I just loooove religious people...

Well, duh, everyone knows he supports the Miss UNIVERSE contest, not Miss World. Stupid newspaper.

Religion doesn't kill. Hate kills. You can have religion without hate.

Unfortunately, hate and religion seem to have soeme bizarre marriage. One seems to breed the other. Whether that is fair or not, that seems to be what happens. Then the blame gets placed on the religion and the whole thing gets perpetuated.

Hate doesn't breed religion, but as most religions are exclusionary, religion can breed hate. To often it does but Jacob seems to believe that it is the rule rather than the exception.

I'm not sure if it's the rule or the exception, but the only time it makes the news is when religion leads to hate. Since that's the only time we talk about it, that's what tends to stick with us.

You can just as easily take these riots and apply it to race riots.

Look at the LA riots. Much like these riots just with less people killed but still many injured. And that was started over the preceived(depends) view of a racist verdict against Rodney King.

I was reading another article about this and I simply thought in my head that now it had lowered itself to basic human nature rather then any religious thinking. They are simply fighting now. They need to take Librium. Just like in Equilibrium. But if they did that we would have a whole other form of problems.

Did you know that 87% of all murders can be directly attributed to religion? It's true.

And 99% of statistics are bollocks.

Also, because some black people have robbed houses, I will assume that they all do.

Low and unnecessary. I care about everyone that dies. Especially those who die unredeemed. Simply because people are killed in the name of religion does not make religion as a whole or even that religion bad. People are killed for a multitude of "reasons". What it gets down to is that killer made a decision to play god.

But the killer was motivated by religion. The question is whether the killer would have killed without the influence of religion. I think there are cases where the answer is yes, but the cases where the answer is no prompts discussions like this one.

Who's you guys? I'm no Republican.

Yes, thousands are murdered in the name of religion every year. By the way, do you have statistics on that? You've proved dozens, now about the thousands...

Also, thousands are murdered in the name of greed, or bigotry, or for no good reason at all. So what? Honestly, put the same thing in about blacks or someone and see the difference. There are tons of decent religious people. There are many who aren't. There are tons of decent non-religious people. Some aren't.

Killers are motivated by many things, and religion is only one, and that's to very few out of many.

In most cases (not all) religion, money, love, are all just excuses for killing. It all gets down to you hated that person bad enough. Perhaps the "motives" got the ball rolling but a sane person can stop it before it rolls over someone.

No prob. This is a heated topic. Apology accepted.

While the fetus comment may have been low and unnecessary, it points to a common hypocricy associated with religion in this country (maybe others, I don't know). Many religious people are ardent opposers of abortion, but support the death penalty. Guns are ok, sex education is evil. Those are things that have lead to murder in the past (killing abortion doctors, for example). So I think the comment is relevant, although a little enflamatory for the crowd that we usually get at Chud.

Just remember:

Hate,death,destruction and violence are always easy to notice and condemn.
Lives that are saved,helped or made better by religion and God are hardly ever accounted for or reported. Regardless of the fact that the good far outstrips the bad.

The bad will always get the press. Same with any situation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sammy Jankis:
<strong>While the fetus comment may have been low and unnecessary, it points to a common hypocricy associated with religion in this country (maybe others, I don't know). Many religious people are ardent opposers of abortion, but support the death penalty.</strong>

The baby did nothing to be killed, the condemned deserve to die by the law of the land. Not all killing is bad. Just the killing I deem bad is bad. Seriously though I do not see being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty as being mutually exclusive. Not hypocritical at all if you view the reasons they have for both views.

<strong>Guns are ok, sex education is evil. Those are things that have lead to murder in the past (killing abortion doctors, for example). So I think the comment is relevant, although a little enflamatory for the crowd that we usually get at Chud.</strong>

Guns are OK. Sex education is not evil but abstinence should be taught alongside the use of birth control.

Scott, I was making a general statement about the beliefs of a group. You responded with your own views. While this is fine, I do want to point out the distinction. While you are able to articulate why you believe what you believe, many are not. They haven't really though about it. They're just spouting empty retoric that they have been exposed to over and over for who knows how long.

So while you can articulate why abortion is bad, but the death penalty is necessary, many cannot. While you don't think sex education is evil, many do. It's the unthinking masses who don't apply reason to what they hear who perform the most heinous acts under the guise of religion. Using yourself as an example to defend them isn't fair to you (obviously you aren't a crazed religious fanatic, but someone who knows why they believe what they believe), and it does nothing to change my mind or influence me in any way.

p.s. I love this place.

Indeed Call.

