Religion Debate

None whatsoever. What's your point? Were they invented by atheists? ;-)

 

That some things science has produced can be seen as inherently evil.

 

Those "things" do not decide to use themselves to cause suffering. People do--usually in the name of God.

 

But not exclusively in the name of God.
Stalin did not use religion as a pretext for murder and genocide. Rwanda genocide was on tribal grounds, not religious. Hitler's persecution of Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and the disabled, as well as Jews, was not on religious grounds.
It would appear that Hitler and Nazism was more influenced by the Nietsche idea of Ubermenschen (supermen, or master race) which came from an athiestic, evolutionary basis.

 

Well, that's a point of view, but they are not "evil" unless you use them, and as dave points out, this is very often in the name of god. I've already shown that there's nothing inherently evil in science. These new weapons are by-products from research, but man has always used weapons of one sort or another.

 

Hitler was a Catholic, Nazi belt buckles had "Gott mitt uns" engraved on them, and persecution of Jews is clearly religion based. You might as well point out that Stalin & Hitler both had moustaches.

No-one has ever fought a war in the name of atheism.

 

From dear old Atheist Adolph himself: "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." - Mein Kampf

 

I found marks link disturbing and hilarious in equal measure. Easily the best one being if evolution is true why are babies not born monkeys?*

* I except that this is shear stupidity as opposed to any real religious thing, but my my there is a lot of comment in there on creationism which is straight up concerning. I mean Scientology concerning.

 

The above quote notwithstanding, I do not think that Hitler was motivated by religious fervour. He had other reasons for his pogrom. The fact that someone can use religion to in some way give a spurious 'authority' to their actions, does not make it a religious war.
Blair is Catholic (although at the time of the Iraq invasion he masqueraded as some sort of generic 'Christian') but that does not mean that his use of British troops in Iraq was a religious war in the sense in which you are using the term. There were other agenda, and I am convinced more detail will emerge in the fullness of time.

 

Yes, but what if there was no religion to use in this way? Wouldn't that be nice? People who believe in god, generally speaking, aren't too bright and are easily led by goddy-speak.

You could never use atheism as a spur to war, because atheists don't buy any of this nonsense. We've been very quiet up to now, but religion is beginning to seriously piss us off with all its dire consequences.

 

You really don't help your case by using such sweeping statements.

 

It's true Seeker. There's is evidence to show people who believe in god aren't very bright.

 

In all fairness, I agree. Hitler's motivation wasn't purely religious but Atheism had nothing to do with his motivation either.

The Jewish Problem festering for thousands of years (and the result of religious persecution) was the perfect solution to further his political agenda and rally the German people with a reason for Germany's demolished economy.

regards,

dave

 

Rational and reasoned debate has to include respect for the individual regardless of how one feels about their viewpoint. It is exactly this kind of statement which makes debate impossible.
Arrogance of the first order.

 

CS Lewis was a Professor and devout Godbotherer.

 

It happens to be true. Religious people are, on average, less intelligent than atheists.

C.S. Lewis lived in less enlightened times.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...t-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

 

LOL..at least the odds are on my side.

 

He read it in a newspaper, so it must be true!

 

There's plenty in this thread.

 

There's a lot of holes in that particular article.

For starters there is a difference between what the study said, "Intelligent people are less likely to believe in God" and how the Torygraph (and you) summarise it as; "People who believe in God are less intelligent".

Secondly, what is the sample set composed of? Who was asked? What was asked?

Thirdly, any aggravatingfactors? If I ask an 'enlightened' academic if they believe in God, given the ridicule they will get for saying they do, who's to say they don't keep it quiet?

Not a very compelling case to support your sweeping statement.

I do agree with one thing in the article though: