| padib said: The way you post is why wars exist. It's why people kill each other. You didn't take the time to understand my post at all, you made me upset because you didn't try to understand why my comment was related to your post. You assumed. Assuming is bad, and imho is what leads to wars. I assume that such a party did such an action because I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. Thus I retaliate. Let me show you how wars have nothing to do with religion, but how religion is but one of many tools used by the human heart to lead to suffering. In the world, people have needs. Needs to be loved, surrounded, understood, appreciated, in control, virtuous. These human needs exist, whether religion exists or not. The example of eugenics was not meant, in any way, to say that atheism is to blame for wars. And that's part of the problem, you thought I said that when I didn't. You didn't think forward. That's the problem, that's what leads to problems between people. You wedged a wall between you and me, you said "he's wrong", thus you completely misunderstood my comment. My comment was to show that some things can be at the root of suffering without them stemming from religion, and eugenics was an example of that. That you took my comment to mean that atheism leads to suffering just blows my mind. |
I think his assumption was entirely justified given the already established context and the vaguness of your post. It seem disingenuous to write something vague and then get upset about somone not understanding it.
Of course things can be at the root of suffering other than religion. I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise, that'd be absurd.
The most quoted statement on the matter often used is:
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg
I can't say that I fully subscribe to that statement as I think it is too narrow in focus (as you were alluding to, I believe). I fit more in line with Penn Jiltette's explanation on the matter.
