Religion, better off without it?

gimme5minutes

What are people's opinions on religion as a whole? Not just Christianity but any and all religions. Imo the world would have been 100 times better off if religions never existed. Hundreds of millions of people have died down the centuries through various conflicts that had religious origins. The current scandals in the Catholic Church are just the latest in a long line of reasons as why religion is a bad idea. It might look good on paper but in practise, over the last 2000 years, organised religion has proven to be an absolute unmitigated disaster causing immeasurable pain and suffering to the world's population. The disgraceful behaviour of the Church in Ireland far outweighs any good it has done or ever will do. They have destroyed tens of thousands of lives, directly and indirectly. Have they saved tens of thousands of lives in return? No, they certainly haven't. Similarly with Islam, the amount of good that has come out of it is miniscule compared to the suffering it's caused. The simple and most obvious example of this is the disgusting treatment of 50% of the Islamic population who are treated worse than slaves - women.

I think the last few thousand years are evidence enough that the greatest miracle any of could ever hope for is for all religions to be banished from the face of the earth forever.

conchubhar1

people kill people

religion has not and will not kill people

Ponster

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Have they saved tens of thousands of lives in return? No, they certainly haven't.

And you know this how exactly?

conchubhar1

because they are dead ^ ?

(this depends if you mean in the heavenly saved sense)

Biggins

conchubhar1 wrote: »

people kill people

religion has not and will not kill people

Right AND wrong at the same time. There is no black and white answer to this one.

People kill people but religion is perhaps the biggest excuse previously and currently being used to do so besides land grab/mineral grab issues.

My name is URL

It's easy to criticise and condemn things on a forum.

Problem is, nobody shows the same level of condemnation and intolerance of religion in everyday life, so we're stuck with it =(

And yes, I think we'd be far better off without it

Malari

conchubhar1 wrote: »

people kill people

religion has not and will not kill people

I don't think the OP meant that religion kills people directly.

I think the post refers to the motivation of people who kill, oppress, mutilate, terrorize, humiliate, justify crimes, etc etc, because they believe that their religion sanctions it.

I also don't think that religion is the sole cause of any of the above ills, but it certainly is a major contributor to the reason people do these things.

conchubhar1

they can give whatever reason they like

im religious, i didnt and wont kill anyone

tis no excuse

Joey the lips

Another anti religious thread!

I always think this is a daft pole, people are not better without religion what the op should have said is

"I could not be arsed living my life with a certain standard so feck it all i will do what i want"

But it all comes back to an anti religious pole. Build a bridge folks. I am religious I am proud of it but guess. I dont give a fcuk if you dont want to be! So why do you feel the constant need to ask people.

Is it your lack of soul?

I have no doubt have of these people with no life faith will apear on the PI in a few years " My life is empty and I have nothing to show"

You make life what it is! If you have no faith just bog off and leave it at that!

conchubhar1

i think abobe could be left with

its your choice

philologos

Let's talk about this OP

Shorthand view: I believe the world would be better without the wrong kind of religion, but I can't help but think that religion in general has been more positive than it ever has been negative.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Imo the world would have been 100 times better off if religions never existed.

I disagree with you. If people kept to the teachings of Jesus Christ this would would be much better that it ever could be without any form of religion.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Hundreds of millions of people have died down the centuries through various conflicts that had religious origins.

Hundreds of millions of people also died due to the actions of atheist leaders in the 20th century. Do I blame atheism?

No. I don't. Why don't I blame atheism? Due to the mere reason that most atheists wouldn't dream of persecuting religious people like Stalin did in Russia. His plan was to seize power by destroying religion. Other people tried to destroy religion in Europe in the 20th century. It failed. Big time.

As for "religious origins". Really? Was it based on Jesus' teachings or on the teachings of man?

gimme5minutes wrote: »

The current scandals in the Catholic Church are just the latest in a long line of reasons as why religion is a bad idea. It might look good on paper but in practise, over the last 2000 years, organised religion has proven to be an absolute unmitigated disaster causing immeasurable pain and suffering to the world's population.

