God doesn't exist, but the religion has benefit.

[Valery Staricov]

Three world religions exist:

 

• Buddhism,

 

• Christianity,

 

• Islam.

 

Mechanism of religious control was built in each of the world religions.

 

Religious control consist in that priest compels by believers to observe the religious norms of behavior under threat to send to paradise or hell. As it considered in the Middle Ages, keys from sky are in pocket of Rome's pontiff. I am atheist, I don't believe to paradise and hell and if I will destined to be in hell, I hope to meet the most clever and merry group of friends in hell. I consider that it is necessary to believe not in God but only in itself and in own forces, therefore i the religion is considered from the point of view of atheism and a science this article though I recognize benefit of religion and uselessness of attempts it to cancel.

 

 

Five elements of mechanism of religious control:

 

• Myth about requital beyond the grave, which had proved the existence of religious sanctions in the hands of priests. Religious sanctions in Christianity and Islam are a threat of eternal torments in helland eternal pleasure in paradise. The religious sanctions in Buddhism is apromise of benefits in process of resettlement of souls (myth about reincarnation) as Vladimir Vysotsky sings: "Hindus had invented the good religion if people would behave itself well to this life, that

this people will be the Chief or Minister in the next life, if people would behave itself badly, that this people will be snake or baobab in nextlife". The myth about hell and paradise had be invented in Judaism in the Old Testament for the first time. There is a myth about the The Last Judgement over of living and died men after doomsday in Christianity and Islam, as result righteous men will find the eternal pleasure in paradise, and sinners together with the devil and his servants will be denounced to eternal torments in hell. Cycle of regenerations (sansara) is associated with suffering in Budhism. The best exit out this cycle of suffering is a path just life, which should lead of man to nonexistence, to immersing in the condition of Nirvana.

 

Conclusion: the most effective myth about requital beyond the grave had be invented in Christianity and this myth had been borrowed from Christianity to Islam.

 

· Monotheism. Monotheism is a myth about one God. Polytheism is myth about many Gods. It was difficult by priest under polytheism , for example in Ancient Rome, to compel the believers to observe the rules of behavior. Invention of monotheism had allowed by priestto order to believers to observe the norms of behavior from the person of a single God which has one code of norms and one will. Monotheism was invented for the first time in Judaism, where a single God by name Jahveh had created World and Man for seven days. Acts of this God and misadventures of the people of Israel was described in the Old Testament. New Testament arose in 1‐2centuries of New Era and it consists from four books (Gospels), where it is explained about the life of Jesus Christ (son of God), actions of Apostles (pupils) that Holy Spirit had gone to the Apostles a few days after the Ascension of Jesus Christ to the sky, Apostles learned to speak to different languages suddenly and Apostles went to teach Christianity in different countries. Thus, there were three Gods in Christianity historically -the father, son of God (Christ), the Holy Spirit. But it needed one God only. Therefore priests met twice to Ecumenical Councils and priests had decided to believe that God is one in three persons in three hypostases. Alexandria's Bishop Arius did not understand the social order and Arius continued insist to the traditional point of view that God‐father is the only God and Christ is not true God, but only an excellent creation of God‐father". Therefore the Arius has been declared as heretic in Nicaea's Council, Arius has been separated from of Church and he has been banished to exile. Such bitter fate expected and other priests who had deviated from line to building of mechanism of religious control. For example, Iconfighters fought against the introduction of icons in Byzantium in 7‐8 centuries of New Era, because Iconfighters did not understand the benefits of icons for strengthening of religious control. Iconfighters referred to the God's commandment "You Don't create myself idol!". Icon plays the role of visual aids for illiterate believers, where these believers see clearly the pictures of The Last Judgement, paradise and hell. The creator of Islam Muhammad has made conclusions of the problems of Christians with monotheism and with dogma about Trinity, therefore Muhammad proclaimed the strict monotheism: "Allah is the only God and Mohammed are just his Prophet", that is Muhammad is not God, but Muhammad is a usual man to whom God inspired their truths. Conclusion: principle of monotheism is led more strictly in Islam than in Christianity, this is the only advantage of Islam in comparison with Christianity.

 

· The cult, as a system of ceremonials, symbolic things, musical instruments, which have a function of the intensifier of influence on believers in the hands of apriest. There are follow means to strengthen of influence on believers: icon, bell, organ's music at Catholics, majestic architecture, drums and copper plates at Buddhists, gilt appareling of priests, magnificent furniture inside the temple, cross on neck at Christians, numerous bows and etc. All pictures of humans and animals inside the temple are forbidden in Islam. Magnificent worship service in dacans (monasteries) is typicalness for Buddhism, where there are sculptures of Buddha and other gods of Lamaist pantheon. Conclusion: poor cult in Islam is disadvantage compared with Christianity and even Buddhism.

 

 

· The clergy, as hierarchical pyramid of priests with severe discipline within this pyramid. This pyramid had arisen not at once. Traveling priests preached the religion in period of the formation of Christianity. They preached Christianity to own discretion. This led to

constant disputes on religious questions. To overcome the strife, single hierarchical organization (the Christian Church) was created at Nicea's Council in 325, this Church consists of clergy (organization of priests) and laymen (Hierarchy within the Catholic Church: Pontiff of Rome, Bishop, Presbyter ,Deacon. It needs the blind subordination from the lower ranks to Supreme ranks. Excommunication from Church, pilgrimage to holy places, public repentance, scourging, wearing of shameful signs, imprisonment were applied as punishment in Church. Inquisition transfers heretics persisting in heresy to the hands of secular authorities for burning on fire. Any attempts to divide the Church, to change dogmas without decision of Ecumenical Council or Rome's Pontiff, to break a mechanism of religious control was stopped in the root with help of these cruel punishments. Similar hierarchical pyramids have been created in Islam and a Lamaism.

· Control for observance of religiousnorms. Parish priests engaged to upbringing of believers directly, priestsleaned to the Bible in their sermons and priests interpreted Bible's content indifferent ways depending from the situation.

 

Two methods are known of control over observance of religious norms:

 

-The supervising for believers in side of a priest, the believer should recognized to priest in their sins at confession.

 

-The supervising for the believers in side of the community.

 

Conclusion: the second form of control is more effective.

 

The Pope of Rome received huge income from all Catholic countries of Western Europe in the Middle Ages. Pope of Rome and Cardinals lived in luxury, they spent own time at feasts and hunting, such a way of life became a disgrace for the Catholic Church. Pope of Rome ordered to sell the indulgences throughout all Europe. Sale of indulgences has become the last drop which overflowed the bowl of patience of believers. Moreover, layer of people has appeared in Western Europe, this people could count own money, it was the layer of entrepreneurs. They have arranged a religious revolution (Reformation), as result of which the countries of Northern Europe have become Protestant and it have ceased to pay money to Pontiff of Rome. The first to Protestant prophets have become Luther in Germany and Calvin in Switzerland.

 

German sociologist Max Weber has reflected the essence of this Protestant revolution in work "Protestant ethics and spirit of capitalism", which he had written in 1904‐1905. Weber considered that Protestant ethics and religion has generated to capitalism. Protestant religion has urged to work persistently, assistance and let them into circulation, that to get new money. Calvin invented the myth about predetermination, entity of which consists in follows. Protestants believed that only such men hit to paradise as men was elected by God in advance from birth. People do not know in advance own destiny, own predefinition– to hit to paradise or hell, but people may guess. For that man should engageto the business. If man has grown rich as result of enterprise activity, that means that he has elected by God and God helps in business him already under Earth's life.

 

Here is a precepts from the Code of Builder of capitalism, which Calvin cited in their speeches:

• Time is money.

• Money bears the new money.

• If men produced the fat from livestock, that entrepreneurs produced the money from men.

• If man pays debts in time, that purse of other men is opened for this man.

• Knock of your hammer inspires the calmness for your creditors.

Calvin has restructured a little, but Calvin has not destroyed the mechanism of religious control. Heleft in inviolability the myth about requital beyond the grave and monotheism, but Calvin changed strongly the cult. Calvin has canceled the using of icons, crucifixes, crosses, frescos, expensive clothes of priests etc, with aim to make the Church by "cheap", Protestants (Huguenots) rushed to Catholic temples and cut by icons with help of axes during a religious war with Catholics in France. Calvin has destroyed the hierarchical pyramid within clergy. Calvin has reduced number of priests cardinally, it has allowed to cut down expenses on their maintenance strongly. Monasteries have been closed, since Calvin considered monks as the parasites, doomed to get in a hell. Priests have been ceased to appoint from above, community has begun to choose of priests from its environment. Bible has been translated with not clear for many men Latin language into national languages (German, English, French and so on). Because the simple believers has received the opportunity to read the Bible every day themselves and engaged toself‐education. Only priest had the right to save the believers from sine earlier, believers were able to save themselves now. Calvin had canceled the confession. Calvin had forbidden even expensive clothing and entertainments in Geneva even that it didn't prevent by Protestants to engage in their main affairs – to pray and to work.

Conclusion:the Protestant religion is the most advanced and useful in an era of capitalism. The benefit ofreligion is that religion helps to establish the social peace and to satisfy human need in consolation of feelings of grief, trouble, loneliness and especially fear before death.

 

Elite saw in Christianity as "the bridle" for plebeians. Russian communists tried to destroy religion and Church as the latest counter‐revolutionary party, but communists were unable to destroy religion, because to cancel the fear before death is not possible in principle. This campaign of communists against religion has ended with a failure since the mechanism of religious control is a great social invention, Such inventions never disappear in the history but only collect.

 

I ask that readers write аnswers to my article clearly and simply so I am Russian and I speak English bad.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2012 by Valery Staricov

[mooeypoo]

Only three religions exist!? Uh... you should expand your research, my friend. For one, "Judaism" is missing, and if you're using these as "the basic three religions" then Judaism preceded Christianity, and should be there.

 

That said, I"m not quite sure what your point is in all of this. It might be true that in older times religion itself (regardless of belief) had benefits of community, social acceptance, etc, but that's not true anymore, especially with the world going global and the emergence of the internet.

 

On top of that, you seem to be ignoring the *dangers* of religion(s). If you truly want to have religion without belief, then you should have a comparison of the dangers of religions versus the benefit, and make your case on that. The dangers of religion might overshadow (and I believe they do, honestly, quite a lot) the benefits it may give.

 

And finally, the benefits of religion are not anything you can't get OUTSIDE of religion through a cultural community and strong ethical system. There *are* ethical systems outside of religion, religion doesn't "own" ethics, and it never has.

 

 

Other than that, the article makes good points about crowd control and hierarchy, but again, these are things you get through civil government and cultural structures as well. Religion isn't necessary for it, especially if you look at the drawbacks of religion and decide they're overshadowing the benefits.

 

~mooey

[Moontanman]

Oh yeah, religion has benefits, those witch children need to be eliminated just like all the witches, in league with the devil....

 

 

 

And no this is not some isolated thing....

[John Cuthber]

And not just in Africa.

Children get killed and tortured in the name of religion here in the UK too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17255470

 

Isn't faith awesome.

[Valery Staricov]

Only three religions exist!? Uh... you should expand your research, my friend. For one, "Judaism" is missing, and if you're using these as "the basic three religions" then Judaism preceded Christianity, and should be there.

 

That said, I"m not quite sure what your point is in all of this. It might be true that in older times religion itself (regardless of belief) had benefits of community, social acceptance, etc, but that's not true anymore, especially with the world going global and the emergence of the internet.

 

On top of that, you seem to be ignoring the *dangers* of religion(s). If you truly want to have religion without belief, then you should have a comparison of the dangers of religions versus the benefit, and make your case on that. The dangers of religion might overshadow (and I believe they do, honestly, quite a lot) the benefits it may give.

 

And finally, the benefits of religion are not anything you can't get OUTSIDE of religion through a cultural community and strong ethical system. There *are* ethical systems outside of religion, religion doesn't "own" ethics, and it never has.

 

 

Other than that, the article makes good points about crowd control and hierarchy, but again, these are things you get through civil government and cultural structures as well. Religion isn't necessary for it, especially if you look at the drawbacks of religion and decide they're overshadowing the benefits.

 

~mooey

 

The Judaism didn't become by world religion. The Judaism remained national religion only Jews. Bertrand Russell, apparently, specified to the reasons because of which a Judaism didn't become by world religion, such customs in a Judaism as cutting off man's genitals and will prohibition to eat pork, have prevented that Europeans have accepted this religion. Europeans including Russian, have accepted Christianity as there are no such harmful customs in Christianity. To put it briefly, Europeans had to choose between a Judaism and lard, and Europeans have chosen lard. Lard is and my favourite foodstuff.

 

Struggle of Russia and the West against Islamic fundamentalism has shown that value of religion hasn't decreased in the modern global world.

 

The religion has both advantage and harm. Harm of religion consists that the religion disturbs to science development, for example, today in Russia I should protect the theory of Darwin about an origin of the man from a monkey sometimes. The advantage of religion consists in upbringing of people, for example in strengthening of family, instruggle against abortions and divorces, in birth rate increase. These problems are especially actual for Russia and the Western Europe where extinction of indigenous population and immigration of the Islamic people begins, that is Islamization of Europe and Russia. For example, Moslems-Albanians have already expelled the indigenous Christian serb's population from Kosovo. Turks-Muslims assimilated, expelled or arranged genocide against Christians of Greeks and Armenians in Byzantium. And Spanish-Christians arranged to a rekonkist against Muslim-Arabs in Spain. These religious conflicts don't disappear and in the future.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Valery Staricov

[imatfaal]

The Judaism didn't become by world religion. The Judaism remained national religion only Jews. Bertrand Russell, apparently, specified to the reasons because of which a Judaism didn't become by world religion, such customs in a Judaism as cutting off man's genitals and will prohibition to eat pork, have prevented that Europeans have accepted this religion. Europeans including Russian, have accepted Christianity as there are no such harmful customs in Christianity. To put it briefly, Europeans had to choose between a Judaism and lard, and Europeans have chosen lard. Lard is and my favourite foodstuff.

 

I think a major reason other than lard that judaism has remained relatively small in number is that for most of the last 2000 years Judaism has not been, on the whole, a proselytizing religion. That is to say that in general the religion does not actively seek to convert non-Jews to Judaism. Both Islam and Christianity are aggressively proselytizing religions in which it is seen as the work of the faithful to recruit new members. Hinduism is different again in that it is pluralistic and non-exclusive - it seems to absorb smaller ideas and sects into itself without wishing to change them much.

 

BTW I realise it is a language problem - but Jews really do not cut off men's genitals. The practice is known as circumcision and is the removal of foreskin; it is fairly rare in European non-Jews and non-Muslims but reasonably common in all faiths (and none) in North America and Africa. Many forms of Islam hold circumcision to be a necessary act within the faith. There are arguments that is is worth while on pure hygiene grounds although these are disputed .

 

Struggle of Russia and the West against Islamic fundamentalism has shown that value of religion hasn't decreased in the modern global world.

Perhaps some power groups use religion as a convenient excuse for war and conflict - this might exacerbate the problem and cause an over-estimation of general populaces need for religion

 

The religion has both advantage and harm. Harm of religion consists that the religion disturbs to science development, for example, today in Russia I should protect the theory of Darwin about an origin of the man from a monkey sometimes. The advantage of religion consists in upbringing of people, for example in strengthening of family, instruggle against abortions and divorces, in birth rate increase.

Some might see the "struggle against abortions and divorces" as a very negative part of religion. personally I abhor the active campaign by Islam and Christianity to hinder any progress towards a situation where women have control over their own bodies and reproduction. Religion doesn't really strengthen the family either - it strengthens a particular paternal/male-orientated version of the family.

These problems are especially actual for Russia and the Western Europe where extinction of indigenous population and immigration of the Islamic people begins, that is Islamization of Europe and Russia. For example, Moslems-Albanians have already expelled the indigenous Christian serb's population from Kosovo. Turks-Muslims assimilated, expelled or arranged genocide against Christians of Greeks and Armenians in Byzantium. And Spanish-Christians arranged to a rekonkist against Muslim-Arabs in Spain. These religious conflicts don't disappear and in the future.

I think that many of these examples are a little over-blown - although not completely. The are of the world you are commenting on has been in flux for countless generations and to paint one side as aggressor and the other as passive is disingenuous

[Villain]

And not just in Africa.

