume.

If you had done your research you would have acknowledged the Jew’s contribution to mankind and not dismissed it as mankind would have moved past it for no other reason than it was barbaric. The Jews literally raised the bar at a time when no other people did.

What I said and what you read were, like usual, two totally different things. That was another error, on your part.

Actually, saying I dismissed their contribution while quoting a post where I literally said "Of course it had a role" is just another symptom of you being impossible to take conversations through, with. Your mentality has too much of an ax to grind and you read all kinds of shit that isnt there, because of it.

 

[ding]

Actually at the time of Moses the standards they established were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Ironically people use those higher standards against them because they were not the standards we have today. Nonetheless we are still challenged by the ten that were first established.

But to your point it is the role of religion to teach civility. Something a government cannot do. So I dispute that religion played no role in establishing the standards and values we follow or try to follow today.

You are arguing a path not taken and are assuming it would have been a better path.

The Values at the time of Moses were barbaric. Thats why, when society advanced past that barbaric way of living during those times, Religions needed new covenants to save face when everybody else realized that slavery was wrong. Killing kids for their Fathers' sins was wrong. Raping women as your spoils of war, was wrong. Society pulled Religious values forward.

And I didnt say that Religion played "no role." Of course it had a role. Necessarily. There's people who actually believe in it.

And I said nothing of a better path..... for anything, and didnt even say that Religion was evil, as a whole.

Thats more of your twatty assuming, and it takes so many conversations onto un-pointed, needless asides.

Implied in your comments is the assumption that we would have gotten to the same place without religion. I’m not convinced of that. That is the path not chosen.

As for your understanding of what the Jews established you should read Huston Smith book on world religions.

I dont need your recommends, Im a grown man and Ive done my research.

What you believe was implied, wasn't. You were in error.

If asked which would have been the "better path" to advance ancient societies? My answer would have been, "I dont know."

Now, you no longer need to assume.

If you had done your research you would have acknowledged the Jew’s contribution to mankind and not dismissed it as mankind would have moved past it for no other reason than it was barbaric. The Jews literally raised the bar at a time when no other people did.

What I said and what you read were, like usual, two totally different things. That was another error, on your part.

Actually, saying I dismissed their contribution while quoting a post where I literally said "Of course it had a role" is just another symptom of you being impossible to take conversations through, with. Your mentality has too much of an ax to grind and you read all kinds of shit that isnt there, because of it.

The contribution of the Jews was a little more than a role and your comment was directed at religion not the Jews.

 

[G.T.]

The Values at the time of Moses were barbaric. Thats why, when society advanced past that barbaric way of living during those times, Religions needed new covenants to save face when everybody else realized that slavery was wrong. Killing kids for their Fathers' sins was wrong. Raping women as your spoils of war, was wrong. Society pulled Religious values forward.

And I didnt say that Religion played "no role." Of course it had a role. Necessarily. There's people who actually believe in it.

And I said nothing of a better path..... for anything, and didnt even say that Religion was evil, as a whole.

Thats more of your twatty assuming, and it takes so many conversations onto un-pointed, needless asides.

Implied in your comments is the assumption that we would have gotten to the same place without religion. I’m not convinced of that. That is the path not chosen.

As for your understanding of what the Jews established you should read Huston Smith book on world religions.

I dont need your recommends, Im a grown man and Ive done my research.

What you believe was implied, wasn't. You were in error.

If asked which would have been the "better path" to advance ancient societies? My answer would have been, "I dont know."

Now, you no longer need to assume.

If you had done your research you would have acknowledged the Jew’s contribution to mankind and not dismissed it as mankind would have moved past it for no other reason than it was barbaric. The Jews literally raised the bar at a time when no other people did.

What I said and what you read were, like usual, two totally different things. That was another error, on your part.

Actually, saying I dismissed their contribution while quoting a post where I literally said "Of course it had a role" is just another symptom of you being impossible to take conversations through, with. Your mentality has too much of an ax to grind and you read all kinds of shit that isnt there, because of it.

It was a little more than a role.

That's cool. And Mosaic law had a role in holding things back, as well. These things are all water under the bridge, at this point. Humans grow and learn. Most of us dont condone much of Mosaic law, and much of it is fine. That's just more evidence that its all come from Humanity, and not some eternal, unchanging, all knowing being.

 

[OldLady]

That's another non sequitur.

The truth about God being how x, y, z Religion says God actually IS, or IF God actually exists, cannot be extrapolated from anyone's civilization rising or falling. That's irrationalism, at its finest.

I don’t believe I said anything about God is or actually exists.

I am referring to the behaviors religion teaches.

You should look up the Protestant work ethic by Webber, I think, or the happiness advantage. Specifically the ways in which we are able to train our minds for happiness and how those are values taught by religion.

Attitude is everything. It is the difference maker.

