Religion is humans biggest failure...

a reply to: nwtrucker

You said it, I didn't. Not a 'claim' on morals. Without any logical argument the disseminator of the original morals is religion based.

See my first post.

Frankly, not only morals, in general, but the concept of consequence of one's actions is religion based, as well. If you don't think that has given pause to acts by untold millions and mitigated the basic insanity in humanity, you'd be mistaken.

The "concept of consequence" came from being shunned, kicked out of the tribe, or being killed for your infraction. The same "concept" gives pause, and helps to mitigate "the basic insanity in humanity" now. Commit the crime, do the time. No deity necessary. This is beyond simple, sir.

I will however, credit religion as being the originator of one "concept". The idea that our species is innately and inherently evil. That we are born guilty, and deserving of death from the moment we are born. That is indeed original with religion, and is quite disturbing.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Very good point by Hitch the one I mostly do try to tell folk about religion.

By what right has anyone got to try and tell others they know God.

Trouble is though, he has such an ego he thinks he can tell people there is no God. Works both ways, frankly I find him an attention seeking arse that wasn't even capable of finding another job where he could basically exercise his ego and people would be stupid enough to a) post it on youtube and b) share it with other people. No offense intended

Our biggest failure was probably thinking that doing anything all day apart from look for food and scratch ourselves was worth bothering with.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Frankly, not only morals, in general, but the concept of consequence of one's actions is religion based, as well.

If people refrain from doing bad things because of God's punishment or if they need a deity's commandments to know right from wrong, then they are not good people and there is something really wrong with them.

Firstly, thank you all for replies and for interesting conversation.

I will try to reply to some of response, but if I miss something, please let me know.

a reply to: openyourmind1262
Well said!

a reply to: Raggedyman
Religion, just like everything else you mentioned is made by humans. We have good historical evidence of (mis)use of religion by individuals to gain higher status or to retain control of masses.
Your comment regarding late Hitchens is not worth commenting.

a reply to: nwtrucker
Already replied by boymonkey74, and Hitchens was right in his conclusion.

a reply to: Agartha
Thank you for book refference. I will add it to my library list. It is really interesting to compare how people do without religion versus religion.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
If men didn't have religion they'd still kill one another and find something other than religion to justify it.

Just few posts before you Agartha posted book and research that actually shows opposite. It's worth following link, and I am planning on reading the book.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I agree with ATSer raggedyman. Hitchins and Dawkins are just trolls. Psuedo-intellectuals who like to think they're
modern day Aristotles. They offer no answers. Just blame all man's ills on religion.

What do you mean they offer no answers?? They do, removal of religion is answer. It will lead to time of prosper and humanity where everyone can be equal no matter race, age, color, height, cloth or what not...

originally posted by: ColeYounger
The fact is, there are a lot of loving, caring "religious" people out there who truly make this world a better place.
Sure there are some wacko, fanatical loons. Nobody can deny that. But if those nuts didn't have religion, they'd still be unstable. I've seen unstable people get into what they think is Christianity, and go off the deep end.
Did "Christianity" make them that way? No. They're unstable to begin with.

Topic is not about individuals, but religion, as force, organization or in case of Vatican, form of government and control. You seem to be bit lost with terminology.

originally posted by: uncommitted
Trouble is though, he has such an ego he thinks he can tell people there is no God. Works both ways, frankly I find him an attention seeking arse that wasn't even capable of finding another job where he could basically exercise his ego and people would be stupid enough to a) post it on youtube and b) share it with other people. No offense intended

Our biggest failure was probably thinking that doing anything all day apart from look for food and scratch ourselves was worth bothering with.

You are aware that Hitchens passed away 4 years ago??
I really wonder, before making your judgement, if you bothered and read any of Hitchen's books. I doubt it, because if you did, you would know that he explains why and how did he get to where he was and why he wrote the book.
His willingness to ask question and expose religion for what really is of course lead to some using ad-hominem, just like you did here.
It seems to me that we still would be using stone tools. if it was up to you...


Thankfully, there are signs that we will outgrow religious dogma. Some countries are already religion free, and it is easy to see trend in that way...

Almost everything said against religion in this thread doesn't apply to Buddhism. A lot of it doesn't apply to Judaism.

If religion is humanity's greatest failure then all religions would have to share in that failure. Because if the statement cannot be proven for all religions then it's not a statement about religion in general. It's a statement about specific religions.

originally posted by: Moresby
Almost everything said against religion in this thread doesn't apply to Buddhism. A lot of it doesn't apply to Judaism.

If religion is humanity's greatest failure then all religions would have to share in that failure. Because if the statement cannot be proven for all religions then it's not a statement about religion in general. It's a statement about specific religions.

Most of told apply to all religions, including Judaism, Buddhism as well Hinduism.

www.bbc.com...

Speaking of Buddhism,which is non-theistic religion, philosophy, makes me wonder, why don't you think it does not apply to Buddhism?! Its just like theist religions, set of norms that require following and praying. How did Buddhism help and why don't you think that it did not stop progress of human kind?? Is there single proof of evidence for reincarnation?!

It is kind of interesting how you come to Judaism, father-religion to today Christianity?! Why do you think nothing applies to it? Just BIAS?

a reply to: uncommitted

I find him an attention seeking arse that wasn't even capable of finding another job where he could basically exercise his ego and people would be stupid enough to a) post it on youtube and b) share it with other people.

Another job? The man was a professional journalist, and a successful author...

Perhaps you could address his points, instead of attacking his character.

Time to rewrite religion and get rid of the anti-social, paedophelic god given rights, judgemental condemnation and time to write something that actually unites and benefits all humans. Something current religions cannot and refuse to actually do.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
We have good historical evidence of (mis)use of religion by individuals to gain higher status or to retain control of masses.

Well said & so true...

"Today the religions of the world remain a major tool of the Illuminati agenda." Link

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Toward a True Science of Life

a reply to: SuperFrog
It slipped my mind that he is now dead to be honest, mainly a) I don't care and b) because his equally irritating 'my opinion is always right, yours is always wrong' brother appears in papers and on the TV over here. I have started to read his books in the past but frankly I lost interest because you had to make a leap in faith (an oxymoron I guess in this thread) and assume he is right, and then follow his book for the purpose of confirming your belief in him being right.

Why on earth you then say that if it was up to me we would be using stone tools is a little beyond me, I guess you are just trying to patronise because I don't have all the same opinions as you? If that is the case, I can't really help you, condescend away, you, like me are merely anonymous people on an internet form, what you or I think is the fact on something as philosophical as the existence of God is neither here nor there - it wasn't for Hitchens either come to that but it kept him in a living until he stopped living.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: uncommitted

I find him an attention seeking arse that wasn't even capable of finding another job where he could basically exercise his ego and people would be stupid enough to a) post it on youtube and b) share it with other people.

Another job? The man was a professional journalist, and a successful author...

Perhaps you could address his points, instead of attacking his character.

I can address very well thanks, his authorship was based on making people believe in what he believed - that kind of means it's intertwined with his character - being a journalist or an author doesn't make you an expert on whether or not God exists - or do you think differently? If so, if another journalist or author said God DOES exist and gave their reasons in the same opinionated matter, which one would you believe? Presumably the one that sides with your own belief I guess.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: SuperFrog
It slipped my mind that he is now dead to be honest, mainly a) I don't care and b) because his equally irritating 'my opinion is always right, yours is always wrong' brother appears in papers and on the TV over here. I have started to read his books in the past but frankly I lost interest because you had to make a leap in faith (an oxymoron I guess in this thread) and assume he is right, and then follow his book for the purpose of confirming your belief in him being right.

