Presidential Candidates .. Who Do You Like?

more opinion than fact lol...

Show me something positive religion brought to the world, and I'll show you something that would've happened sooner.

So now you're saying that there was some value but even if they didn't exist other people would have contributed the same or more value previous to when religion would have?

It's an idiom. It takes a piece of information and redefines it under a different light. My statement inferred that anything "positive" religion brought to the world was either not because of religion or stagnated because of religion (Thus, taking more time for it to happen), and though I didn't incorporate it, in many cases, entirely snuffed out.

Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition Bit

Nik wins.

/thread

This is a flawed viewpoint. You're looking at all of history the same way you view modern western society.

I'm fairly certain that many of the architectural and engineering advances from ancient egypt, ancient greece, the roman empire, the empires of central america etc came from their desire to build structures honoring or related to their beliefs at the time.

What about the negative?

Edit: Would all the negative contributions just dissapear or would they be replaced by something else?

Should ask him if not voting at all, or voting for someone who you hope doesn't win is somehow less of a waste.

didnt really waste your vote yet as the general election isnt until November. If you're referring to the primaries, any doubt about Romney winning the nomination was simply false hope or delusion.

Oh how joyous must it be to live in the delusion of Reagonomics like Nausi.

I'll make you a deal, you agree that workers compensation needs to be increased nation-wide and I'll agree that unions need to be disbanded.

(and by increased I mean *** overhauled).

You say boo to more regulation, well guess what?, they tried the private approach to worker's rights, and that caused more red tape, more wage inflation and more *** jobs that aren't producing anything of value than any government section has.

Continuation of the current policies are going to continue to harm the US economically either way though.



@the more religion stuff: of course religion shouldn't be outlawed, thought crimes are a no. However: religion needs less protection against redicule, and needs to stay out of the *** government, off our money, off our pledge, out of our public schools, and out of organizations that receive public funds (like boy scouts)/or those organizations need to stop getting those funds/special treatment.

oh also no federal grants or subsidies for "colleges" like Liberty University.

since when is the government supposed to make sure that jobs are available to it's people? thought you were against such things?

at least now all those checks will be taxes, and the companies that hire them will be taxed (which is the much larger chunk of missing change).


lol there is so much wrong with this statement/line of thinking I don't know where to begin.

I'm sure the lines for building the pyramids were huge. Every slave wanted a piece of that pie.

Honestly though, your argument is one that muddles the line. Did they create those structures because of their beliefs, did they create those structures because of their innate desire to create, or did they create those structures to appease their own vanity? Whatever the case, it all boils down to this: necessity is the benefactor of creation. Religion demanded something, and so something was born... from someone's mind. Religion's only part in creating it was A: demand, and B: oversight.

@Flavin: I'd be curious what evils religion stopped. Impossible to know what could have happened. There would be atrocities though, don't get me wrong. Many would even be the exact same, as many religious wars are only excuses over border conflicts, etc. The outcomes could be different though.

So basically not much would change whether religion was or was not around? There would still be good but there would still be just as much bad...

in the modern world, much less bad.

in history, it's hard to say, debatable at best.

In the same way that if Hitler never existed, there would still be good but there would still be just as much bad, yes. Religion's track record of death makes Hitler look like a common thug, though.

can't forget that Hitler's path was driven by religion as well.|

but seriously Godwin's law?

The line is inherently muddled. Those civilizations where built around certain belief structures. It is simply not possible for us to look back and assume that those civilizations would have produced the same results if they were constructed in a different way.

IMO religion served an important function for much of our history. It provided answers to important questions for people who at the time did not have the tools to seek the answers in another way.

However, I do think we have reached a point in our evolution where the answers that we are finding are bigger than the religions of old, and as such they no longer are helpful but a hindrance to further development.

I would not be sad if these myths and fairy tales just faded away.

It seems like a pointless stance then... get rid of a so it can be replaced by b... did anything change? no... logically it makes no sense...
Governments/nations probably have the one up on all of em lol...