I disagree with you again. You are focusing on a minority rather than the majority. Christians are doing wonderful things all around the world right now in the name of the Gospel. It's only the bad news that gets press however, that's the unfortunate thing about life.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

The disgraceful behaviour of the Church in Ireland far outweighs any good it has done or ever will do. They have destroyed tens of thousands of lives, directly and indirectly. Have they saved tens of thousands of lives in return?

Careful. Think for a minute.

• Did a majority of Catholic priests and nuns carry out this action?
• Is the Catholic Church the only Christian church?
• Did sexual abuse happen outside of the Catholic Church in Ireland on a much bigger scale during that time period?
• Did other churches carry out sexual abuse throughout this period on anywhere near the same scale?

I'd argue that Christianity has saved lives throughout the world, on a huge scale through the aid and assistance Christians are giving to people in some of the poorest parts of the world.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

No, they certainly haven't. Similarly with Islam, the amount of good that has come out of it is miniscule compared to the suffering it's caused. The simple and most obvious example of this is the disgusting treatment of 50% of the Islamic population who are treated worse than slaves - women.

Many would disagree with you on the role of women in Islam. Many in the West wear the hijab out of choice and see Islam as being liberating. I disagree with this view, but they can wear whatever they wish. It is only extremist groups such as the Taleban which seriously denegrate the lives of women.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

I think the last few thousand years are evidence enough that the greatest miracle any of could ever hope for is for all religions to be banished from the face of the earth forever.

Right, so you're going to carry out state atheism in Ireland? If so that might just be more horrifying than what you are describing concerning Catholicism.

I think this country is best off with freedom of religion.

diverdriver

If we didn't have religion, someone would invent it and convince other people that theirs was the only way of seeing the world. Religion is part of being human. It's attractive in many ways because of the idea of God or Gods out there with our best interests at heart or at least a bad temper. It also holds out the possibility that we do not simply die but go on to exist on a different plain. This is attractive to people because the stark reality that there is no God, no afterlife and that when you die it's over is not exactly exciting.

But as intelligent people we wish it were otherwise, so we invented Gods and religion. But it's all made up fiction like Lord of the Rings or any other story. We as humans need to feel that we are more important than we are. If we live on at all, it's simply in our DNA.

You also find that dependent or addictive people often embrace religion. It can't be a coincidence.

Ulysses Gaze

I voted yes, but not in the sense of eradicating religion per se, just the man-made institutions that 'spread' the word.

We have the core text (Bible) that details how to live a 'good life'.

Why do we need the Church to tell us how to do this?

gimme5minutes

Joey the lips wrote: »

I always think this is a daft pole, people are not better without religion what the op should have said is

"I could not be arsed living my life with a certain standard so feck it all i will do what i want"

What standard is it that I'm not arsed living my life with? The standard set by the Church here of raping and murdering children for decades? Or maybe you mean the standard set by their superiors who covered it up? Or maybe you mean the standard set by other religions such as Islam who will murder a woman if she is raped while the rapist gets goes unpunished.

seamus

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of religions in existence today are built on a history of mercilessly slaughtering any conflicting doctrines.

bigeasyeah

potatoes

conchubhar1

we also have common sense

why neccessarily use the bible either?

Ulysses Gaze

why neccessarily use the bible either?

What does the Church give us the Bible doesn't?

Pyr0

I find that anything created by man is open to corruption. Religion is just one of these creations corrupted from the very start.

philologos

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

What does the Church give us the Bible doesn't?

Apart from a meeting of likeminded people together in a community it doesn't give us much more. I can't help but agree with the posts you are making, we need to seriously change the way church is done.

I do appreciate this meeting together of believers, and I don't think that that should leave Christian life. However movements such as house churches have also been very popular. I don't think we need to abandon the traditional church should people seek it, but people need to realise that Christianity is a broad idea. In 1st century Rome people didn't have church buildings. The church was nothing more than the Christians who wanted to share the Gospel with others. Maybe we have lost sight of that?

Earthhorse

The problem isn't really with religion but with organisations, which have a tendency to behave in ways individuals wouldn't agree with or condone. Whilst I don't doubt that religion has been used historically for the purposes of propaganda don't kid yourself into thinking that the institutions of science, business and politics, which are essentially already in charge in much of the world, would have or will fare any better in their treatment of the human race.

jaffa20

Joey the lips wrote: »

You make life what it is! If you have no faith just bog off and leave it at that!

Faith and organised religion are two completely different things. Someone can still have faith but not be religous. The OP is talking about wars, murder and essentially death which is born out of religion which cannot be argued against.

diverdriver

The bible is a book, part history, part fantasy. A look of it makes sense and living your life by many of it's better suggestions would be a good thing. The fact that it's basic premise that there's a benevolent supernatural being with omnipotent power out there who cares about us, is sheer fantasy is neither here nor there.

Going side by side with religion is a routine human ambition to make our lives better. That's why religion is so attractive to many people. It often holds out for a better future for people who live lives of abject misery. If not in this life but the next.

On the other hand religions allows some of man's baser instincts for violence and warfare to be excused. After all, the sixth commandment is not actually 'Thou shalt not kill' but 'Thou shalt not murder'. So killing is fine as long as it's lawful. And guess who makes the law?

Religion is a wonderful device for men to use to empower themselves at others expense. Without the need to feel guilty. Like I said earlier, we would have to invent religion if it had never existed.

gimme5minutes

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you. If people kept to the teachings of Jesus Christ this would would be much better that it ever could be without any form of religion.

"IF" people kept to the teachings. Like I said, in theory it sounds good but in practise, after 2000 years, it has been shown that people don't stick to the teachings, or interpret them indifferent ways, and use their 'beliefs' to justify/excuse all sorts of disgraceful crimes.

Hundreds of millions of people also died due to the actions of atheist leaders in the 20th century. Do I blame atheism?

What are you talking about 'blame atheism'...thats just an attempt derail the argument. Wars that are fought for non-religious reasons are not fought 'in the name of atheism', the vast majority are fought due to disagreements over territory, it has nothing to do with atheism.

As for "religious origins". Really? Was it based on Jesus' teachings or on the teachings of man?

And again my point is that, it doesn't really matter what the Bible says in theory because in practise, which is what matters, there have been loads of wars fought for in the name of religion. And if there was no such thing as religion, those conflicts wouldn't have happened. Or course there would always be war over something, thats the nature of mankind, but getting rid of wars due to religion would be a great idea.

I disagree with you again. You are focusing on a minority rather than the majority. Christians are doing wonderful things all around the world right now in the name of the Gospel. It's only the bad news that gets press however, that's the unfortunate thing about life.

What are they doing exactly? What are they doing that outweighs the millions of people that have died and been oppressed due to religion? Lets start in Ireland, what exactly have the church done that outweighs raping and murdering thousands of children?

Did a majority of Catholic priests and nuns carry out this action?

• Is the Catholic Church the only Christian church?
• Did sexual abuse happen outside of the Catholic Church in Ireland on a much bigger scale during that time period?
• Did other churches carry out sexual abuse throughout this period on anywhere near the same scale?

If there was no such thing as religion, the whole thing wouldn't have happened in the first place. Yes there will always be abuse going on but not nearly as bad as what happened. A situation where celibate frustrated men who thought they were above the law (and it turns out they were right) were placed in control of defenseless children would not have occurred if religion never existed in the first place.

I'd argue that Christianity has saved lives throughout the world, on a huge scale through the aid and assistance Christians are giving to people in some of the poorest parts of the world.

Where do the Church get their money? Are they out working on building sites or are they slaving over a computer all day in an office? Eh no, they are getting handouts from the public. They have taken far more wealth from the people than they've ever given back. And my initial point stands that for whatever good they do, it doesn't come close to outweighing the bad.

Many would disagree with you on the role of women in Islam. Many in the West wear the hijab out of choice and see Islam as being liberating. I disagree with this view, but they can wear whatever they wish. It is only extremist groups such as the Taleban which seriously denegrate the lives of women.

They cannot wear whatever they wish. If a woman goes outside without wearng the hijab in Saudi Arabia she will won't make it across the road before the police pick her up and fling her in jail. There is huge injustice to women across the Islamic world, they are 100% second class citizens, if you don't see it as such then maybe you need to take a look at your own attitude to women. Are you sure want to get into an argument where you are making the case for a religion such as Islam?

I think this country is best off with freedom of religion.

I'm all for freedom of the indiviual. If they want to believe stories that originated from superstitious people who existed 1500 years before people even realised the earth wasn't flat, Ive no problem with it. My point is though if we could wind the clock back 2000-3000 years and do it all over again with no religion, those last 2000-3000 years would have been alot more pleasant for mankind.

Dave!

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I voted yes, but not in the sense of eradicating religion per se, just the man-made institutions that 'spread' the word.

We have the core text (Bible) that details how to live a 'good life'.

Why do we need the Church to tell us how to do this?

I'm assuming you put 'good life' in inverted commas because you meant it ironically...

Sam Vimes

Joey the lips wrote: »

Another anti religious thread!

I always think this is a daft pole, people are not better without religion what the op should have said is

"I could not be arsed living my life with a certain standard so feck it all i will do what i want"

Actually it's more like "I don't want to live my life by a standard set 2000 years ago by people pretending it came from their imaginary friend and I'll live my life by a standard that makes sense instead"

faceman

2 scenarios:

1) If someone commits a murder and claims he did it in the name of his god or religion, people reckon we should ban religion.

2) If someone commits a murder and claims that he did it because he heard voices in the head, we just reckon he's either (a) a crackpot or (b) lying.

I fail to see the difference between both scenarios. Blaming a higher power for committing crimes against other people is just an excuse. To suggest that eliminating religion will eliminate crimes against humanity is just plain bonkers.

biko

My problem is not with religion, per se. Religion has made the lives better for a lot of alcoholics and other desperate people that need a life line because they can't pull themselves out of their misery. A belief in a higher purpose can help them overcome problems they couldn't overcome on their own.
Religion in some form has been around since before recorded history.

My issue is with organised religion, when some guy in a black robe says "God is speaking to me and he wants you to give money/ go to war/ kill your son/ have no other deities besides him/ ..."

User45701

conchubhar1 wrote: »

people kill people

religion has not and will not kill people

lol thats just silly.

"guns dont kill people people do"

nonsence - drugs dont kill people people do so why arnt drugs all legal?

i remember in a catholic shcool in 3rd class trying to explain to people and the teacher (priest) that the world would be a happier place if it was ILLIGAL to teach religion to anyone under say 16 then when a person turns 16 they are approcached by various people, religious people and an athiest and then presented with info and the person makes up their own mind.

Religion only exists because people condition their children from birth. (or as a scam to make money)

the children in the class where boared and the priest had no responce...

faceman

Some people reckon violent movies and video games cause people to commit violent crimes, should we ban them too?

markopantelic

the thing is I votes yes but religion did play a positive role for a time in history. i think its funny how on after hours polls probably completely contradict the views of general population.

jaffa20

faceman wrote: »

Some people reckon violent movies and video games cause people to commit violent crimes, should we ban them too?

Ssh

Joey the lips

gimme5minutes wrote: »

What standard is it that I'm not arsed living my life with? The standard set by the Church here of raping and murdering children for decades? Or maybe you mean the standard set by their superiors who covered it up? Or maybe you mean the standard set by other religions such as Islam who will murder a woman if she is raped while the rapist gets goes unpunished.

See thats why this poles prove daft! You have no concept of religion and you define religion as being catholic! Thats not what was said! I could be buddist!

Religion is a vocation, a dedication! If you judge religion by what you see you are as guilty as those who fail to practise it perfectly!

How can you condem something when you clearly dont understand it! and guess what I am not going to teach you! So if you want to understand something you "Hate" go learn it first! because the way I see it is this. I generally hate something I try! When I was 18 i stopped doing what my parents thought me and learned to do what I want. I picked religion by choice. Not because a few fcukers rape and abuse people! You see I made a choice on study not by perversion!

and again I find I must defend my belief! If you hate religion because of the few you truly do not understand the concept! I encourage you to learn it before decideding you hate it!

gimme5minutes

faceman wrote: »

2 scenarios:

1) If some commits a murder and claims he did it in the name of his god or religion, people reckon we should ban religion.

2) If someone commits a murder and claims that he did it because he heard voices in the head, we just reckon he's either (a) a crackpot or (b) lying.

I fail to see the difference between both scenarios. Blaming a higher power for committing crimes against other people is just an excuse. To suggest that eliminating religion will eliminate crimes against humanity is just plain bonkers.

Who said anything about eliminating religion would eliminate crimes against humanity? You are missing the point. People will always commit crimes against each other but it would be a good start to eliminate all crimes that happened due to the existance of religion.

Joey the lips

jaffa20 wrote: »

Faith and organised religion are two completely different things. Someone can still have faith but not be religous. The OP is talking about wars, murder and essentially death which is born out of religion which cannot be argued against.

No! I feel the OP is talking of nutcases! But at the end of the day if Islam says that it stones a women for having an affair, who are we to truly medel? We are free to make our own choices we have come a long way thank god rather than be so critical we should embrase our religious freedom.

Earthhorse

diverdriver wrote: »

Like I said earlier, we would have to invent religion if it had never existed.

We did invent religion.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

What are you talking about 'blame atheism'...thats just an attempt derail the argument. Wars that are fought for non-religious reasons are not fought 'in the name of atheism', the vast majority are fought due to disagreements over territory, it has nothing to do with atheism.

And again my point is that, it doesn't really matter what the Bible says in theory because in practise, which is what matters, there have been loads of wars fought for in the name of religion. And if there was no such thing as religion, those conflicts wouldn't have happened. Or course there would always be war over something, thats the nature of mankind, but getting rid of wars due to religion would be a great idea.

Do you really think these wars were fought for different reasons than wars started by atheists? Do you really believe that? Because I think if you do you are being very naive.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

My point is though if we could wind the clock back 2000-3000 years and do it all over again with no religion, those last 2000-3000 years would have been alot more pleasant for mankind.

Maybe. Maybe not. Who can suppose what would have happened in its absence? Today, we are probably living in a time when religion is very much waning here in the west. Time will tell whether your supposition is correct.

philologos

gimme5minutes wrote: »

"IF" people kept to the teachings. Like I said, in theory it sounds good but in practise, after 2000 years, it has been shown that people don't stick to the teachings, or interpret them indifferent ways, and use their 'beliefs' to justify all sorts of disgraceful crimes.

I believe we can keep to the teachings of Christ if we as a church sort out our organisational structure in a way that allows for us to be a people of equals in a Christian community. I think the first century church of Paul and the Apostles is the perfect example of this.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

What are you talking about 'blame atheism'...thats just an attempt derail the argument. Wars that are fought for non-religious reasons are not fought 'in the name of atheism', the vast majority are fought due to disagreements over territory, it has nothing to do with atheism.

