Debate and Discussion

God: Yes or No?
MagickLorelai at 3:24PM, Aug. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
MechaShiva
There were wars caused by religion. Without religion, that set of wars would be eliminatied. It's that simple. Some people seem to have a hard time grasping simple logics.

I don't think that you're grasping the concept that those wars had religious and nonreligious reasons. Take away the religious and you still have the nonreligious reasons. Take away the religious part of this current “war on terror”, and there are still reasons to be at war.

Without religion, those wars would not have been eliminated. They'd just be rallied under a different cause. So, it's NOT “that simple”, because NOTHING is “that simple”.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
MagickLorelai at 4:18PM, Aug. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
If it's that easy to place blame on something, why hasn't everyone else jumped in the same boat as you? Of course, it's EASY to say, “Religion is what's causing all these problems”, or even the more diplomatic, “Religion is one of the causes, but a more central cause”. Religion is easy to target because, in the name of Religion, people have done horrible things.

It's easy to sit back and say, “Religion is the problem. Get rid of that.” Because it means not having to actually deal with the complicated, tangled mess that every conflict that involved religion had.

The Salem Witch Trials were motivated by property, and would've found one way or another to condemn the people they wanted to condemn; They used religion as an out. Take away religion, and they still would be motivated to kill people for their land. In that hypothetical situation, the greedy ones could have lied about the landowner's past, saying they were evil and did evil things, which would've gotten other people to support the action of killing them.

The Inquisition was about establishing control over the masses. Religion, being dear to everyone's heart at the time, was the easiest way to control them. Take out religion, and they would've found something else to control people, and another reason to torture and kill people. Say, for example, the idea that someone was sick with some sort of plague. They could've lied about telltale symptoms of plague, which would get the masses to fear those in power. I'm just using hypothetical examples, however.

Oh yes, Religion has been the topped label on every war and conflict, pretty much. Religion IS close to those who believe in it, and they can be manipulated sometimes if they're not taught to question what someone is trying to get them to do. There are also other motivations for going to war: Money, being a top one; Fear, that can be started by more than one reason(threat of being attacked/threat of spreading illness). Blaming religion is like blaming a symptom of a complex disease for the whole illness.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
MagickLorelai at 8:13PM, Aug. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
Except that Religion also serves other purposes. It's not JUST a means to control people. I'm not controlled by anyone in my faith, except me. It's not JUST a problem; You're defining it as one. Yet it also gives people Hope in a hopeless time, light when things seem their most bleak. It can be a clarity into purpose of life; Many people have found their calling through religion to do great things. I can't name any off the top of my head, but then, we live in a world where people focus on the negative anyway.

Religion gives people identity, guidance(when we need it). Yes, it's also a comfort tool that can blind people and create fear. That is ONE purpose that abuses the whole name of religion. That is the part you claim we can do without, and frankly, I agree. It's BECAUSE religion is so core to us as people THAT people get manipulated. Atheists have other things they hold close to them. I don't pretend to know how an Atheist thinks. What I said applies to those of us with religious faith.

Religion is not the cause of problems. I've said this repeatedly, but I think you believe I'm ignorant for feeling that way. I feel you're wrong to dismiss what I'm saying just because it clashes with your view of religion. You can believe what you want to believe. Believe all you want that the world would be better without religion, Just don't tell other people what they should do “for their own good”. The American Government would have us believe that impossibly high invasion of privacy is “for our own good”, but at what price? You will not convince me that religion is the problem.

For me, religion was the solution to a lot of my problems; not drowning my problems in religion, but instead, using religion as a tool for self discovery. Yes, I'm only speaking for myself with that example. I know many people choose to turn a blind eye to things they don't understand, but that's because the majority religion in this country has taught them to do this.

Religion does a lot of good for people, especially on an individual basis.

Also,Mrpedant, I didn't make the Icon, I just think it's funny. ^^;

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
MagickLorelai at 10:48PM, Aug. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
I don't depend on it. I used it to help myself. Other DO depend on it, and that is a little sad, but I don't think the problem is in religion itself as much as it is in the people themselves. If anything, these people need help understanding that religion should NOT block out life, but instead, truly help someone to understand it; not just define it for us, but give us the skills to understand the world around us. At least, that's what it means to me.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
Black_Kitty at 1:20AM, Aug. 15, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
Kennedy0
No. It just took centuries for Christianity to spread to the wrong people.

Christianity wasn't an entirely new concept at the time of the Crusades. As I suggested earlier, people were making pilgrimages to Jerusalem prior to the Crusades. Neither was Pope Urban II the first Pope or Christianity a brand new religion. Even if Christianity was an entirely new concept to the people involved in the Crusades, previous Popes would have been aware of the signifiance of Jerusalem.

The fact that you can suggest that there are actually wrong people to spread Christianity to in some ways supports MagickLorelai's arguement. The idea that if there was no religion, at least they would be forced to admit guilt is an assumption. The government of China is a good example of a non-religious institution who is perfectly happy with not acknowledging guilt.

Of course, no one knows. Its called an educated guess.



Because that wasn't the point.

My responses are getting short because you ignore the sentences where I make a point against you. This is why we're debating the little things that don't matter now.

I group these points together because my response will address both.

If you were making educated guesses, then I wouldn't have had any problems with them. But you weren't. You're making fantastic leaps of assumptions that ignores everything that isn't convenient to you. That's not an educated guess but a selective one. You're willing to suggest that if religion was taken out of the equation, then there would be two less historical events…but you're not willing to entertain the other possible side effects of taking religion out of the equation. You just dismiss them as not being the point (even though they do have an effect on whether or not it would help in making the world a better place.)

I ignore your points because I feel like arguing with you about them will go nowhere. I do not feel that you fully grasp what I'm saying and to be honest, I don't feel like you really want to anyway. I get the feeling that you simply feel I'm ignorant so you keep repeating yourself. The fact is, I have read your post. I simply disagree and I don't feel I'm illogical in my reasoning. And I feel that me sticking to the Bible points earlier on has proved that I'm not afraid to stick to an arguement…if I feel it's going somewhere.

If you can't understand that history is complex and that you can't just simply treat chunks of it as if it has no relation to other things, then this conversation will go nowhere. If you're going to pick and choose what you feel is and isn't the point, then unless something fresh comes up, I'm just going to cease participating in this thread.

.: Black Kitty :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
MagickLorelai at 10:11AM, Aug. 15, 2006
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
Kennedy, again, making leaps from assumptions. You said “started for purely religious reasons”. How do you know that? Were you there? Did you happen to hear those leaders suggesting that they start wars for purely religious reasons? You ARE aware that “Historical Fact” can be obscured through time, right?

Edit: Even if I were to take at face value that those religious wars were SOLELY religious, and would not have happened without religion, there would have been other wars in their place with different causes behind them.

You CAN'T know for absolute certain what their intentions were. The comparison you made with Hitler and the genocides he was directly responsible for, has nothing to do with religion being “responsible” for other genocide and war. Religion is an abstract idea, not an actual person. Religion cannot make the decision to kill people, only individual persons or groups can make that decision. The problem is that INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE OR GROUPS abuse the purpose of religion towards their personal goals.

I have no idea why you assume I am so ignorant, to the point where you completely disregard everything I say except what you can quote to make your points. I've said several times now exactly why your assumption that religion is the SOLE cause of these conflicts isn't true. I've given examples. I've also talked about the good that religion can do, but that, too, is ignored.

I've probably invested more in this forum discussion than I ever should have. I'm sick of being called ignorant by someone who refuses to listen to anything that isn't already in his rulebook (Which is, once again, what the faith-blinded do). So, just letting you know, after this post, I'm withdrawing. I've said all that *I* can say on the subject. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
Duck at 4:03PM, Aug. 15, 2006
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-22-2006
A LOT of conflict is caused by religion. The Crusades was the biggie, and infact religious wars are still going on today. I couldn't tell you for certanty that without religion these things would or would not have happened (though most likely they would not) because the faith people had was thought of as right and they wanted to enforce it.

The problem isn't religion, it's devotion to religion. Those who look at faith in a black and white sense. The “i'm right, your wrong” way.

The idea of religion is a sound one. Gathering people who have similar faith, but where it breaks down is where people get involved. Where people get up and say “we know what God thinks, and he thinks you're wrong” and of course people don't like that. And that's where things break down. Some people refuse to think things out. To possibly say “hey, I might be wrong here” esepcially with things like faith or belief is very difficult for some. Some it's damn near impossible.

Personally, I think we all could make do with someone questioning our beliefs. But what I think, isn't what everyone thinks. And that's their right.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
MagickLorelai at 12:36AM, Aug. 16, 2006
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
I agree with both of you. (Not getting back into the religion causing/not causing debate). It's people individually who take a good idea and turn it into something bad.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved