Does the World Need Religion?

[Jesster]

What I care about is if what they're saying has any merit.

Then you should check on that instead of just using them as a direct source. Where are they getting their information from? Does that have any merit? Are they spinning it in any way? It's good to ask questions about sites named "Conservapedia". Heck, it's even great to check up on sites with more credible names.

Try looking into some peer reviewed scientific journals. They at least have others checking up on their legitimacy.

[paulpablo]

What do you say to those who make the argument that more atrocities have been committed by atheists than by religions?

I don't know if this question was addressed to me but I think I may have a different opinion to some atheists about this in the sense that I don't care about it.

I find it not outside the realms of possability that Hitler, Stalin and many great leaders who have been held responsible for lots of death held an atheistic view point at some stage.

The bad things other people have done couldn't convince me that the story of Adam and Eve happened.

The bad things I do can't convince me of that. 

Let's say hypothetically that the bible/quran has great advice in and if we all just followed it everything would be great, atheists are evil and the ones spoiling the party, killing raping and mass murdering.  Even if that were scientifically proven true all that might make me do is try to pretend to be religious a bit. I couldn't do much more than that.  If I even bothered to do that.

So my answer is yeh maybe.

I find it more likely that the world leaders who commited war crimes and great atrocities in history probably experienced varying religious perspectives from the spectrum of beliefs in their lives.  Ghengis Khan called himself the flail of god, Hitler seemed to have some spiritual beliefs, no idea about Stalin but they might have just been smart and used religion as a tool but who knows.
I can't read their mind and I'm sure their minds changed over time.  Especially the ones on drugs. Epecially if they were old, demented, they had some simple disease that was incurable/common in ancient times. I think Caligula had some kind of medical problem known to cause strange behavior.

[phoenix31]

What I care about is if what they're saying has any merit.

Then you should check on that instead of just using them as a direct source. Where are they getting their information from? Does that have any merit? Are they spinning it in any way? It's good to ask questions about sites named "Conservapedia". Heck, it's even great to check up on sites with more credible names.

Try looking into some peer reviewed scientific journals. They at least have others checking up on their legitimacy.

They listed where they were getting their information from. All of the books are listed. I just can't post the link. I don't think one needs a peer reviewed scientific journal to estimate how many lives were taken in specific points in history. That's well documented in books.

[Jesster]

They listed where they were getting their information from. All of the books are listed. I just can't post the link. I don't think one needs a peer reviewed scientific journal to estimate how many lives were taken in specific points in history. That's well documented in books.

If "it's in a book" is enough to convince you, then I can't help you. Good luck out there.

[phoenix31]

What do you say to those who make the argument that more atrocities have been committed by atheists than by religions?

I don't know if this question was addressed to me but I think I may have a different opinion to some atheists about this in the sense that I don't care about it.

I find it not outside the realms of possability that Hitler, Stalin and many great leaders who have been held responsible for lots of death held an atheistic view point at some stage.

The bad things other people have done couldn't convince me that the story of Adam and Eve happened.

The bad things I do can't convince me of that. 

Let's say hypothetically that the bible/quran has great advice in and if we all just followed it everything would be great, atheists are evil and the ones spoiling the party, killing raping and mass murdering.  Even if that were scientifically proven true all that might make me do is try to pretend to be religious a bit. I couldn't do much more than that.  If I even bothered to do that.

So my answer is yeh maybe.

I find it more likely that the world leaders who commited war crimes and great atrocities in history probably experienced varying religious perspectives from the spectrum of beliefs in their lives.  Ghengis Khan called himself the flail of god, Hitler seemed to have some spiritual beliefs, no idea about Stalin but they might have just been smart and used religion as a tool but who knows.
I can't read their mind and I'm sure their minds changed over time.  Especially the ones on drugs.  Epecially if they were old, demented, they had some simple disease that was incurable/common in ancient times.  I think Caligula had some kind of medical problem known to cause strange behavior.

I like this. I don't really feel like I can prove that atheism doesn't cause more harm to the world but I myself just choose to try to live in a way that is uplifting to humanity. You're right that pretending couldn't really help with anything at all. I'm an atheist. It is what it is.