Stalin persecuted Christians, Muslims, and Jews so that his ideology could take first place. He supported state atheism so that he could be numero uno in Stalinist Russia. I don't blame atheism, but atheism was involved to an extent. There are others like the Albanian Hoxha who carried out similar crimes in Europe.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

And again my point is that, it doesn't really matter what the Bible says in theory because in practise, which is what matters, there have been loads of wars fought for in the name of religion. And if there was no such thing as religion, those conflicts wouldn't have happened. Or course there would always be war over something, thats the nature of mankind, but getting rid of wars due to religion would be a great idea.

I'd argue that it does matter what the Bible says and it matters how Christians encourage people to read it for guidance.

These wars were never motivated by Jesus Christ or His ideology, they were motivated by corrupt men.

Actually if there was no such thing as religion wars would have happened based on ethnicity, race, social class, amongst other typical identity classifications.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

What are they doing exactly? What are they doing that outweighs the millions of people that have died and been oppressed due to religion? Lets start in Ireland, what exactly have the church done that outweighs raping and murdering thousands of children?

Building AIDS hospitals, assisting with recovery of leprosy. Building orphanages for kids, providing for education for kids who have no other means of doing so. Giving people hope where there quite frankly is none otherwise. Helping drug addicts, feeding the poor, helping prostitutes. Many things like this happen because of Christians in the world.

My question to you however, is what are atheists doing to outweigh the millions of people killed through State atheism? I don't see that these people died because of atheism, but rather of the abuse of atheism for other motives. Just like people died from the abuse of religion for other motives. I and other Christians who advocate what Jesus Christ taught us 2,000 years ago don't need to pay for the corruptions of the past by other people who used it as an excuse.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

If there was no such thing as religion, the whole thing wouldn't have happened in the first place. Yes there will always be abuse going on but not nearly as bad as what happened. A situation where celibate frustrated men who thought they were above the law (and it turns out they were right) in control of defenseless children would not have occurred if religion never existed in the first place.

Those celibate men should have never been celibate in the first place. Only a very small proportion of people have the patience to remain celibate and only a small proportion of people can do so their entire lives. Just my opinion on the Catholic policy on celibacy.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Where do the Church get their money? Are they out working on building sites or are they slaving over a computer all day in an office? Eh no, they are getting handouts from the public. They have taken far more wealth from the people than they've ever given back. And my initial point stands that for whatever good they do, it doesn't come close to outweighing the bad.

I don't need to account for the finances of the Catholic Church. They should be publishing where every cent of the money goes to however. I think it's a bit disingenous of you to comment on the finances of the Catholic Church without actually having their accounts to hand. As a non-Catholic, I don't think I can explain where their finances go to. I do know where the finances from my own church go to however.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

They cannot wear whatever they wish. If a woman goes outside without wearng the hijab in Saudi Arabia she will won't make it across the road before the police pick her up and fling her in jail. There is huge injustice to women across the Islamic world, they are 100% second class citizens, if you don't see it as such then maybe you need to take a look at your own attitude to women. Are you sure want to get into an argument where you are making the case for a religion such as Islam?

I said "in the West". Mind you in many Arab nations you can not wear the hijab if you wish. States such as the UAE, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and as far as I recall, Bahrain, Iraq, the Palestinian Territories, Yemen, and no doubt many more that allow people this freedom. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan you are clearly right though.

I do think this quote from Muhammad is quite poignant though: "There is no compulsion in religion". Nor should there be compulsion to wear the hijab.

Do I want to get into a discussion about Islam and the rights of Muslims to follow it? If you demonstrate that you do not know about Islamic teachings concerning certain things, surely I can correct you?

I don't advocate Islam. I do advocate the right of people to be free to choose whatever religion they please.

gimme5minutes wrote: »

I'm all for freedom of the indiviual. If they want to believe stories that originated from superstitious people who existed 1500 years before people even realised the earth wasn't flat, Ive no problem with it. My point is though if wind the clock back 2000-3000 years and do it all over again with no religion, those last 2000-3000 years would have been alot more pleasant for mankind.

We actually don't know that. They could have been just as horrific as human nature still exists.