Children get killed and tortured in the name of religion here in the UK too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-17255470

 

Isn't faith awesome.

 

 

If someone was to commit murder and claimed that it was in the name of atheism and I emphasise claim, that does not mean that when atheist's commit murder it is because they are atheist's. What is your motivation for this comment?

 

The Judaism didn't become by world religion. The Judaism remained national religion only Jews. Bertrand Russell, apparently, specified to the reasons because of which a Judaism didn't become by world religion, such customs in a Judaism as cutting off man's genitals and will prohibition to eat pork, have prevented that Europeans have accepted this religion. Europeans including Russian, have accepted Christianity as there are no such harmful customs in Christianity. To put it briefly, Europeans had to choose between a Judaism and lard, and Europeans have chosen lard. Lard is and my favourite foodstuff.

 

Struggle of Russia and the West against Islamic fundamentalism has shown that value of religion hasn't decreased in the modern global world.

 

The religion has both advantage and harm. Harm of religion consists that the religion disturbs to science development, for example, today in Russia I should protect the theory of Darwin about an origin of the man from a monkey sometimes. The advantage of religion consists in upbringing of people, for example in strengthening of family, instruggle against abortions and divorces, in birth rate increase. These problems are especially actual for Russia and the Western Europe where extinction of indigenous population and immigration of the Islamic people begins, that is Islamization of Europe and Russia. For example, Moslems-Albanians have already expelled the indigenous Christian serb's population from Kosovo. Turks-Muslims assimilated, expelled or arranged genocide against Christians of Greeks and Armenians in Byzantium. And Spanish-Christians arranged to a rekonkist against Muslim-Arabs in Spain. These religious conflicts don't disappear and in the future.

 

I agree that religion persecuting science or at least the persecution of science or scientists by religious people is harmful. But religion, or anything for that matter, that questions the validity of science should be considered a positive contribution towards science.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Villain

[John Cuthber]

Those murders were committed by people who believe fervently in something that simply isn't true.

Believing in things that are actually true will not lead you to commit murder. Questioning things theat people tell you won't lead to to kill people. Learning to think for yourself won't either.

 

It simply isn't part of atheism to kill people, but it is part of religion.

That's why religion just isn't right.

 

Here's a nicely illustrated example.

 

Let me know if you find atheists making that sort of suggestion. Come to think of it, don't bother telling me. Just report them to the police.

[Villain]

What religion is this from? (in referral to the animated video)

 

Those murders were committed by people who believe fervently in something that simply isn't true. Believing in things that are actually true will not lead you to commit murder. Questioning things theat people tell you won't lead to to kill people. Learning to think for yourself won't either.

 

It simply isn't part of atheism to kill people, but it is part of religion.

 

I'm sorry, thanks for clearing that up. I can now blame all murder on theism as well. High five. 'Learning to think for yourself' is a real gem.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Villain

[John Cuthber]

The video refers to psalm 137:9 which is part of the Christian and Jewish Bibles. Though that's hardly the point.

 

And you seem to be deliberately missing the real issue.

Religion does condone murder: atheism doesn't.

However that's not the same as saying that all murder is due to theism.

Edited March 11, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Villain]

The video refers to psalm 137:9 which is part of the Christian and Jewish Bibles. Though that's hardly the point.

 

And you seem to be deliberately missing the real issue.

Religion does condone murder: atheism doesn't.

However that's not the same as saying that all murder is due to theism.

 

Thank you for providing the source.

 

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you are under the impression that atheism has offered an opinion on murder and that you claim to represent all religion and are capable of providing what they do or don't condone.

 

Furthermore the video provides no context of the material to which it quotes. Are you suggesting that we should go around looking for dirt and then proclaim it as other's truths?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you are under the impression that atheism has offered an opinion on murder and that you claim to represent all religion and are capable of providing what they do or don't condone.

How is that the ONLY conclusion you can draw given that it has next to nothing to do with what you are actually being told? John`s final two sentences were very concise, direct, and clear.

 

He provided evidence where religion condones murder.

He shared how there is nothing in the nonbelief position that is equivalent.

He clarified that he is not arguing that all murder is due to theism.