People will find their motive to kill or motive to steal or lie or any numerous bad things in anything. Whether it being love, religion, passion, art, rights, ideaologies, or any number of other things. Religions does indeed involve passion. More so the some other things. But it is not religion that causes the man to kill unless that religion is rooted in that.

Man is more likely to kill without religion then he is to with it. But there will always be the weak willed or the weak minded who will accept religion yet never change their life.

Yet many people do realize why they believe what they believe. Sure many blindly follow but there are the many who do not. Conservatives are not dumb idiots that many would make them out to be.

And I can say the same of those who speak of being pro choice or anti gun. They believe in those things and have no idea why. They are given reasons that sound good but make no sense when looked at more closely. Yet they choose not to look further into the matter. rather they are whipped into frenzies by rallies and demonstrations and begin to justify bad behavior in the name of some greater good.

The mirror woorks for one group as much as it does another.

<a href="http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C200%257E20954%257E1003705%2C00.html" target="_blank">The amount of hate and killing in L.A. over "turf" is even more apalling.</a>

Indeed. These are areas you wouldn't even approach because your skin colored could be considered wrong. Or if not skin color it could be clothes or simply what block yo are from.

But there seems to be hope in our new Police Chief. Seems he is cracking down as we speak about seeing something done about this epidemic.

WTO protestors save lives?

But that pales in comparison to the amount of killing done in the name of The State during the 20th Century alone.

And that pales in comparison to one Rwandan Genocide which was based on tribal warfare.

And in fact that little genocide itself was co-lead by one woman who I would have to think is the spawn of Satan. She recently faced the UN tribunal. Wicked, wicked women who ordered rape of horrid porpotions not to mention in disgusting fashion.

Blight upon humanity because you say so? Forgive me if I find that kind of arguement pretty much in pieces.
For as many examples that you can show for it being a blight I can show it is not.

For as many instances where you can find where religion caused violence I can point to where it caused peace.

For as many instances where you can point out where religion caused violence I can show you places where violence occured with no involvement of religion.

As for me I think a society devoid of beliefs in the purpose of humanity would be a society devoid of any soul and thus be given to violence and strife and no love of one's fellow man. But we will never know because society will never be without religion.

And you can argue the goodness of makind without religion or belief but could we actually go on without a true sense of purpose? But of course that question itself has been argued for centuries and we may actually see the answer in our lifetime. My belief of course.

I'm not gonna argue with you. Just to make it abundantly clear:

Imagine if you had that attitude about say, WTO protesters?

Don't throw out bullshit accusations about non-sequiters when you're the genius who brought up the fucking WTO in the first place.

Now go surround yourself with the narrow minded fringe dwellers who help you believe that anyone and anything outside of your little circle of thought must be a facist intent on destroying your freedom to buy patchouli. Or whatever it is you do during the day.

He works in non-profit, which by turn, makes him better than us.

He's not the only one.

All joking aside, I see that this thread is becoming less than civil. Everyone involved, please cease and return to intelligent discussion or I shall be forced to close this thread. Thank you.

Brendan

LOL.

I have to disagree with you Jacob. It's not "religion" that causes harm, it is the people. Religion is a safety net, a security blanket, a comfort zone. It's a way to make sense of chaos, and a way to form bonds and communities.

I think it's very narrow-minded to make religion a scapegoat for the "evils" in the world. If people choose to be "evil" according to their religion then it's not the fault of said religion. It is the choice of these "religious people" to cause harm to others.

Being an atheist, that is a religion in itself. If we make sweeping statements that "religion" cause immense harm to fellow human beings, then we are including the "religion" of atheism.

Then again, I Ol' Will has returned and he did just recently induct me to his cult.

If you want to say religion is a blight because you don't believe in God that's fair game, but to say it is because of all the killing that has happened under it makes no sense. If you go that route, you have to discount almost anything because almost everything has been killed for. The German people of today are a blight because their country started two world wars.

And before the Crusades are brought up once again, let's all remember that religion was a part of it, but a bigger part of it was land, power, and cash, just like every war has been fought for. The Pope gave a speech to get people to go, and most of the reasons he gave were of the likes of land and power. That was the big motivator.

There are weak minds everywhere. In every organization you'll find those who just accept what they're told, and do it. Religion isn't any different. Not all religious folk are robots, and you find different lines of thought in the same religion all over the place.

It's true that historically religion has held progress back, but again, those were they days where everyone was superstitious about everything because they didn't have the knowledge that we have today. I don't see religion holding anything back now.

I think generally you just typecast people you disagree with. They must all be dumb or weak minded. Certainly they can't think for themselves, or they'd come to the same conclusions as you.

