Why Belief?

I'd kind of disagree with this. In fact, almost every major atocity has the rejection of the following religious elements to them: The scope of these rules, and the universaility of their acceptance within most world religions within one form or another seems to indicate that humanity is generally agreed that human nature is flawed in these directions (even if they can't necessarilly agree on the solution for correcting these situations).Even secular societies seems to mirror an loose acceptance of these 7 "broken points" above -- although, again, the solution to preventing and correcting these situations diverge sharply from philosopby to philosophy.Now, to be fair, I admit that I have seen atrocities commited over the following commandment: I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.To a lesser extent, the commandment: You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain...has also been a trigger.However, the commandment to "Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day" seems to have had a negligent effect on causing atrocities. On the flip-side of the argument, I guess I'd agree with you to some extant. However, these religions themselves usually define exactly what they're doing wrong so that they may correct themselves.Furthermore, as Faith and Phatboy note, simply removing religion from society won't remove the fact that people still tend to do things wrong.When things go wrong, people will usually still be guilty of 1) not honoring their father and mother, 2) killing, 3) committing adultery on their S.O., 4) stealing, 5) lying, 6) desiring their neighbor's S.O. lustfully, and/or 7) desiring their neighbor's goods greedilly...or some combination of these factors.It seems to me that all these things have a very human component to their causality -- not God or gods. Perhaps the atheist says it best when they note that there is no need to ascribe evil behavior to distant gods or distant stars influencing humanity.Clearly the cause of all this pain and suffering is human in origin -- not divine. And if all the pain and suffering starts with humanity, I don't really see how removing religious influences will alleviate this suffering at all. The same old things which cause pain and suffering will most likely move in to fill the void left open by 'religious crimes' after all these religions has been removed.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-17-2005 02:26 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-17-2005 02:29 PM

Well, I cannot claim the credit for this, the credit belongs to the authors of the Bible. Not indirectly, but directly.El wasn't exactly the cleverest god in the Canaanite pantheon, and if you read the Bible carefully you will see that He is pretty thick. The other Canaanite gods must have everytime El said something. Okay I promise not to use that one, I hadn't thought of that actually.Brian.

Dear Ex,As you noted at least the major world religions have a lot of agreement on ethics and morals. It does appear to me that in the story about Jericho for example the Bible does have God sanctioning wholesale slaughter. And this sanction seems to have been inherited by Christianity and Islam and Mormonism, and I don't know how many other small off shoots from these major religions. So there seems to be an implicit de facto sanction of atrocities and I think we have seen this down not just to the Middle East but also in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.Buddhism has a much better record in this record partly because there is no implicit sanction of slaughter as a valid religious response. When the Buddha taught compassion he didn't include burning at the stake to save a soul as a compassionate means of excercising love for a fellow sentient being and in fact violence of any kind was not condoned.lfen

I would remove 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' from your list as God quite explicitly commands people to kill, Joshua for example, so this commandment is not a rigid one.I would also remove 'Thou Shalt Not Steal, because it is not a rigid one either as God also commands people to steal other people's property. Palestine would be the prime example of this. And we know full well that many people worked extra hard to take a great deal of land off the Palestinians based on the Conquest myth.I would also remove 'Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness' as God Himself is happy to lie to people, a la King AhabI also suppose those who kill, steal, or lie, also dishonour their parents in a way, so perhaps we should remove this too?So, it doesn't really leave many religious elements.Its fine and well to say that atrocities reject these religious elements but the God of the Old testament explicitly commands peole to break most of them. So, if God can sanction Joshua's slaughtering of thousands of innocent people then why should killing be considered 'unreligious'? Wouldn't you consider that it is just because humans are prone to these 'weaknesses' that the Bible authors made them into the commandments? But we dont get secular societies attempting genocide on another society because of religion (Cathars for example). Atheists do not kill in the name of a God, many theists do, and will continue to do so. If killing is so unreligious then why have Bishops blessed so many armies before they go into battle? Why don't these bishops declare how ungodly killing is? And then go right on making the same mistakes? I quite agree and it would be silly of me to suggest this, that's why I said a great deal of suffering would be removed. We wouldn't have people blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, or doctors at abortion clinics being murdered, or a whole range of other horrendous events. But, as I say, we have the Old Testament God explicitly commanding humans to kill, rape, and steal. So, religious types can find justification in these commands.Also, how many people are homophobic based soley on their reading of the Bible? Well, ultimately, I would agree, but I believe that humans created god and not vice versa. I also agree that humans frequently misuse religion for their own ends, but if that religion wasn't there then would they really find that many other excuses to carry out atrocities? The thing about religion is that it is a very powerful driving force, people become obsessed with following their god and I cannot think of a greater motivation than thinking that you are serving this greater being. Well, we won't know this for sure because there always will be religions, its a fact of life.Brian.

Even the peace loving Buddhist have a history of militancy. Remember that the Tokyo subway poisoned gas attack was carried out by Buddhists.On a purely traditional front, there are also stories of Bodhisattva's murdering people because they knew that these people would murder others later in life.Brian.

That is why I used a comparative and I'll stand by it. I'm not claiming perfection just an significant improvement.There are a few sects especially in Japan that do take something from Buddhism and use the name but seem to have mostly thrown out most of Buddha's teachings. And that will happen with any religion given even a little amount of time.And when Chan Buddhism was brought to Japan for some reason it was taken up by the Samurai class. Blake wrote something along the lines of "this miracle will never cease. The priest promotes war and the soldier peace". I'm about to leave for work so don't have time to locate and copy the poem exactly.But no I wasn't claiming Buddhism had achieved total peace. Still Asoka was an amazing story. A King who had committed mass slaughter converting to Buddhism and then creating a kingdom of tolerance that anticipated the enlightenment philosophies of Mill and others.lfen

Would you accept "Humans created religion" instead?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey! That's my premise!lfen

Who else is there?

I beleive the commandment goes:Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work. But the seventh is the sabbath of the lord thy GOd...

There is a difference between GOD and religion.Humans invented religion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And humans invented God/gods to be part of that religion.Apart from Buddhism, which doesn't have a creator God, or anything else eternal. Although they do have other entities to worship, depending which branch of Buddhism is being discussed.I know God does not equal religion, but which God has not been made a PART of a religion?What would be the point in Islam if there was no Allah, what would be the point of Xianity if there was no Yahweh or Jesus?Brian.

If GOD exists, She exists regardless of what any religion says or believes. I don't see that as a given.IMHO what we see is that religion is an stumbling attempt to understand and explain something very real, the Presence without and within.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which would be a pretty pointless existence. It would also be an existence that we humans wouldnt give a damn about. I don't see any worthwhile evidence to the contrary, nothing but hearsay and 'ifs' and 'buts'. A bit like the Wyatt material. Nothing of any substance. And this stumbling attempt has been a blight on the human race since the first troglodyte drew on a cave wall.I am arguing that religion has been a terrible thing for mankind. Whether God is part of that or not is immaterial. The point is that believers *think* that their God is part of their religion. (apart from Buddhists)Brian.

We can agree that religion thinks their God is GOD. No argument there. True, that is your argument but I believe that like any other invention, religion itself is neither good nor bad but rather the use of religion by people can be good or bad. IMHO, religion is without a doubt one of the most powerful inventions of mankind and can be both enabling and destructive.But that, my friend, is grist for yet another thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion