Mankind's all time worst enemies...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:04 pm

Van wrote:Mankind has greatly progressed intellectually, medically and even scientifically due to organized religion?

Maybe not entirely "due", but a great impact has been made, and there's overwhelming facts to prove it, Van. You do realize that church contributions make up over half of all charitable donations, right? We're talking billions of dollars per year, here. And yes, the majority of that money goes towards general social causes, and not just aiding the advancements of their own movements.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:28 pm

Van wrote:
MtLR wrote:

Mankind hasn't prospered because of its penchant to slaughter each other in the name of the various Gods and Prophets.

Agreed, but no one has made that claim.
Tom in Virginia made that precise claim...

If by that you mean when he said this:

hate to break it to you Van but if it wasn't for all that "killing", you wouldn't be where you're at.

In a way, he's correct. If certain wars/battles/conflicts hadn't happened and had the specific outcomes they did, our world would be substantially different - in some ways possibly worse. Some technological and scientific innovations were spurred by war. I'm not saying that all the suffering and death was peachy-keen since it resulted in some technological progress, but the fact remains that conflict sometimes has unintended positive outcomes.

Now, if Tom was saying that religious wars are directly responsible for the high standard of living, economic prosperity, and scientific progress we all enjoy (which I'm not sure is what he meant) ....then he's reaching.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:31 pm

Meanwhile, the Vatican cracks down further and decrees that they must reverse the current trend and get back to their core Fundamentalist tenets rather than trying to make Catholicism more palatable to modern day audiences...

Also, "general social causes" doesn't generally equate to "donations towards scientific research", does it?

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:36 pm

MtLR, it's also a reach to attempt to attach any altruistic motivations or positive spin behind the killing done in the name or religion.

"Lets go slaughter some Muslims, 'cause, errrmmm, we'll earn some new vaccinations along the way!"

No. Organized religion doesn't get any credit for mankind's ability to grow in its ability to clean up the messes made my organized religion.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:41 pm

Van wrote:Meanwhile, the Vatican cracks down further and decrees that they must reverse the current trend and get back to their core Fundamentalist tenets rather than trying to make Catholicism more palatable to modern day audiences...

So don't join the Catholic Church. BTW, if you think that the 'progressive' trends towards legimization of sexual deviancy, abortion, divorce and promiscuous sexual relationships has been a net social positive, you are seriously deluded.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:43 pm

Van wrote:MtLR, it's also a reach to attempt to attach any altruistic motivations or positive spin behind the killing done in the name or religion.

"Lets go slaughter some Muslims, 'cause, errrmmm, we'll earn some new vaccinations along the way!"

More like because they invaded non-muslim countries. A tendency they and the fundie atheist regiemes (marxists, jacobins) have in common.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:44 pm

If you think the whole organized religion shootin' match has been a net social positive you are seriously deluded.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:48 pm

Diogenes wrote:
Van wrote:MtLR, it's also a reach to attempt to attach any altruistic motivations or positive spin behind the killing done in the name or religion.

"Lets go slaughter some Muslims, 'cause, errrmmm, we'll earn some new vaccinations along the way!"
More like because they invaded non-muslim countries. A tendency they and the fundie atheist regiemes (marxists, jacobins) have in common.

Irrelevant. The point being that nobody ever went to war behind the religion flag with the purposes of benefitting mankind with hoped for scientific and social advancements that are sure to result from killing people.

They go to war with religion as their excuse, and their reasons for killing have nothing to do with wishing to help out the scientific community. Their reason for killing is they want to kill their perceived enemies, period.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:54 pm

Van wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Van wrote:MtLR, it's also a reach to attempt to attach any altruistic motivations or positive spin behind the killing done in the name or religion.

"Lets go slaughter some Muslims, 'cause, errrmmm, we'll earn some new vaccinations along the way!"
More like because they invaded non-muslim countries. A tendency they and the fundie atheist regiemes (marxists, jacobins) have in common.
Irrelevant. The point being that nobody ever went to war behind the religion flag with the purposes of benefitting mankind with hoped for scientific and social advancements that are sure to result from killing people.

They go to war with religion as their excuse, and their reasons for killing have nothing to do with wishing to help out the scientific community. Their reason for killing is they want to kill their perceived enemies, period.

No, their reason for killing in the case of the Crusades was because the muslims were invaders.

If you think the whole organized religion shootin' match has been a net social positive you are seriously deluded.

There has been no 'organized religion shootin' match'. The only organized religions with conquest as their main tenet have been islam and the atheist doctrines mentioned before.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:02 pm

Van wrote: The point being that nobody ever went to war behind the religion flag with the purposes of benefitting mankind with hoped for scientific and social advancements that are sure to result from killing people.

No one has gone to war behind ANY flag with the purposes of getting the scientific and social advances that war tends to spur.

Van wrote:They go to war with religion as their excuse, and their reasons for killing have nothing to do with wishing to help out the scientific community. Their reason for killing is they want to kill their perceived enemies, period.

And the REAL reasons they want to kill the enemy have to do with power, territorial expansion, greed, and bigotry. All religion did was grease the wheels and allow demagogues to better manipulate the populace (gaining cannon fodder and pawns).

As time went on, later demagogues replaced religion with nationalism, misguided patriotism, "cult of the state", etc. Still worked.

edit: Extra point - in the transformation from "religious" to more modern wars, the demagogues learned to silence dissent by replacing the word/threat of "heresy" with the word "treason." Same con game, just a reworded con...

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:10 pm

Dio, by "organized shootin' match" I didn't literally mean a shooting match.

I meant that all of organized religion, all inclusive, hasn't exactly been a net social positive. Besides all the killing, organized religion has mostly just created a bunch of emotionally dependent sheep who don't think for themselves or have any ability to act autonomously on their own behalf...

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:18 pm

Van wrote:Dio, by "organized shootin' match" I didn't literally mean a shooting match.

I meant that all of organized religion, all inclusive, hasn't exactly been a net social positive. Besides all the killing organized religion has mostly just created a bunch of emotionally dependent sheep who don't think for themselves or have any ability to act autonomously on their own behalf...

I take it then that you'd dig Jefferson's quote:

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." - from Jefferson's "Notes on Virginia"

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:29 pm

Mike, yep, I'd have to weigh in as being fully onboard with Jefferson's observation.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:30 pm

You refer to 'organized religion' killing people when you actually mean secular entites using religion as a pretext to kill. Theocracy of any kind is a bad idea. Still not as dangerous and destructive as Atheocracy though...

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:43 pm

Theocracy of any kind is a bad idea.

Now you get it.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:58 pm

Van wrote:
Theocracy of any kind is a bad idea. Still not as dangerous and destructive as Atheocracy though...
Now you get it.

Appearantly you still don't...

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:52 pm

Church and state should never mix. Never, ever. Hundreds of years of European history should have taught us that. When church and state are one, dissent of any kind becomes heresy, and liberty is endangered.

The best case government situation should be one in which all religions (including atheism) are allowed to exist and be practiced, so long as such practice does not infringe upon the actual rights of others (which would necessarily occur if one religion became the "state" religion). BTW, if someone is "offended" by someone else's religious practices (or lack of them), tough shit - you do NOT have an inalienable right to not be offended. You or your kids being exposed to views contrary to your own is not infringing on your rights.

In the words of my hero Tommy J:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:53 pm

Screamer wrote:Appearantly you still don't...

Appearently not.

You really need to stop bolding everything. Amplifying the volume of a stupid post is just too funny.

In other news, you also really need to stop believing that there's such a thing as war fought for the sake of atheism. Never happened. It'll never happen.

Being an enemy of the state in such instances has to do with one's political activities, not one's religious bent...

Pol Pot wouldn't have minded having a Roman Catholic among his lackeys, not as long as dude followed the song list...

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:59 pm

Mike....concur. On all of it.

I'm liking the Tommy J quote, right along with the Jefferson quote.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:01 pm

Van wrote:Mike....concur. On all of it.

I'm liking the Tommy J quote, right along with the Jefferson quote.

Ummm...you know that "Tommy J" IS Thomas Jefferson, right?

:wink:

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:10 pm

No, I didn't. I can see though that he and I agree on matters of church and state and probably organized religion in general.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:26 pm

Van wrote:In other news, you also really need to stop believing that there's such a thing as war fought for the sake of atheism. Never happened. It'll never happen.

Being an enemy of the state in such instances has to do with one's political activities, not one's religious bent...

Pol Pot wouldn't have minded having a Roman Catholic among his lackeys, not as long as dude followed the song list...

You are aware the buddhists and Catholics were the first ones on his hit list?

And I never said that wars were 'fought for the sake of atheism'.

Just atheistic ideologies.

Church and state should never mix. Never, ever. Hundreds of years of European history should have taught us that. When church and state are one, dissent of any kind becomes heresy, and liberty is endangered.

Actually it did teach the founders that, which is why they designed the first amendment to protect religious institutions and individuals from governmental abuse. Unfortunatly, the current interpretation turns that on it's head.

No, I didn't. I can see though that he and I agree on matters of church and state and probably organized religion in general.

Then you would be as disgusted as him of the current turning of the whole 'seperation of church and state' concept on it's head? Good to know.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:26 pm

Van wrote:No, I didn't. I can see though that he and I agree on matters of church and state and probably organized religion in general.

Check out "The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson" by Charles B. Sanford. I picked it up on one of my many "pilgrimages" to Monticello and Williamsburg and really dig it.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:28 pm

And what's with your mantra of 'organized religion'? Disorganized religions like paganism and occultism are okay by you?

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:39 pm

Organized religion, as opposed to individuals quietly worshipping in their own manner, time and place.

Lacking in ostentation and the whole herd mentality.

The real thing, in other words.

Also, many a pagan religion is every bit as organized as any of the others. For that matter all religions are pagan religions, depending on who's doing the labeling.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:42 pm

Diogenes wrote:Then you would be as disgusted as him of the current turning of the whole 'seperation of church and state' concept on it's head? Good to know.