The Crusades were a war to stop an invading force from taking more territory, but framed with a religious bent to make the soldiers actually want to go to war. The Inquisition was responsible for about 400,000 deaths. Yet somehow these deaths are far, far worse than the depradations of Ghenghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, the Cambodian massacres, the Rwandan genocide... etc. ad nauseum.

Having a wrong opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence is the hallmark of a "weak mind."

If Religion is the only stumbling block to humanity not trying to eradicate each other, why were 20 million people killed at the hand of Stalin?

I think people tend to take the general view of the Crusades...they were killing for Christianity! Some of that was true, but there were other reasons for it. It wasn't simply about religion. Just like today, old Mr. Bin Ladin didn't simply say "I don't like Christian countries anymore" and start blasting us. There were other reasons involved. But it's a lot easier to put things in a nice wrapped package and make an easy generalization.

In the political forum, Devin would say that we have to look into the reasons that Bin Ladin decided to go after us, and not just chalk it up to them being a bunch of fanatics who want to destroy us because we're infedels. Why are the Crusades more one-dimensional?

I agree with that. Fanatics are nuts.

As for the staying on topic, here's the problem: you say religion is bad because it has killed people. So pointing out other instances where more people have been killed for other reasons is staying within the parameters of the argument. People can also point out the good things done in the name of religion. And it was only a matter of time that the Crusades were brought up, which had more to it than just religion, so I figured I'd bring the old dog up now.

I don't see any of this straying off topic.

Is "religion" a blight on humanity or is "humanity" a blight on humanity?

And where is it defined the scope of the arguement.

Whatever you have to say Dev I find you are perhaps the mind that is farthest closed off then anyone else's here on CHUD.

I have never seen you once concide to someone else who has pointed something out to you.

And you decide not to see that adding to your folly. You can go on and on about what you think and such but so can others. And others are not defined by you or what you believe to be the scope of arguement.

The sooner you stop trying to "censor" the arguement the better.

You say religion is the blight upon humanity. But I believe the lack of it is a blight. you can go on and on about how man would provide to others without religion but I highly doubt that. Man wouldnt care to lend a hand to another without religion. Without an innate sense of purpose given to man by God he would seek to slaughter one another as the animals do. Son would be killed by the father regualrly and the father killed by the son. It is faith and belief that keeps humankind sane even in the midst of so much darkness that we are capable of and that we commit on a regular basis.

Sure, but saying that religion is a blight against humanity is like saying shark attacks are a blight against humanity, percentage wise.
Now that's horrifying.

Interesting. When Dev "strays from the topic" it's because threads are like conversations. When other people do it it's because they're stupid....

Anyway, I agree that people kill in the name of religion. People kill in the name of God. It is foolish to believe that most, if not all, of those killings were actually sanctioned by the majority of that religion's followers or by their god.

The fact that crazy people use God's name to lend credability to their acts in no way makes religion a blight on humanity. That would be true only if the majority of ALL religions acts caused ultimately more harm than good. Pretty tall order to prove that one. So prove precisely that Dev, burden of proof is on you I believe. Prove that the majority of all religions do more harm than good for humanity or cede the day.

Heh,

Well my friend, you are utterly perdictable.

Thanks for proving my point!

<img src="http://www.dvdasian.com/images/6/13441.9.jpg" alt="" />

Actually, my arguments have been within the framework that you provided. Let's go over it.

In your first post...actually, that one would be your off-topic post about the WTO, so we'll ignore it. Your first on-topic post was this:

Okay, fine. Then your third post had, to me, this relevant part:

So I would put your position as: "Because killing and torture has been perpetrated in the name of religion, therefore religion is a blight on humanity.

So far, do we agree or disagree on your position?

Now if I wanted to knock holes in your argument, I could do it in a few ways. One way I could do it would be to talk about the good things that religion does. Then you could argue that they do more bad than good, and people still die in the name of religion, so who cares?

So the second way, and in my opinion the better way, is to attack the logic in your argument.

If you say "Historically, people have died in the name of religion, therefore religion is a blight on humanity," I can probe what else you would think it a blight on humanity using that exact same reasoning. Example:

"Historically, people have died in the name of a strong nation of Germany, therefore Germany is a blight on humanity." Using your own line of reasoning, do you agree or disagree? How is this off-topic or a non-sequiter? Off-topic would be if I answered to you:

"Who cares how many people Christianity killed? Clinton was getting blow jobs and that didn't bother anybody!"

So I don't see anything I've said as being off-topic at all.

I never argued that and I wouldn't, because it's true. But that was never your argument, and you never said that until now. You basically argued that because of what some have done in the name of religion that all religion is a blight, which I don't agree with.

You were warned, fellas.

Closing down...