Edit: also you seem to base everything off 20th/21st century standards...

You're right, we can't assume the exact same results would be produced. We also can't assume that the results produced would have been lesser (And for sake of argument, greater.) than the ones that did, which many people tend to assume. On the other hand, we can't expect individual societies to succeed at all under a different paradigm. This could lead to whole different technological, cultural and biological outcomes. Ripple becomes a wave, etc.

@Flavin: That's incredibly defeatist. Religion has annihilated entire cultures, nations, governments, peoples. Just because it's possible it could happen without religion doesn't mean it should be excused. If that's the case, not a single person is guilty of anything. Blame doesn't exist.

And I base things off recent events because it's easier to understand for most parties.

I wouldn't say the myths should fade away, they serve as important history of what not to repeat, imo.

Societies formed around religion. Not all early societies, but a vast majority of them did.

I believe that religion has and does give structural backbone to societies and allowed people to live together both when they were too ignorant to develop secular morality and not powerful enough to adequately police their citizens.

It's terribly easy to pick out all the flaws of some certain system and condemn them directly on that. Especially when said system is so interwoven into society it's hard to know what constructs are a result of it.

I suggest you read some of the work of Alain de Botton. He is a staunch secularist and atheist who has done a lot of work studying what benefits religion brings to society in the modern day that secular society has forgotten.

EDIT: That's not to say religion either is or is not a defunct construct, there are certainly some places that can benefit from the societal order it brings (third world nations where the poor are treated like crap), and there are also certainly some places that put too much emphasis on specific religious tenets to define their values ( more affluent countries that use them to deny civil rights).

(Sorry, was constructing my thoughts and hit submit a little too early.)

I'd be incredibly interested in more information Eugene.

EDIT: Thank you.

I've reconsidered your original statement and decided it is actually a true statement. However, I don't think it is true in the way you intended it to be.

Also be careful to not confuse religion as a source of hatred and intolerance versus a wrapping and convenient vehicle.

I've known tolerant religious people, and intolerant secularists. I know people who don't truly identify with religious practices, but when something they don't agree with comes up if there is a religious argument against it they will use it.

There's a reason that people can quote Leviticus 18:22 and ignore the first 9 chapters, which discusses animal sacrifice. They're looking for am easy vehicle to drive their intolerance, not looking for actual rational justification.

If people followed all the other crazy ***in Leviticus, then there'd be no problem ignoring them on Leviticus 18:22 because we'd have proof that they're completely crazy.

Some religious scripture can and does help fuel intolerance, as does some secular writing. That doesn't make all scripture inherently evil, just as much it doesn't make all secular works evil.

More in the sense that we would regard them in the same way we do the ancient Egyptian and Greek religions.

Well you yourself had stated that if religion existed or didn't there would still be no change... there would still be good and there would still be evil... these aren't my beliefs just my take on your, what I feel to be, ignorant statements... It was not my intention to excuse anything... blame would still exist it would just shift by your logic... if a was gone be would appear and assume a's guilt...

you wish to get rid of something entirely because of your limited understanding of it throughout history based on your 21st century views...

I am endorsing Gary Johnson for president.

The holocaust was not a religious war. It persecuted particular groups to achieve certain means. For various reasons Jews were unpopular in Germany during the early 1900s. But that was more a result of viewing Jews as a social group than a religious group.

The holocaust was more a result of Western imperialism, political, economic drivers, than it was of religious hatred, even though one of the major groups it targeted was in one sense a religious one.

Then either A: you've misunderstood me, or B: you've built a strawman. I've never stated there would be no change, just mentioned that some things may still have happened, with or without religion. And no, blame would not shift, it just means that religion did not have as great a hand in it as to orchestrate it, and that other contributing factors reached a tipping point for it to occur.

And I'm eager to hear your benevolent and ascended perspective from pre-21st century. You're welcome to criticize without foundation, but if you want credibility, please do elaborate.