Religion is fine if you need it for those values, Ding.

There are plenty of people who don't.

You keep harrassing hobelim about considering religion evil, and if he does you think that its weird that he doesnt want to ban it.

You also keep posting the evils of atheism and the millions its killed.

Are you being subversive about your wishes to ban atheism?

These shoes you like to put on peoples' feet, you never understand that theyre the same ones you wouldnt want to wear, yourself.

If you werent such a **** and had some basic conversational skills, you wouldnt be down this path with such a large number of folks over simple discussions of ideas. This isnt the flame zone.

Path not taken. Their values were informed already by those principles.

You ask a good question though albeit in a straw man fashion. Do I want to ban atheism? Is that even possible? Putting that aside my answer is no. Each person must decide the path they must travel.

My actions are reactions to the reactions of atheists to Christianity.

I wholeheartedly agree in walking a mile in the other guy’s moccasins. That’s why I don’t judge the person.

The values in the most common Religious texts predated the Religion itself i.e. theyre human values, not Religious ones.

Religions, like Laws, merely codified what we already had.

Actually at the time of Moses the standards they established were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Ironically people use those higher standards against them because they were not the standards we have today. Nonetheless we are still challenged by the ten that were first established.

But to your point it is the role of religion to teach civility. Something a government cannot do. So I dispute that religion played no role in establishing the standards and values we follow or try to follow today.

You are arguing a path not taken and are assuming it would have been a better path.

No, government doesn't teach civility: civilization--culture--does. Religion reflects mainstream beliefs of any culture. The two march hand in hand, and it's pretty hard to unravel one from the other.

 

[ding]

Implied in your comments is the assumption that we would have gotten to the same place without religion. I’m not convinced of that. That is the path not chosen.

As for your understanding of what the Jews established you should read Huston Smith book on world religions.

I dont need your recommends, Im a grown man and Ive done my research.

What you believe was implied, wasn't. You were in error.

If asked which would have been the "better path" to advance ancient societies? My answer would have been, "I dont know."

Now, you no longer need to assume.

If you had done your research you would have acknowledged the Jew’s contribution to mankind and not dismissed it as mankind would have moved past it for no other reason than it was barbaric. The Jews literally raised the bar at a time when no other people did.

What I said and what you read were, like usual, two totally different things. That was another error, on your part.

Actually, saying I dismissed their contribution while quoting a post where I literally said "Of course it had a role" is just another symptom of you being impossible to take conversations through, with. Your mentality has too much of an ax to grind and you read all kinds of shit that isnt there, because of it.

It was a little more than a role.

That's cool. And Mosaic law had a role in holding things back, as well. These things are all water under the bridge, at this point. Humans grow and learn. Most of us dont condone much of Mosaic law, and much of it is fine. That's just more evidence that its all come from Humanity, and not some eternal, unchanging, all knowing being.

It was written by men. They had latitude in what they wrote. God didn’t dictate it to them.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you believe it is one big conspiracy theory.

 

[ding]

I don’t believe I said anything about God is or actually exists.

I am referring to the behaviors religion teaches.

You should look up the Protestant work ethic by Webber, I think, or the happiness advantage. Specifically the ways in which we are able to train our minds for happiness and how those are values taught by religion.

Attitude is everything. It is the difference maker.

Religion is fine if you need it for those values, Ding.

There are plenty of people who don't.

You keep harrassing hobelim about considering religion evil, and if he does you think that its weird that he doesnt want to ban it.

You also keep posting the evils of atheism and the millions its killed.

Are you being subversive about your wishes to ban atheism?

These shoes you like to put on peoples' feet, you never understand that theyre the same ones you wouldnt want to wear, yourself.

If you werent such a **** and had some basic conversational skills, you wouldnt be down this path with such a large number of folks over simple discussions of ideas. This isnt the flame zone.

Path not taken. Their values were informed already by those principles.

You ask a good question though albeit in a straw man fashion. Do I want to ban atheism? Is that even possible? Putting that aside my answer is no. Each person must decide the path they must travel.

My actions are reactions to the reactions of atheists to Christianity.

I wholeheartedly agree in walking a mile in the other guy’s moccasins. That’s why I don’t judge the person.

The values in the most common Religious texts predated the Religion itself i.e. theyre human values, not Religious ones.

Religions, like Laws, merely codified what we already had.

Actually at the time of Moses the standards they established were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Ironically people use those higher standards against them because they were not the standards we have today. Nonetheless we are still challenged by the ten that were first established.

But to your point it is the role of religion to teach civility. Something a government cannot do. So I dispute that religion played no role in establishing the standards and values we follow or try to follow today.

You are arguing a path not taken and are assuming it would have been a better path.

No, government doesn't teach civility: civilization--culture--does. Religion reflects mainstream beliefs of any culture. The two march hand in hand, and it's pretty hard to unravel one from the other.

I agree. My contention is that without organized religion we would have had less checks placed upon us. It served a purpose.

 

[G.T.]

I dont need your recommends, Im a grown man and Ive done my research.

What you believe was implied, wasn't. You were in error.

If asked which would have been the "better path" to advance ancient societies? My answer would have been, "I dont know."

Now, you no longer need to assume.

If you had done your research you would have acknowledged the Jew’s contribution to mankind and not dismissed it as mankind would have moved past it for no other reason than it was barbaric. The Jews literally raised the bar at a time when no other people did.

What I said and what you read were, like usual, two totally different things. That was another error, on your part.

Actually, saying I dismissed their contribution while quoting a post where I literally said "Of course it had a role" is just another symptom of you being impossible to take conversations through, with. Your mentality has too much of an ax to grind and you read all kinds of shit that isnt there, because of it.

It was a little more than a role.

That's cool. And Mosaic law had a role in holding things back, as well. These things are all water under the bridge, at this point. Humans grow and learn. Most of us dont condone much of Mosaic law, and much of it is fine. That's just more evidence that its all come from Humanity, and not some eternal, unchanging, all knowing being.

It was written by men. They had latitude in what they wrote. God didn’t dictate it to them.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you believe it is one big conspiracy theory.

You suspect a lot of weird shit.

I'm not Religious, I also believe that men and not God.... wrote it. Ive always believed that, and have never seen evidence to the contrary.

 

[ding]

If you had done your research you would have acknowledged the Jew’s contribution to mankind and not dismissed it as mankind would have moved past it for no other reason than it was barbaric. The Jews literally raised the bar at a time when no other people did.

What I said and what you read were, like usual, two totally different things. That was another error, on your part.

Actually, saying I dismissed their contribution while quoting a post where I literally said "Of course it had a role" is just another symptom of you being impossible to take conversations through, with. Your mentality has too much of an ax to grind and you read all kinds of shit that isnt there, because of it.

It was a little more than a role.

That's cool. And Mosaic law had a role in holding things back, as well. These things are all water under the bridge, at this point. Humans grow and learn. Most of us dont condone much of Mosaic law, and much of it is fine. That's just more evidence that its all come from Humanity, and not some eternal, unchanging, all knowing being.

It was written by men. They had latitude in what they wrote. God didn’t dictate it to them.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you believe it is one big conspiracy theory.

You suspect a lot of weird shit.

I'm not Religious, I also believe that men and not God.... wrote it. Ive always believed that, and have never seen evidence to the contrary.

The Bible is effectively a how to book. It tells both sides: the good and the bad. It doesn’t sugar coat it. You get to hear all of the sorid stuff of its hero’s.

 

[G.T.]

What I said and what you read were, like usual, two totally different things. That was another error, on your part.

Actually, saying I dismissed their contribution while quoting a post where I literally said "Of course it had a role" is just another symptom of you being impossible to take conversations through, with. Your mentality has too much of an ax to grind and you read all kinds of shit that isnt there, because of it.

It was a little more than a role.

That's cool. And Mosaic law had a role in holding things back, as well. These things are all water under the bridge, at this point. Humans grow and learn. Most of us dont condone much of Mosaic law, and much of it is fine. That's just more evidence that its all come from Humanity, and not some eternal, unchanging, all knowing being.

It was written by men. They had latitude in what they wrote. God didn’t dictate it to them.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you believe it is one big conspiracy theory.

You suspect a lot of weird shit.

I'm not Religious, I also believe that men and not God.... wrote it. Ive always believed that, and have never seen evidence to the contrary.

The Bible is effectively a how to book. It tells both sides: the good and the bad. It doesn’t sugar coat it. You get to hear all of the sorid stuff of its hero’s.

It was an alright/decent book. I can see its appeal.

 

[well named]

What should be eliminated is the religious indoctrination of children before they are taught about the realities of what is possible or impossible in this world. They need to first have a sound education in scientific discoveries, literary techniques of instruction, critical thinking, and the natural history of the world, before studying scripture to avoid thought and behavioral disorders and any number of mental health issues.

The practical problem with this view is that you can't really eliminate primary socialization/enculturation (to use the sociological and anthropological terms; the two concepts are essentially the same). There's a very real sense in which saying "religion must not be taught to children" is the same as saying that religion ought to be eliminated, because primary socialization is so foundational to human development. Telling religious parents that they can't pass their beliefs on to their children directly involves a very draconian restriction of religious freedom because of that.

Don't get me wrong, I also think that education in science, critical thinking, and natural history are hugely important, and I'm not really very keen on a lot of religious socialization. But I think we should recognize that "religion should be allowed, but only for adults" is not really a compromise position. It's a position that entails giving secularism (in whatever form) almost absolute primacy over religion within society.