 

Frankly, it takes some serious mental gymnastics, ignorance, or downright dishonesty to mangle that into what you concluded above.

Edited March 11, 2012 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

"Thank you for providing the source. "

You are welcome- it wasn't difficult. It was , for example, given in the video quite clearly.

 

"Furthermore the video provides no context of the material to which it quotes."

Well, sort of. It does point out the exact place you can find the origin of the quote (though you somehow managed to miss that, which is puzzling. Did you actually watch the video?).

I grant you it doesn't, for example, reproduce the whole book of psalms.

 

On the other hand, in exactly what context does this

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones Against the rock."

sound like a good thing?

 

"Are you suggesting that we should go around looking for dirt and then proclaim it as other's truths?"

No, but I think it's a very good idea to look at other peoples' "truths" and see just how dirty they are.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you think we should permit the teaching of ideas like "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones Against the rock."?

 

Also, just to clarify, atheism doesn't actually offer an opinion about anything apart from the existence of God. It doesn't condone murder but it doesn't actually condemn it either.

On the other hand, as given in that text above , (at least some) religion is quite happy to kill people.

I'm best acquainted with Christianity's version (and by extension Judaism and, I think, Islam too).

They say things that many of their self asserted followers probably don't actually agree with.

How about this

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

I realise it's a bit of a cliché, but it's still raises a valid point.

[Villain]

How is that the ONLY conclusion you can draw given that it has next to nothing to do with what you are actually being told? John`s final two sentences were very concise, direct, and clear.

 

He provided evidence where religion condones murder.

He shared how there is nothing in the nonbelief position that is equivalent.

He clarified that he is not arguing that all murder is due to theism.

 

Frankly, it takes some serious mental gymnastics, ignorance, or downright dishonesty to mangle that into what you concluded above.

 

The mentally unstable person killed someone who they thought was religious (witchcraft). Has the persecution of religion become it's own religion? Or does believing someone is religious mean you belong to a religion? That would mean we are all religious then unless religion doesn't exist at all in which case what are we talking about and there is still no evidence.

 

I don't understand how rejecting religious belief systems (atheism) can condone or not condone murder. Are there conditions other than the one I've mentioned?

 

I agree on your last point.

 

In response to John:

 

I think its fair to try and show the religion in the context in which in portrays itself. If the requirements of the religion in question were that you had to do as the verse said then you have done it justice. But I my knowledge of the Psalms is that they are songs/poems and were not originally written in English. Verse 1-8 laid grounds (my interpretation) to interpret it as saying that the only way justice could be done for what the enemy has done to us is.... I'm not confessing to be a representitive just making a point.

[iNow]

Your comments are so far beyond what we were actully discussing that I will ignore them, with one exception. Atheism is not the rejection of god. It is simply the position of nonbelief.

 

I do not reject santa claus, I simply do not believe in him.

I do not reject the easter bunny, I simply do not believe in him.

I do not reject unicorns or leprechauns, I simply do not believe in them.

I do not reject Thor, I simply do not believe in him.

I do not reject apollo, or poseidon, or zeus, or any of the countless other gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology, I simply do not believe in them.

 

Likewise with your personal version of god, I do not reject him. To reject him I would first need to accept him as a valid concept or premise or conjecture, and like all of the other fantasies and fairytales I listed above, I do not. I do not reject your god, I simply do not believe in him as there is no good reason for a reasonable person to do so. What I reject are the nonsensical truth claims and a baseless assertions that people like you always make about your imaginary friends.

 

Either way, you seem to agree with johns point that atheism is not a belief system or a worldview which somebody can use to reject or accept anything. It just means the person does not believe in god... That the person is not theist. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Edited March 11, 2012 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

Lets just count up how many things you got wrong there.

For a start, here's the headline from that news story " Couple jailed for Kristy Bamu killing"

So, it's clear that not just one person was involved.

So this "The mentally unstable person killed " starts off wrong by not noting that more than one person was involved.

It then contends that the perpetrator was mentally ill. That's quite likely- but what about the other one?

" killed someone who they thought was religious (witchcraft)"

No, they killed someone they though was a witch, in accordance with the teachings of their Bible. Exodus 22: 18 if you want to look it up.

Now, the important thing to realise about witchcraft is that it's not real, so it can not be a valid reason to kill someone. The evidence of witchcraft was that he wet his pants.

"Has the persecution of religion become it's own religion?"

No religion was being persecuted. A small child, probably rather young to have well informed religious views, was killed by a couple of adults who did so because that's what the Bible says to do.

 

"Or does believing someone is religious mean you belong to a religion? That would mean we are all religious then unless religion doesn't exist at all in which case what are we talking about and there is still no evidence."

 

Where did that come from? Is it just a random rant?

 

"I don't understand how rejecting religious belief systems (atheism) can condone or not condone murder. Are there conditions other than the one I've mentioned?"

 

Simple, the fact that I don't believe in God doesn't affect my view on the morality of murder any more than the fact that I don't believe in Father Christmas.

Why would it?

[mooeypoo]

The Judaism didn't become by world religion. The Judaism remained national religion only Jews. Bertrand Russell, apparently, specified to the reasons because of which a Judaism didn't become by world religion, such customs in a Judaism as cutting off man's genitals and will prohibition to eat pork, have prevented that Europeans have accepted this religion. Europeans including Russian, have accepted Christianity as there are no such harmful customs in Christianity. To put it briefly, Europeans had to choose between a Judaism and lard, and Europeans have chosen lard. Lard is and my favourite foodstuff.

 

You have a weird way of presenting history, but alright. If that's what you go by, then you're forgetting the other religions, too.

 

 

 

Not that "Nonreligious" are 16%, you should include that, and if you go by size, You should include Hinduism too.

 

 

 

 

 

That said, you ignored my point. The benefit of religion doesn't surpass its harm, and whether there's benefit in religion is not a good enough reason to belong to a religion just for the sake of belonging to it.

 

~mooey

[iNow]

I agree on your last point.

Very interesting, since this is what I said:

 

Frankly, it takes some serious mental gymnastics, ignorance, or downright dishonesty to mangle that into what you concluded above. 

 

You have effectively just conceded that you're being disingenuous, ignorant, and/or dishonest.

[John Cuthber]

Actually, I think he may have just proved he doesn't read things properly.

 

Though that's hardly news as he failed to read the bit of the video where it told people where the quote was from.

[Villain]

Link to Wicca

 

The practice of witchcraft as a religion is not something the Christian or Jewish Bible invented.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Villain

[John Cuthber]

You seem to have missed the points that:

1 Nobody involved in the killing was in any way involved in witchcraft

2 The Bible does encourage killing people who are labelled as witches.

 

Also since the Wiccans only got started recently, they can't have a lot to do with it. They are certainly not the ones referred to in the bible.

[Villain]

My point is that no where in the article do either of the two people involved in the murder (and yes I recognise that there were two) claim that the murder was done in the name of a.) religion or b.) a specific religion.

 

I also think that wetting your pants is not what the Bible was referring to as a sign of a witch and perhaps this would put doubt to any claim they would've made had they said it was in religion.

[dimreepr]

My point is that no where in the article do either of the two people involved in the murder (and yes I recognise that there were two) claim that the murder was done in the name of a.) religion or b.) a specific religion.

 

I also think that wetting your pants is not what the Bible was referring to as a sign of a witch and perhaps this would put doubt to any claim they would've made had they said it was in religion.

 

 

You're getting caught up in the minutia (probably deliberately) of the argument, do the crusades mean nothing to you? Ordered by the pope in which many thousands died in the name of God.

 

(edit) Not to mention the inquisition, torture’s such fun, God loves it when the bloody atheists get what’s coming...

 

 

Edited March 12, 2012 by dimreepr

[Keenidiot]

Speaking of crusades, mass murder...

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

 

/godwin

[John Cuthber]

I have known a couple of people who called themselves witches.

I didn't think it was necessary to kill them.

What was different about the killers in the case referred to is that they did believe that murder was the right option.

That sort of belief is religious: as it happens it's a clearly defined part of the Christian faith (albeit a widely ignored one).

Since witchcraft doesn't really exist, any so called evidence for it is a matter of faith, not fact.

 

Oh, and whatever the story is with this couple, do you remember Moontanman's video?

It's not like this behaviour is a one-off.