Earthhorse

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Who said anything about eliminating religion would eliminate crimes against humanity? You are missing the point. People will always commit crimes against each other but it would be a good start to eliminate all crimes that happened due to the existance of religion.

No, I think you're missing his point, which is that they didn't happen due to religion.

Mrmoe

religion is for assholes and the weak.

gimme5minutes

Joey the lips wrote: »

See thats why this poles prove daft! You have no concept of religion and you define religion as being catholic! Thats not what was said! I could be buddist!

Religion is a vocation, a dedication! If you judge religion by what you see you are as guilty as those who fail to practise it perfectly!

How can you condem something when you clearly dont understand it! and guess what I am not going to teach you! So if you want to understand something you "Hate" go learn it first! because the way I see it is this. I generally hate something I try! When I was 18 i stopped doing what my parents thought me and learned to do what I want. I picked religion by choice. Not because a few fcukers rape and abuse people! You see I made a choice on study not by perversion!

and again I find I must defend my belief! If you hate religion because of the few you truly do not understand the concept! I encourage you to learn it before decideding you hate it!

Of course I have a concept of religion, what a dumb thing to say. I never defined religion as being Catholic, in my OP I said 'any and all religions'.

I'm looking at the overall picture, unlike you who is only looking at yourself and saying 'I'm religious and I'm a good person'. If you look at the overall picture of the last 2000 years are you telling me that things wouldn't be better if there was no such thing as religion in any shape or form? All those wars fought in the name of relgion, all the people beaten and oppressed due to religion? Do you not think we would've been better off without them? No such thing as religion and there wouldn't have been WWII for example.

philologos

gimme5minutes: The Nazis had plans to destroy Christianity after destroying Judaism:

In 1998 documents were released by Cornell University from the Nuremberg Trials, that revealed Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity at the end of World War II. The documents cover the Nuremberg trials of leading Nazis and demonstrate the deliberate genocide of Jews during the Holocaust, in which some six million Jews were killed. One senior member of the U.S. prosecution team, General William Donovan, as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes, compiled large amounts of documentation that the Nazis also planned to systematically destroy Christianity

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from AD 362, neo-platonist and pagan Roman emperor Julian the Apostate's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

wes

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Of course I have a concept of religion, what a dumb thing to say. I never defined religion as being Catholic, in my OP I said 'any and all religions'.

I'm looking at the overall picture, unlike you who is only looking at yourself and saying 'I'm religious and I'm a good person'. If you look at the overall picture of the last 2000 years are you telling me that things wouldn't be better if there was no such thing as religion in any shape or form? All those wars fought in the name of relgion, all the people beaten and oppressed due to religion? Do you not think we would've been better off without them? No such thing as religion and there wouldn't have been WWII for example.

So how many wars were soley due to relgion?

How many were due to othe reasons, such as power, land and what not?

How about all those that were a mixture of the 2?

I think you will find looking at history, a lot of things a far more complex than what your present.

I doubt if got rid of religous ideologies things would change much. We have had secular ideologies in the last century that have proven to be equally murderous, well actually more murderous, but thats due to advancement of technology more than anything else. Now, stuff like Nationalism, secular ideologies and racism have directly resulted in the deaths of countless millions. So, you would need to get rid of more than just Religous ideologies, you would pretty much have to get rid of all of them, as almost every single one at some point has lead to mass violence.

Also, should we ban science as well? It gave us weapons that can kill a hell of a lot more people than we use to. Hell with the Atomic bomb, we can wipe ourselves off the face of the Earth. Maybe, we ought to ban Science, as we have a habit of using it to kill people as well.