You should look up the Protestant work ethic by Weber

If you're going to cite Weber's theory of the Protestant Work Ethic approvingly then you probably should also look at his concept of the Iron Cage, from the same book.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Should religion be eliminated?

Forcibly? No. That would be against the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of ideas.

Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors.

`​

 

[BreezeWood]

.
has anyone bothered to define religion in regards to why it should be eliminated - and from what.

Would you like to abolish Christianity?

Don't be shy. Speak right up.

.

Would you like to abolish Christianity?

Don't be shy. Speak right up.

.
christianity is not a religion their 4th century 10000 page document is a thinly disguised political document in appeasement to the governance of the roman empire. their document does not reflect the events of the 1st century nor its primary character.

the primary goal is to reestablish the true Religion of Antiquity as prescribed and to bring to justice against those responsible for the criminal content embedded in the forgeries of the desert religion scriptures.

 

[ding]

Should religion be eliminated?

Forcibly? No. That would be against the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of ideas.

Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors.

`​

It can't be that bad then.

 

[ding]

Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors

I didn't know we were keeping it alive.

I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

There’s another idiotic aspect of the thread premise: how exactly would religion be ‘eliminated’ – in the United States that would require the Constitution to be amended to repeal the First Amendment; needless to say that would never happen, nor would any American advocate for such a thing.

The thread premise then states that other efforts to ‘eliminate’ religion have failed, yet the thread premise encourages readers to ‘give it another try.’

Clearly the thread premise was posted in bad faith the consequence of appropriate questioning and scrutiny of religious dogma and beliefs – dogma and beliefs devoid of fact, evidence, and truth.

 

[ding]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

There’s another idiotic aspect of the thread premise: how exactly would religion be ‘eliminated’ – in the United States that would require the Constitution to be amended to repeal the First Amendment; needless to say that would never happen, nor would any American advocate for such a thing.

The thread premise then states that other efforts to ‘eliminate’ religion have failed, yet the thread premise encourages readers to ‘give it another try.’

Clearly the thread premise was posted in bad faith the consequence of appropriate questioning and scrutiny of religious dogma and beliefs – dogma and beliefs devoid of fact, evidence, and truth.

They have already violated the Constitution with regard to the establishment clause. I'm sure we could look away for the good of the people.

 

[hobelim]

What should be eliminated is the religious indoctrination of children before they are taught about the realities of what is possible or impossible in this world. They need to first have a sound education in scientific discoveries, literary techniques of instruction, critical thinking, and the natural history of the world, before studying scripture to avoid thought and behavioral disorders and any number of mental health issues.

The practical problem with this view is that you can't really eliminate primary socialization/enculturation (to use the sociological and anthropological terms; the two concepts are essentially the same). There's a very real sense in which saying "religion must not be taught to children" is the same as saying that religion ought to be eliminated, because primary socialization is so foundational to human development. Telling religious parents that they can't pass their beliefs on to their children directly involves a very draconian restriction of religious freedom because of that.

Don't get me wrong, I also think that education in science, critical thinking, and natural history are hugely important, and I'm not really very keen on a lot of religious socialization. But I think we should recognize that "religion should be allowed, but only for adults" is not really a compromise position. It's a position that entails giving secularism (in whatever form) almost absolute primacy over religion within society.

I understand what you are saying. I also remember a time when, " how a person raises their own children is no one else's business" used to be the justification for what is socially and legally condemned as child abuse today.

For some mysterious reason I haven't heard many parents fighting for their God given right to physically abuse their own children in order to pass on their religious beliefs. I suspect it's because they don't have that right. Is that secular oppression?

Should what is criminal in secular society, like fraud, theft by deception, false advertising, child abuse, etc., be protected under the guise of religion no matter how detrimental, demonstrably false, or outright evil what they are saying and doing is?

Maybe one day so called modern people will advance to the moral and ethical level of bronze age nomads who authored scripture and equated the deliberate defilement of a young persons mind with a criminal act that amounts to murder.

 

[gtopa1]

Acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, and that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man is not to ‘oppose’ religion.

Indeed, those free from religion are among the greatest advocates of religious expression and liberty; those free from religion will always be the first to defend religious liberty against attacks by government or unwarranted restrictions by the state.

You didn't read much of Communism then.

The state advocated the destruction of religion, and it officially pronounced religious beliefs to be superstitious and backward.[3][4] The Communist Party destroyed churches, synagogues,[5] mosques and Buddhist temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with anti-religious teachings, and it introduced a belief system called "scientific atheism," with its own rituals, promises and proselytizers.[6][7] The total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[8][9]

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

Methinks you need to read a bit more.
https://mcgrath.nd.edu/assets/84231/the_demographics_of_christian_martyrdom_todd_johnson.pdf

Greg