Jefferson denied the Trinity and denied the divinity of Christ. He had the intellectual/theological arrogance (for lack of a better term right now) to edit the New Testament so as to remove "fanciful" portions such as miracles and any quotes from Christ implying that he was in any way divine. He considered Jesus the "supreme moral exemplar" but in no way, shape, or form, God. In this he and I disagree.

He had an incredibly low opinion of priests (Roman Catholic, Anglican, etc.) and most organized Christian religion in general. He was utterly opposed to the grassroots efforts of some Christians to make Christianity the official "state" religion (hence his quote regarding his opposition to all "tyranny over the mind of mankind").

He was a Deist in the truest sense and would not have necessarily opposed much of the "separation of church and state" rulings that have been made. I'm basing this on the over four dozen books on/by Jefferson I've got in my personal library that I've collected and read over the last two decades and classes (and friendships) with experts on Jefferson....(so save the heavily edited out-of-context quotes you'll doubtless pull off of biased websites...).

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:45 pm

Van wrote:Also, "general social causes" doesn't generally equate to "donations towards scientific research", does it?

The church I used to be a part of was a big contributor to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Alpha1 Foundation, the Cancer Treatment Research Foundation, and others.

"Scientific research" towards things non medically is a moot point, as far as religious groups go.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:39 pm

Diogenes wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
poptart wrote:Reason?
They have lost the Gospel.
Really?

Tell us more.

Sin,
The Possibly Married Chick In Your Avatar Who You Covet.
Link?

I was under the impression she was there because pop's a Raiderfan, not because of any lustful obsessions he has with her. Nice non sequiter though.

Not really.

Thanks, Dio.

Don't project, Dinsdale.

I'm not ElvisForehead.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:42 pm

Yeah, Mgo, but c'mon, this is you we're talking about here, the inimitable Mgo-Evil-Spud, so the head priest at your former church was probably Anton LaVey...

:-)

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:52 am

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:He ... would not have necessarily opposed much of the "separation of church and state" rulings that have been made.

Accurate staement in a very good post.

I doubt I'm as well read as yourself on TJ's religious views, but I'm somewhat familiar with them.

And actually knowing how the "REAL Father Of Our Country" felt about the issue, it reallyreallyreally makes these "the USA is a christian nation" arguments all that much more stupid and transparent(to promote personal/special interest agendas at the expense of the BoR).

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:06 am

Van wrote:Tom, don't even try and pretend that you're in any position whatsoever to assume you're more well read than anybody here, much less yours truly.

Apparently while you're a prolific reader, aside from being a deluded narcissist, your comprehension skills are lacking. Try reading some more.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:16 am

Tom, my comprehension skills are just fine. What apparently needs to happen here is you need to stop posting stupid shit that you can't even begin to defend.

You wanna defend Christianity? Fine, Take a stab at it.

Just see if you can do so while not positing lunacy such as your little ditty about killing in Christ's name being some sort of boon to mankind and the world of science...

You haven't a leg to stand on there.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:18 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:He ... would not have necessarily opposed much of the "separation of church and state" rulings that have been made.
Accurate staement in a very good post.

I doubt I'm as well read as yourself on TJ's religious views, but I'm somewhat familiar with them.

And actually knowing how the "REAL Father Of Our Country" felt about the issue, it reallyreallyreally makes these "the USA is a christian nation" arguments all that much more stupid and transparent(to promote personal/special interest agendas at the expense of the BoR).

Jefferson's actually thoghts on the subject.

As far as 'REAL Father Of Our Country"...

You're even a bigger idiot than I thought. Unless you mean Father of the two-party system, that is.

And the judicial doctrine of SOCAS is still a turning of the intent of the first amendment on it's head, based on a reationary, racist SC decision.

And please continue not reading my posts, twinkie. Wouldn't want to hurt your tiny mind.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:20 am

Van wrote:Tom, my comprehension skills are just fine. What apparently needs to happen here is you need to stop posting stupid shit that you can't even begin to defend.

Definitly the wrong thread for you to be posting this. From the first post, that's about all you've done.

Just sayin'

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:25 am

Dio, this is definitely the wrong board for you to ever be posting anything of the sort.

Oh, wait, gimme a second here. Gotta get it user friendly and all for you...

Ahem...

Dio, you're once again in no position to talk. Or spell, apparently. Or make a cogent point. Stick to posting hottie pics. You're good at that. Try to leave out some of those C- Arizona Cardinals house fraus, if you please.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:31 am

You've been on here almost all day dude. Do you need to be "right" that bad ?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:49 am

Van wrote:

Well at least that beats your attempts at having a 'take'.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:38 am

Tom In VA wrote:You've been on here almost all day dude. Do you need to be "right" that bad ?

No, I just needed for it to not be a holiday weekend that took away all my customers and left me with nothing to do to kill time but fuck around on the internet arguing about stupid shit!

So, come to think of it, thanks for helping move my day along!

:D