It seems to me that Hitchen's book as well his observation conflicted with what you take is 'truth' and you just decided not to give him a chance to explain himself.
Statement that reading his book require 'leap in faith'... is just nonsense. All his examples are well documented, his research is based on observation, no faith required.

originally posted by: uncommitted
Why on earth you then say that if it was up to me we would be using stone tools is a little beyond me, I guess you are just trying to patronise because I don't have all the same opinions as you? If that is the case, I can't really help you, condescend away, you, like me are merely anonymous people on an internet form, what you or I think is the fact on something as philosophical as the existence of God is neither here nor there - it wasn't for Hitchens either come to that but it kept him in a living until he stopped living.

This is what you said at end of your previous post -

Our biggest failure was probably thinking that doing anything all day apart from look for food and scratch ourselves was worth bothering with.

In my opinion it just show that progress in your opinion was not worth bothering with. No patronizing here involved, just response to statement that show unhealthy dose of depression...

originally posted by: uncommitted
I can address very well thanks, his authorship was based on making people believe in what he believed - that kind of means it's intertwined with his character - being a journalist or an author doesn't make you an expert on whether or not God exists - or do you think differently? If so, if another journalist or author said God DOES exist and gave their reasons in the same opinionated matter, which one would you believe? Presumably the one that sides with your own belief I guess.

In some extent you are right, being author or journalist does not make you an expert, Fox news and particularly O'Rylley is clear example of that.

But in Hitchen's case, his life and work he left behind are good proof that he really was expert in matter, from countless debates he won to his writings. There are many other Atheist authors or people promoting Atheism today, but none of them have a term coned after themselves like Hitchen did - Hitchslap!

And just to be clear, yes, we can have different opinions, but what you are doing is not basing your opinion on argument, but rather on your bias.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

It seems to me that we still would be using stone tools. if it was up to you...


Thankfully, there are signs that we will outgrow religious dogma. Some countries are already religion free, and it is easy to see trend in that way...

It just dawned on me you were referring to my comment that was saying our biggest failure was to eat and scratch wasn't it? You are obviously unfamiliar with the work of the more sadly departed and in my opinion much more interesting Douglas Adams who made a comment along those lines in one of the 'Hitchhiker guide to the Galaxy' set of books. It was a joke, although only partly as apart from human intervention it seems to have worked for most of the other sentient species on earth.

When you say some countries are religion free, which would those be? Russia isn't, China isn't, neither is Vietnam. It may be that as a nation some countries classify themselves as atheist, but do you think that means the freedom to follow a religion is restricted in some way? If so, doesn't that imply they are in fact a dictatorship and is that therefore something you approve of?

a reply to: SuperFrog

Sorry, I have no 'truth' to be conflicted with on religion, faith, or belief in a divine architect, I just don't think Hitchens opinion on it has any more merit than that of anyone else as there is no way of disproving it. The fact that you thought I had some issue with it based on a core set of beliefs is neither here nor there - no core set with me, I just don't think his opinion has particular weight. Anything you may presume from that point on is I'm afraid arrogance and presumption on your part.

originally posted by: uncommitted
It just dawned on me you were referring to my comment that was saying our biggest failure was to eat and scratch wasn't it? You are obviously unfamiliar with the work of the more sadly departed and in my opinion much more interesting Douglas Adams who made a comment along those lines in one of the 'Hitchhiker guide to the Galaxy' set of books. It was a joke, although only partly as apart from human intervention it seems to have worked for most of the other sentient species on earth.

So, joke or not, couldn't your comment be regarded as not-progressive??

originally posted by: uncommitted
When you say some countries are religion free, which would those be? Russia isn't, China isn't, neither is Vietnam. It may be that as a nation some countries classify themselves as atheist, but do you think that means the freedom to follow a religion is restricted in some way? If so, doesn't that imply they are in fact a dictatorship and is that therefore something you approve of?

It is actually part of discussion and posted by another member in beginning - Agartha - and you will be surprised at what countries...

Soc iety without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment by Phil Zuckerman.

