A_C_E said:
If you think religion is not beyond question then ask the kid in the video getting beaten to death. A lot of people have made religion beyond question, and when people try to excuse the religious ideas from any blame, it encourages that view. I don't think religion is beyond question just because people are psychopathic enough to kill someone for having a different view to them. We're talking about cold blooded murderers. Mother Teresa was a shitty person. It's kind of besides the point here, but look into it. I know all about it, she has made mistakes but she also helped as one of the greatest orator's of her time. What other kind of institution would get away with this? Could endure this kind of scandal and live on? Yes, they're sick in the head. And having people trained to believe that priests are holy is what allowed them to actually act upon their desires. And, then the church helped them to escape justice, and go to new communities where they would have more opportunities. Due to Wall Street the corporate cover-ups are astonishing, political scandals are very widespread in every country. The amount of allegations that jump out of every news outlet about politics is immeasurable. Religion, corporations, politicians, they can get away with it all. But this raping of children is an institutional problem, not a religious problem. These people aren't raping the kids because they are religious, it would be a fallacy to claim so. I never said you needed religion to commit these kinds of acts. I said it enabled them to get away with it on such a large scale. If the catholic church didn't exist, kids would still get molested. But, hundreds or thousands less of them would have. Just because we can't eliminate every instance of molestation or violence doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate as many as possible, including the ones caused by religion. As stated above, I think it's an institutional problem for if the Vatican wasn't so institutionalised they would not have such an easy time getting away with it. It needs to stop but attacking religion as if it's the source is, imo, an indirect measure at which to go about solving this issue.
Right. Except it's not a fact, it's a belief, and judging by how many homosexual Christians there are in America kinda brings me back to my point that people are lazy Christians or lazy Muslims who can calculate for themselves in a non-proprietary manner that listening to a book in a literal sense isn't the right step to take. That's their decision. It takes a little extra something to turn someone with a violent impulse to someone who carries out a violent act. Believing your act to be justified by an all powerful god could help. Believing that the people you're attacking are "infidels" who are offending the great Allah helps. Believing that the people you're the chosen people of yahweh, and he has given you special rights can help. Believing the people you are targeting are sinners deserving of no less than eternal torture can help. Religion is one of the ways used to divide people into "us and them". To dehumanize groups of people and justify violence against them. It's not the only way, but it's one of them. The more we eliminate these things, the better off we are. This is a good point but your point here would seem to pertain only to violent people who could be triggered into a violent act. I mean, 7 billion people in this world and we have a growing population. We've done ok with religion. With 7 billion people comes room for violent engagement whatever the excuse, whether it be religion, sports or dental work. __________________________________ I will say though that I do agree we would probably be better off if religion just sort of went away over time and people got more into sciences and logic and put there money into research as opposed to false prophets and the like. |
I don't think religion is beyond question just because people are psychopathic enough to kill someone for having a different view to them. We're talking about cold blooded murderers.
By beyond question I mean that society doesn't allow you to question it. Obviously, if you can get killed for it, it is treated as beyond question. Thankfully, most places aren't that bad, but even in more secular nations, there is an idea that we should not question people's religious beliefs.
Due to Wall Street the corporate cover-ups are astonishing, political scandals are very widespread in every country. The amount of allegations that jump out of every news outlet about politics is immeasurable. Religion, corporations, politicians, they can get away with it all. But this raping of children is an institutional problem, not a religious problem. These people aren't raping the kids because they are religious, it would be a fallacy to claim so.
If it is a religious institution, then it is also a religious problem. You can't ignore the fact that the ideas, aka religion, are enabling these behaviors, and enabling them to get away with it. And while we often turn a blind eye to political scandals, I don't think any known pedophile would be allowed to go on unscathed.
Right. Except it's not a fact, it's a belief, and judging by how many homosexual Christians there are in America kinda brings me back to my point that people are lazy Christians or lazy Muslims who can calculate for themselves in a non-proprietary manner that listening to a book in a literal sense isn't the right step to take. That's their decision.
Suppose we completely eliminated the idea that homosexuality is a sin against god. We could somehow magically obliterate that thought completely. Would that be a positive or a negative for society?
This is a good point but your point here would seem to pertain only to violent people who could be triggered into a violent act. I mean, 7 billion people in this world and we have a growing population. We've done ok with religion. With 7 billion people comes room for violent engagement whatever the excuse, whether it be religion, sports or dental work.
Sure. And we should do what we can to minimize violent engagement as much as possible.
I will say though that I do agree we would probably be better off if religion just sort of went away over time and people got more into sciences and logic and put there money into research as opposed to false prophets and the like.
I'm a little bit confused then... You seem to be indicating that the problems with religion are the results of the institution/individual and not the result of the ideas themselves, but then you're also saying that we would be better off without religion. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but those seem to be conflicting ideas.