---

They listed where they were getting their information from. All of the books are listed. I just can't post the link. I don't think one needs a peer reviewed scientific journal to estimate how many lives were taken in specific points in history. That's well documented in books.

If "it's in a book" is enough to convince you, then I can't help you. Good luck out there.

Are you willing to refute their arguments? I don't have the time or the know-how to look for peer reviewed studies on every atrocity in history.

Do you know anyone who has looked into this and refutes the claims that these many people died?

[Jesster]

Are you willing to refute their arguments? I don't have the time or the know-how to look for peer reviewed studies on every atrocity in history.

Do you know anyone who has looked into this and refutes the claims that these many people died?

Burden of proof. Until sufficient evidence is provided, I am under no burden to prove an insufficient claim wrong. It is the job of the one making the claim to prove their claim right.

I'm surprised you aren't already religious. Anyone can write a book.

[phoenix31]

I'm trying to work my way out of a very fundamentalist upbringing, actually.

[Asmodee]

Religion does nothing to "keep people moral", it only attempts to dictate what morality is, and if fails miserably at that.  People are people, regardless their religious beliefs.  You will find both good and bad people holding any and every belief system.  And often times people defy the morality suggested by their church in favor of self-gratification.

For instance, my dumbass cousin knocked up a Catholic girl when they were teenagers.  I actually heard her say that she got pregnant because she was Catholic and couldn't use birth control.  I remember thinking that I was pretty sure there was something in the rules about a 16 year old girl having premarital sex, too, but it didn't stop her from doing that one.  People pick and choose which rules they will follow and which rules they will not.  The saying, "It's easier to ask forgiveness and permission" applies doubly so to God, who isn't actually going to get in your face about it.

Not that religion doesn't do some good.  There are some decent faith-based charities.  But there are a lot more which actually work against people.  Catholic hospitals put their religious doctrine over the health and safety of patients, for instance.  They refuse to even give their patients warnings and information when that information might suggest a medical procedure they object to, such as an abortion for a woman who is miscarrying.  In some cases they have been known to not even warn the miscarrying woman about the risks involved by allowing the miscarriage to continue naturally because, medically, the right thing to do was to abort the pregnancy to protect the health of the woman over a few hours of extra life for a fetus with no chance of survival past a couple of days.

Morality is subjective.  A thousand churches have a thousand versions of it.  If you don't like the morality of one you simply go to another which is more in line with your personal beliefs and preferences.  And if you do violate their moral code, what are they going to do about it?  Kick you out of their church?  Again, simply go to another.  Only laws make any real effort or have any real power to actually force people to live by a certain moral code.  If we have them we don't need superstition to guide us, especially when that superstition says that if you do break the code, just ask for forgiveness and all is good.  It literally takes a moment in most churches to atone for rape and murder.  But then you still have to deal with the legal aspect, which is considerably more threatening in the immediate reality, magical afterlife notwithstanding.  And the magical afterlife is completely binary.  Reward or punishment.  There is no middle ground.  Take the 20 seconds to ask for forgiveness and you go from an eternity of punishment to an eternity of bliss.

[Cyberman]

Now demonstrate that those atrocities were committed for atheistic reasons. Then we'll talk about atrocities by religious people for religious reasons.

I know atrocities happen in the name of religion but what I am saying is that more atrocities happened by people who were atheists.

Look at the language you're using here: atrocities in the name of religion vs atrocities by people who were atheists. Now I'll ask you again to demonstrate that those atrocities were committed for atheistic reasons. Not simply by atheists.

And I don't give a shit what Andrew Schlafly's bigoted little platform says.

[phoenix31]

I know atrocities happen in the name of religion but what I am saying is that more atrocities happened by people who were atheists.

Look at the language you're using here: atrocities in the name of religion vs atrocities by people who were atheists. Now I'll ask you again to demonstrate that those atrocities were committed for atheistic reasons. Not simply by atheists.

And I don't give a shit what Andrew Schlafly's bigoted little platform says.

I don't think there is such a thing as an atheistic reason, is there? He was saying that it makes sense that atheists could be (or are) more prone to commit atrocities for those reasons that were listed. You don't have an answer for it?