Watch National Geographic

[Brad and Vika 129]

And I thought I was the only one who picked up on this. The guy who bought his girl the round necklace, and she got him a jumping toy cow....Man, that guy had NO GAME. He had multiple opportunities to make eye contact, and hold her arm, give her compliments, etc and so on to try and make it a special emotional connection. He acted like he was just her buddy or something. They had a romantic date in a frozen military boneyard?!

Nodoubt. Andthanks for rescuing the thread.

[SMR 368]

Hitler admitted he was doing it under the "flag" of religion. As I quoted earlier from Mein Kampf: "hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

To my knowledge no such smoking gun exists with regards to Stalin. If somebody could come up with something similar from Stalin, I'd be the first person to change my tune.

First, I think you place way too much stock in why the dictators said they were doing it. But that's mostly tangential.

Really, I agree with most of what you are saying. It's a bad argument to take Russian communists, who believed God didn't exist and thus were a subset of atheists, and use their actions to project on atheists at large. Atheists are a diverse group with many subgroups and demonstrating something about one of those subgroups and then using it to characterize the whole group is disingenuous and pointless.

But why do you want it both ways? No one has ever been killed in the name of religion that I know of. People have been killed in the name of specific religions, but I know of no occurrences of someone being killed in the name of religion at large. (Sure they may say "in the name of God, etc." but it's usually a reference to a specific God.) Why do you feel so comfortable about grouping all religious people together and claiming that any bad actions by any of them demonstrate the evil of the whole group?

That is really the center of what I am arguing. Taking Islamic extremism or the Catholic inquisition or and other example of religious violence and oppression and using it to claim that all religion is evil is silly. It is similar to taking one group of atheists (Russian communists) and using it to demonstrate that all atheists are evil.

[Cixelsyd 1]

First, I think you place way too much stock in why the dictators said they were doing it. But that's mostly tangential.

Really, I agree with most of what you are saying. It's a bad argument to take Russian communists, who believed God didn't exist and thus were a subset of atheists, and use their actions to project on atheists at large. Atheists are a diverse group with many subgroups and demonstrating something about one of those subgroups and then using it to characterize the whole group is disingenuous and pointless.

But why do you want it both ways? No one has ever been killed in the name of religion that I know of. People have been killed in the name of specific religions, but I know of no occurrences of someone being killed in the name of religion at large. (Sure they may say "in the name of God, etc." but it's usually a reference to a specific God.) Why do you feel so comfortable about grouping all religious people together and claiming that any bad actions by any of them demonstrate the evil of the whole group?

That is really the center of what I am arguing. Taking Islamic extremism or the Catholic inquisition or and other example of religious violence and oppression and using it to claim that all religion is evil is silly. It is similar to taking one group of atheists (Russian communists) and using it to demonstrate that all atheists are evil.

People that come to my door while I'm trying relax with the cold 8 oz curl and they need to talk to me about something because they're someone's witness. These are evil people.

[SMR 368]

Well I guess it's easier for me to say that millions of people have been killed in the name of religion than to break it all down by religion every time I want to make the point. I mean sure, I can concede that people haven't been killed in the name of generic religion, but that wasn't ever my point. Whether it's Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other organized theistic belief system, they all have persecution, war, and killing in the name of their god in common. In fact, a really good case could be made that war and persecution is the best way to grow your religion. Sending out missionaries is slow and takes years. Invading, killing the most troublesome (usually young men), and forcing the locals to either adopt your religion or die makes a lot of sense if you need believers quickly.

Now you're the one making nonparallel analogies. Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons are all a subset of Christianity. But atheism is not a subset of Communism any more than economics is a subset of Communism. Communism has the "feature" of atheism, but you can't say that all atheists are Communists like you can say that all Catholics are Christians.

My point about all religion being "evil" (I'm not a big fan of "evil," because I don't believe it really exists, plus it's just way too sweeping) is that it is *always* abused. Always. There's not a single theistic belief system that hasn't been used for ill. But you can't say this about atheism, and the reason is simply that it's a lot harder to get somebody to kill in the name of nothing, than to get them to kill in the name of a God who promises an eternal reward of happiness, virgins, etc.

First, I didn't say atheism is a subset of communism. Communism is a subset of atheism. That is true and that is what I was saying.

Second, there are tons of theistic belief systems that have never been used for ill. Anybody who believes in God but has never used that belief as a basis for doing "evil" (a concept that you seem ready to attach to religion while denying that it exists), has such a belief system. That is, you can't claim that all religious people, or all Christians, or even all Baptists have the same belief system. Some of them may have an evil belief system that has been used to cause harm. But most of them are good people with a belief system that encourages good, helping others, service, and other positive qualities that help the community.

You have moved from claiming that all religions are bad since some religions cause harm, to claiming that all religions are bad since some practitioners of every religion have caused harm (a claim I wouldn't acknowledge but see no point in disputing). You're still taking people, putting them in groups and generalizing based on the worst person you can find who could be construed to belong to that group. I have pointed out that if this were good logic, all atheists are oppressive and evil, since some atheists can be shown to be such. But that is really only one of many examples as to why this reasoning is absurd.

[visaveteran 0]

Now you're the one making nonparallel analogies. Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons are all a subset of Christianity. But atheism is not a subset of Communism any more than economics is a subset of Communism. Communism has the "feature" of atheism, but you can't say that all atheists are Communists like you can say that all Catholics are Christians.

You've got it backwards. Communism is a subset of Atheism. So you can say all communists are atheists. If all communists are atheists, they all believe religion is counter to the good of the state. If something is not good for the state, it must be eliminated.

[SMR 368]

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons used to be a lot more common site in my home town than they are now. My grandfather used to invite them into his home, serve them a beverage, lunch, whatever, and listen intently to what they had to say. After listening politely and giving them his full attention, he then set about trying to convert them to Methodism. He was reportedly even successful a couple of times.

About once a year or so I'll get a Mormon at my door. They usually show up while I'm either late somewhere, or in the middle of something, so I usually just give them their marching orders. Last year though it was a couple pretty cute ladies, so I made time. After listening to their spiel, I tried my best to convert them to Atheism. And lemme tell you, if you know ANYTHING at all about LDS, it's about the easiest religion in the world to debunk. (read up on Joseph Smith Jr. some time, it will blow your mind that anybody would fall for this ponzi scheme in the guise of a religion--it's almost as crazy as Scientology) I didn't succeed, but I could see the "junior" member at least look a little bit confused. I like to think she maybe did a little further reading on her own after that.

I'll bite. I'm a Mormon. Considering you think that it's a Ponzi scheme, I assume you know who is getting rich. So who is it? The church has no paid clergy. The church leaders live off their nest eggs they earned in other fields. The founder of the religion was murdered and penniless because he wouldn't deny his his beliefs.

Also, when has the Mormon church as an organization used it's influence for something evil. I acknowledge that members have done bad things, but since you said we're talking about organizations and not individuals, I assume you can cite examples where the church itself, as an organization has been oppressive and persecutory.

[visaveteran 0]

Mox, I wonder how you feel about people who call themselves "spiritual, but not religious?" People who use rituals and ceremonies to honor the earth or the Tao or the cosmos...maybe what some call Gaia.

I do think that atheists lack one thing (at least) which is honoring something transcendent to themselves. And serving something beyond themselves.

[LvivLovers 39]

I've been trying to avoid getting into a full-blown religious discussion, because frankly, it's never-ending and it's not likely to change anyone's beliefs. But some of the stuff you say is just misinformed and too simplistic!