Basically, I don't think things would change much if we got rid of Religion. Human Beings seem to pretty damn violent on our own. Its our nature imho. We will still kill each other if religion was gotten rid of, as we still have plenty of other excuses for our murderous impulses.

gimme5minutes

Jakkass wrote: »

gimme5minutes: The Nazis had plans to destroy Christianity after destroying Judaism:

And if there was no such thing as Christianity or Judaism in the first place there would have been no WWII.

philologos

Let me get you straight gimme5minutes. You're saying that if the Jews didn't have their own faith that the Holocaust would have never happened? Do you realise how backward a statement that is. They did nothing wrong, yet they were persecuted for being of a particular ethno-religious group. Do you not see something royally wrong with that?

wes

gimme5minutes wrote: »

And if there was no such thing as Christianity or Judaism in the first place there would have been no WWII.

Really?

Do you really think the humilation of the Germans at Versailles, had nothing to do with World War 2?

Also, Jews in Europe were also a ethnic minority, which was one of main reasons they were killed, due the perception of racial difference. **EDIT**Also, it should be pointed out that even back then, there were plenty of Jews, who didn't believe in the Jewish religion and were culturally Jewish and these guys were murdered as well, despite the fact they were Atheists. **END EDIT**

Also, World War 1 was largely about extremist nationalism (and plenty of other crap tbh) and directly led to World War 2, via the Versailles treaty and a whole bunch of other crap as well.. You scrapping the barrel with your comment here.

User45701

faceman wrote: »

Some people reckon violent movies and video games cause people to commit violent crimes, should we ban them too?

i dont think ive heard of someone claiming they kileld becauce of a game (unless the person was just having some fun and using games as an insanity defence)

compared to religion where i am more inclinded to belive someone when the claim they are killing in the name of a god like the crusades or some sort of suicide bombing ect

Joey the lips

Mrmoe wrote: »

religion is for assholes and the weak.

are you calling me an asshole and weak?

Warper

If Jesus ever did return - the first thing he would do is get rid of the current model of the Catholic Church - kicking out the Pope and scraping the OTT Vatican. The Vatican is the true representative of all that is wrong with the Catholic Church. Its opulence and wealth illustrates the greed of the Church.

gimme5minutes

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me get you straight gimme5minutes. You're saying that if the Jews didn't have their own faith that the Holocaust would have never happened? Do you realise how backward a statement that is. They did nothing wrong, yet they were persecuted for being of a particular ethno-religious group. Do you not see something royally wrong with that?

I'm not blaming Jews for the Holocaust for god sake, I'm saying if there was no such thing as a Jew, or any relgion, in the first place it wouldn't have happened. I fail to see what's so hard to understand about that.

To the extent he believed in a divinity, Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity,"[59] which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival as depicted by Arthur de Gobineau. The "Aryan race," supposedly the bearer of civilization, is allocated a special place:

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfilment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."[59]

The Jews he viewed as enemies of all civilization and as materialistic, unspiritual beings, writing in Mein Kampf: "His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine." Hitler described his supposedly divine mandate for his anti-Semitism: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

philologos

gimme5minutes wrote: »

I'm not blaming Jews for the Holocaust for god sake, I'm saying if there was no such thing as a Jew, or any relgion, in the first place it wouldn't have happened. I fail to see what's so hard to understand about that.

In private Hitler and the Nazis had plans to destroy Christianity. I don't see how your quotation changes anything.

Hitler was quite the double dealer in public:

From Hitler's promotion of declared atheists within his party and his use of Muslim fighters in his army, it can be concluded that Hitler in the public realm tolerated different religious opinions, ranging from atheist to Islam to Christianity, as long as those people professing these different creeds would support the Nazi regime.

As such I think your post is a non-starter. By the way do you think that Hitler would have put gays in the concentration camps if religion didn't exist? My guess would be still yes. Would Hitler have put the Jews in? Probably since it resulted from envy at economic success rather than hostility towards Jewish religion.

gimme5minutes

Earthhorse wrote: »

No, I think you're missing his point, which is that they didn't happen due to religion.

Have you never heard of the concept of religious war? Go read up on the Crusades, WWII (not strictly a religous war but definite religious elements and wouldn't have happened without the existance of religion), Jihad and come back to me.