It is actually interesting that recently there were discussion about USA and how awkward we are for example with not offering maternity leave like most of rest of developed world. Actually there are only 2 countries in the world that don't offer it... (Papua New Guinea being another country)

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: SuperFrog

Sorry, I have no 'truth' to be conflicted with on religion, faith, or belief in a divine architect, I just don't think Hitchens opinion on it has any more merit than that of anyone else as there is no way of disproving it. The fact that you thought I had some issue with it based on a core set of beliefs is neither here nor there - no core set with me, I just don't think his opinion has particular weight. Anything you may presume from that point on is I'm afraid arrogance and presumption on your part.

It is just matter of opinion, as I believe that Hitchen's work best shows that he was somewhat expert in what he observed and studied and shared with us through his books and debates. His ability to find real world examples, some due to his profession of journalist was amazing.

You mentioned earlier Dawkins as troll as well. Care to share how world recognized scientist and writer in your opinion is trolling?!

Sure, we are all entitled to opinions, but as Jim Jefferies would say - just know that you are wrong...

a reply to: uncommitted

You've lost track of the train of thought. You insinuated he couldn't find "another job". He had many. Anyways.

His thoughts on whether god exists or not is a very small percentage of what he talked about. He was an antitheist and identified as such. He spoke against religion, and yes I would say he had expertise there. That's what knowledge brings a person. Now is it up to him, or any other non-believer, to prove god doesn't exist? No it's not. The burden of proof is on the one positing the claim. This is true about anything someone claims to be objectively truthful.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I'd strongly suggest you read up on the Catholic Church and how it provided relative refuge to the thinking class throughout the ages...

And no, I am not religious. I am merely pointing out historical fact.

Yes, the church did stomp out a fair bit, but, there is a fair bit because of the church that you take for granted today.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: SuperFrog

I'd strongly suggest you read up on the Catholic Church and how it provided relative refuge to the thinking class throughout the ages...

And no, I am not religious. I am merely pointing out historical fact.

Yes, the church did stomp out a fair bit, but, there is a fair bit because of the church that you take for granted today.

On the scale of killing creative thinking, and particularly, everything that would question Bible... against goods... you will find Catholic Church negativity pushing way too much...

Only reason we have progress now days, is because we managed to control reach of church.

Interestingly, was reading something on internet, and this came by... quote by Dan Dennett:

“A global plague, a world war fought over water or oil, the collapse of the internet and power grid, or some as yet unimagined catastrophe could throw the remaining population into ignorance, misery, and fear, which is the soil in which religion flourishes best. And then we’d have to start rebuilding civilization all over again.”

It is sadly very true...

For those interested, here is link: www.patheos.com...

a reply to: SuperFrog

GOOGLE is your friend...

And you apparently need friends.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: SuperFrog

GOOGLE is your friend...

And you apparently need friends.

Really?? Did not know about it until you told me...

This view of the Church as a patron of sciences is contested by some, who speak either of an historically varied relationship, which has shifted from active and even singular support; to bitter clashes (with accusations of heresy) - or of an enduring intellectual conflict between religion and science. Enlightenment Philosophers such as Voltaire were famously dismissive of the achievements of the Middle Ages. In the 19th century, the conflict thesis emerged to propose an intrinsic conflict or conflicts between the Church and science. The original historical usage of the term asserted that the Church has been in perpetual opposition to science. Later uses of the term denote the Church's epistemological opposition to science. The thesis interprets the relationship between the Church and science as inevitably leading to public hostility, when religion aggressively challenges new scientific ideas — as in the Galileo Affair. An alternative criticism is that the Church opposed particular scientific discoveries that it felt challenged its authority and power - particularly through the Reformation and on through the Enlightenment.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Religion, church particularly is well responsible for lost of scripts from ancient library in Alexandria... this and other lost knowledge was discussed here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you think you can help that discussion, feel free... use friend Google to find that Church actually killed progress for over 1K years... Do you ever wonder why in middle age biggest progress was in Islam world?!