I've actually been very careful to avoid saying "religious people are bad" because it's too much of a generalization (yes, even for me ). I'm talking about the religious organizations. The Catholic Church is bad, even if Mother Theresa was good. The Mormon Church is bad, even if my Mormon ex-roommate was a really nice guy and wouldn't hurt a fly. Islam is bad, even if Azar Nafisi helped women in Iran learn more than just religious dogma. We can point to any religion and see that there are many good people who consider themselves a part of that religion. The reason that the whole of religion is bad, however, is:

The Catholic church is NOT bad. Neither are other religions. It's open to the same problems that any organization of any size that involves people is going to have. Mistakes will be made. People will do and say dumb things. There will even be bad people from time to time, even in leadership positions. That doesn't make a religion inherintly bad. That's like saying all governments are bad. Even though governments are frequently (even almost all of the time) run by idiots, I still wouldn't argue that they are bad and I wouldn't want to live in a world with no government.

- Religion enforces conformance to a non-changing set of core beliefs. No matter what science shows, if you are a Christian or a Jew then you must believe that the world was created in 6 days, that it is only 6,000 years old, and that there was a flood that covered the earth and destroyed everybody except a handful of people. Certainly you're free to choose what parts you want to believe in, but what gives you the right? In Peter, Jesus says that none of the scriptures are open to personal interpretation. Christians who reject the Old Testament because it tells them to stone their children (Jesus also says disobedient children must die in Mark, btw) or get a good price on their slaves are also rejecting the New Testament. People who try to interpret their chosen religion on their own are woefully out of their depth. You could go crazy trying to wrap your mind around all of the dogma in Christianity alone, let alone trying to come up with your own version. It's dogma that makes religion so dangerous. In fact, just by trying to interpret Christianity on your own, you're leaving yourself open to being killed as a non-believer, as God commands in the bible.

The whole thing about rigidity of beliefs is just plain wrong. And it's not all or nothing...that you must either believe it all or you are not really a Christian or a Jew...if that were the case, we'd probably have almost no Christians or Jews. Speaking of interpretation...you're certainly interpreting things yourself. Most religious people would most likely have a completely different understanding than you do. For example, on interpretation itself see: http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-peter-1-20(3).htm As to being forced to hold OT laws or you are rejecting NT...what?! There's a lot of writing on the subject of OT not being applicable any more. For example: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html But basically, Hebrews 8:13 talks about establishing a new covenant and doing away with the old one from the OT.

- It is far too easy to convince good people to do bad things. And it doesn't even have to be war. Consider Catholicism's stance on birth control. Because of the Catholic Church's unyielding stance on birth control, AIDS is ravaging hundreds of thousands world wide. STD's run rampant in South America and Mexico for the same reason.

You don't need religion for that and it usually doesn't take a lot of convincing.

- Anything can be forgiven or justified in the name of religion. All you need to do is convince enough people that "God said so."

Just BS.

Anyway, as a suggestion, stick to athiesm and talk about whatever they believe or don't believe. But please, stop trying to say what other Religions which you don't hold to believe, because almost everything you say about them is incorrect! You know just enough to try to twist things towards your point of view, but you don't really know enough details. Just like the stuff you complained about on the History channel, you're trying to present your beliefs as fact. Well what if someone believes that?!

If you want to talk about how great athiesm is, then great. But please stop putting down other relgions as silly, stupid, etc. If you're secure and happy with being an athiest, then more power to you, but why the need to attack others that don't believe the same as you? Why is it that I always see athiests doing this? I don't see religious people coming on here and throwing in little digs at athiesm in every post!

[Brad and Vika 129]

Atheism is quintessentially about serving something beyond ourselves.

I wouldn't claim to know much about atheism, but this statement doesn't seem to jibe at all with most of what I read over the years.

[SMR 368]

Well, to be fair it's probably not quite the Ponzi scheme as the Catholic church is, but then the Catholic church has been doing this for a couple thousand years. But it's all the same; those at the top get richer through the ministrations of those at the bottom. You've been told that LDS officials live only off their non-LDS savings, and heck you could probably even establish a paper trail that proves this, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think that the guys at the top aren't rich because of LDS.

So you acknowledge that it could be demonstrated by paper trails that the leaders aren't receiving any sort of compensation for their service, yet still claim they are getting rich because of it. Either you are implying that fraud is going on, in which case I suggest you investigate and get evidence, or you pulled this one out from where the sun doesn't shine. Either they are getting rich and it can be demonstrated, or they aren't getting a cent, as I assert.

In fact, Joseph Smith Jr. died (yes violently) a very rich man who'd managed to satisfy his sexual appetites amongst the many women (I believe 33, including a couple teenage girls) who he called his wives. All because of his position as head of LDS. Brigham Young did very nicely too, parlaying his position as LDS leader to become Governor of Utah, and eventually winding up with a grand total of 55 wives. (seems Brigham Young had an even larger sexual appetite than his predecessor.)

You're correct that Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered. By an angry mob actually, a terrible way to go. Yet another example of religious extremism, this time perpetrated by Christians against Christians.

Mormonism provides us a great view of how religions get started though, since it's so young. But the very essence of the Mormon story is just as crazy as Christianity because it requires a ridiculous suspension of disbelief. From golden tablets that are the very foundation of the religion but that only Joseph Smith ever saw, to the claim that native American Indians are the descendents of ancient Jewish Lamanites, even though scientific DNA testing has proven this to be false beyond a doubt. It's also interesting that when Joseph Smith was translating the scripture from the Book of Lehi, when some of these translations were lost (stolen actually, by a woman who saw through his scam) and he was asked to reproduce them, he claimed God was angry at the loss, and so God forced him to translate from the Book of Nehi, which told similar but different scripture. This was obviously to cover up the fact that he'd been making it up as he went along, and there was no way for him to reproduce the lost pages. If he'd actually been reading from the golden tablets, he could have re-recited the pages word-for-word. According to Mormonism also, the garden of Eden was in Missouri. This is just touching on the tip of the LDS iceberg, I haven't even touched on polygamy or posthumous baptism or any number of other Mormon practices that simply defy belief.

We can discuss polygamy, the 116 pages and the Book of Nephi (not Nehi), posthumous baptism, the location of the Garden of Eden, or a number of other like topics if you want, but I really don't see much of a point. Your basic claim is that these things "defy belief." That's subjective. I believe them. We're sort of at an impass.

A couple points I will address, just because your facts are undeniably wrong. 12 other people saw the golden plates and testified in writing to their existence. Although several of them later had a falling out with Joseph Smith and went on with their lives (effectively leaving the church) they all reaffirmed to their deaths that they had seen and handled the plates.

Second, DNA evidence has been inconclusive, as far as I have heard, but even if there were conclusive evidence that American Indians and Jews are not genetically linked, such evidence would be meaningless. Jews are Biblically members of the tribe of Judah. When Israel split into the north and south kingdoms, the "Jews" were in the southern kingdom. According to the Book of Mormon, American Indians are descended from the tribe of Manasseh (of the northern kingdom). Due to the conquest of the northern kingdom in the 6th century BC, no other members of that tribe can historically be placed. Admittedly, all the tribes can be traced back to Jacob, so modern Jews and American Indians should have a common ancestor. But anybody who claims that they can conclusively prove that two groups of people, who have intermarried with goodness knows who, don't share a common ancestor several dozen generations back aught to be viewed with suspicion. DNA testing just isn't that good and there are far too many unknowns.

My point about Joseph Smith is not really focused on what exactly he had but rather on the fact that he died because he would not deny his claims about the Book of Mormon and first vision. Anybody who concocted a fraud, for whatever reasons, would not reasonably perpetuate that fraud when it would mean death. Either he was a prophet or he was crazy. But to claim that he concocted a story for personal gain and affirmed it to his death is, in my opinion, the claim that defies belief.

Look up the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The short story is that a wagon train crossing through Mormon territory on their way to California was ambushed by the Mormon militia. There was a lengthy siege, and eventually the Mormons convinced the emigrants that they would be allowed safe passage if they layed down their arms. The emigrants agreed, they lay down their arms and abandoned the wagons with all their possessions, and walked away. But it was just a ruse by the Mormon Militia. About 120 men, women, and children were massacred by Mormons, although the youngest children were spared and taken to be raised as Mormon children. The belongings of the emigrants was auctioned off at the Cedar City tithing office. This massacre wasn't just carried out by isolated members either. The very highest ranking members of LDS were involved in its planning and eventual implementation.

I half expected you to bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre but was hoping for something a little more interesting. You are actually greatly stretching the truth on this one. There is no doubt that the massacre occurred or that it was terrible.

However, the church at the highest levels did nothing to encourage or plan the massacre and excommunicated all who were involved. As you agreed, we're talking about organizations, not the actions of individuals who may happen to belong to a group.

Admittedly, it's a matter of what you consider high ranking, I suppose. The local stake president (a leader of a small group of congregations) was involved in planning the massacre and was excommunicated. However, that isn't really high ranking. There are literally thousands of stake presidents and a stake president might be compared to a priest or pastor in other Christian faiths. Thus, we're talking about the actions of isolated local leaders who were disciplined and removed from authority by higher ranking leaders.

(and apologies if my anti-Mormon stance offends you, it's not personal against you, and I certainly don't consider Mormonism worse than any other religion. I know the feeling though, Atheists get it from all sides. )

No offense taken. I realize you're sort of equal opportunity about these things and I don't take offense on the internet anyways (don't much in real life either).

Edited April 17, 2010 by SMR

[visaveteran 0]

When all is said and done, nobody can prove the existence or absence of God. It blows my mind every time I ask how can something come from nothing? How can a tiny ball of dense energy explode and create the universe? And where did that ball of energy come from?

Nobody can tell me. So we all are asked to believe in an act of creation from nothing. Here is where we choose our way to accept the universe's creator.

The atheists are as clueless as anyone else when it comes to pre-creation reality.

A spiritual means of coping seems our most common way...as shown by the ancient cave drawings in France. It seems man is a spiritual being in his natural setting. I don't see anything in history to tell me atheism is a natural reaction to man's view of his world.

OK, so some government scientists brainwashed by the leftist university professors don't believe...so what? They can't prove anything regarding pre-creation reality either. Why should we buy into their own wild azz guess?

[SuperDuper! 230]

Mox likes to make it seem that you are special if he responds to your posts or not. Letz just make him feel that he is just so special.

[SuperDuper! 230]

You are ok in my book, Mox. I guess I was thinking that you respond to posts that only serve to strengthen the RUB clique, and ignore all the "outsiders" here. Glad to see you are open to communicating with us non-rub folks. Hey, we can't all be so lucky to find a fine rub woman. Fact is, I have a great interest in all things Russian, as one of my best friends is Russian and so is his immigrant wife. Cheers.

[visaveteran 0]

A few thoughts:

I hate to bet on science. Science is about as stable as the winds. What was certain science yesterdy is debunked tomorrow. And for every scientist who proves something, there are two others disputing his work. In the interest of survival, some scientists put out dubious work and publications to keep their jobs and gain tenure and keep their grant money flowing. These are not all honorable people out to solve the mysteries of life. They serve their financial interests, their egos, and the need to bring home the bacon like all of us.

The older people get, the less they will embrace atheism. When mortality becomes a central issues for older people, a rethinking will occur. And, I do think there is truth that there are no atheists on the battlefield. When someone is wounded, they often cry for God's help.

Atheism will never draw large numbers of people because what do they offer? Nothing. No eternal life, no forgiveness, no hope. Some religions even give you a second chance here on earth. Others offer lots of virgins. The atheists tell you this is it. No second chance, no life after death. No hope.

For all the science, we exit into mystery. Nobody really knows what lies ahead. Who offers the hope of more destiny? Not atheist scientists.

[Sveta and Ko 0]

Religion is the biggest business in the world in terms of revenue