Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[AdHoc]

MasterOfOnesOwnMind, I apologize for using the word ignorant, in retrospect I can see its a negatively-charged word and I didn't mean it as an insult. But if I am being completely honest I did mean to come at you kind of hard and knew I would probably generate a hard response from you so I'm also sorry for that.

I would also like to respond to your post...

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

Then I am sure you will agree and won't distance yourself from the fact that the ideology of evolution killed the most people last century. Let alone the Holocaust of abortion taking place today.

Abortion is much different than invading and murdering people for not holding the same beliefs as you. Not even comparable. Not to mention a fetus is a fetus, not a human being yet. Preventing life is not taking life.

With respect, you have no idea what you are talking about... A fetus is not a human being? What?... Are you referring to a gorilla fetus or something?

A fetus is a fetus, not developed into a human being yet. I know what I'm talking about, so don't tell me I don't just because your opinion is different, bigot.. You have no right to dictate what a woman does with her reproductive organs, just because your fairy tale book tells you it's wrong.

I have no interest in dictating what a woman does with her reproductive organs.

ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman.

Why is that? What if I lived in Nazi Germany and I decided that Slavic and Jewish people were sub-human? Can I make that determination subjectively? Can I decide that a human fetus is not a human being until it leaves the birth canal and takes its first breath? Does some sort of magic happen at the moment of birth to make the fetus transform into a human being? The irony of all this is that we aren't leaving it up to women to decide, there is a political machine that tells us what to believe about abortion. The men aren't allowed to have a say in whether or not human fetuses are human beings... Unless of course their opinion matches the current PC opinion.

I find it interesting when some people refuse to refer my opinion as "Pro-life" instead naming it "Anti-choice". What is the reason for this? In my opinion it can only be a ploy to try and wrest the moral high ground. No problem, when it comes to killing a human fetus I am anti-choice. I'm also anti-choice when it comes to unjustly killing any human being.

Strangely, pro-choice people are also anti-choice. You aren't allowed to choose to determine that a human fetus is a human being that deserves to be protected from having its life ended. You have said as much to me yourself.

You think partial birth abortion and harvesting the fetus' organs is PREVENTING life not TAKING it?

Without using the words "partial birth" and "harvesting the fetus' organs", yes I do think that abortion is preventing life of a HUMAN BEING. I don't have proof, but like I said above, the status of a fetus is subjective opinion. Can you prove a fetus is a human being? No, you can't.

Yes I absolutely can.

So the ultimate choiec is left up to the pregnant ladies moral conscience. You anti-choicers seem to be confused between the difference of the adjective "human" and the noun "human being". Is afetus human??? Well it certainly isn't an alien from outerspace. Is a fetus a "human being"??? In my humble opinion, no. It is not developed and can't feel pain, can't converse, doesn't have cognition, doesn't have feelings...

It's not developed? Why are they harvesting organs from human fetuses then? Who told you a human fetus can't feel pain? A human fetus can't converse... I'll give you that. Neither can human newborns, can a mother decide they aren't human beings too?

I'm going to assume you are ignorant of these brutal facts but if you aren't I have no respect for the position you are taking.

You've already proven you are ignorant to many facts, so I won't be assuming anything.

I don't even know what you're talking about with your "ideology of evolution". How exactly did the "ideology of evolution" kill the most people last century?

"There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

How does this compare with "ideology of evolution" killing people? Evolution has nothing to do with killing people, it is a process that happens naturally.

Yes that's right and I think Darwin's (And arguably Hitler's) point was we are unnaturally blocking evolution from improving the human race.

I disagree with that. I believe we are special and what makes us special is that we create social structures and relationships that protect the weak and stand up for those who can't speak for themselves.

Furthermore, and to bring this back to the OP, I submit that the high regard for other human beings from the teachings of Christ provides sufficient reason to allow the ideology of christianity to persist.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 74 by enviousintheeverafter]

The point is that authoritarian use of violence and the exclusion/persecution of out-groups occurs in species that dont demonstrate any religiosity whatsoever.

So? That doesn't change the fact that religion facilitates and often motivates such behavior.

On the contrary, if bonobo apes practice in-group / out-group hostility and have no religiosity it very strongly suggests that religion is NOT the influencing factor.

Perhaps you and OnceConvinced should consider that religion, in humans, is an attempt to rise above the primitive ape-like behaviour and transcend the ammoral 'law of the jungle' violence.

Males who wield violence against outgroups and to dominate other males in the in-group improve their chances of transmitting their genes to the next generation. Females, says this evolutionary narrative, will instinctively seek the protection of the most violent males. Romance ensues, but overly successful baby-making means population growth—which, in turn, makes resources more scarce, triggering competition and conflict between groups.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article ... x_violence



If ^^ these ^^ two baboons were both "Christians" Bill Maher would presume they were fighting over some arcane religious doctrine.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 74 by enviousintheeverafter]

The point is that authoritarian use of violence and the exclusion/persecution of out-groups occurs in species that dont demonstrate any religiosity whatsoever.

So? That doesn't change the fact that religion facilitates and often motivates such behavior.

On the contrary, if bonobo apes practice in-group / out-group hostility and have no religiosity it very strongly suggests that religion is NOT the influencing factor.

Enviousoftheeverafter used the terms 'facilitate' and 'motivate' to be exact, rather than 'influence'. The first two terms don't mean 'to cause'. In-group/out-group exclusivity is pretty much the 'norm' for higher mammals, so of course 'religion' is no cause of such behavior, and nothing like that was said.

Religious ideology, however, can be harnessed in service of in-group/out-group. It can be harnessed to very good things and very bad things, depending on the motivations of people. Unfortunately, religions of all varieties have been co-opted by our base, primitive ape-like natures. We humans have a tendency to co-opt many things to take and hold power that can also be used for 'good'. I don't personally blame religion itself, that misses the point.

What makes religion particularly obnoxious when it is harnessed in service to power and control is that by virtue of being 'religion', whatever nasty measures are taken -- like those Hell Houses -- are called 'good'. Religion itself is not inherently good or bad -- especially good. Now that generalized superstition is on the decrease, people are less intimidated to speak out against the hypocrisy, and that includes many Christians. Anything supposedly 'good' coming from emotionally traumatizing young adolescents in Hell Houses must no be called 'good' no matter how many convert directly afterward.

Perhaps you and OnceConvinced should consider that religion, in humans, is an attempt to rise above the primitive ape-like behaviour and transcend the ammoral 'law of the jungle' violence.

Males who wield violence against outgroups and to dominate other males in the in-group improve their chances of transmitting their genes to the next generation. Females, says this evolutionary narrative, will instinctively seek the protection of the most violent males. Romance ensues, but overly successful baby-making means population growth—which, in turn, makes resources more scarce, triggering competition and conflict between groups.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article ... x_violence



If ^^ these ^^ two baboons were both "Christians" Bill Maher would presume they were fighting over some arcane religious doctrine.

Much of why ancient religions survive is thought to be that religion is a powerful pro-social force. Some of the morals are clearly intended to reduce or eliminate pure ape-like behavior, and this is a very good thing.

The rise of secularism (beginning with the birth of the USA) is a testament to the fact we humans can ride our bicycles without training wheels (religion) if that's what we choose. We can be civilized human beings without enforced strict obedience to a very scary authority figure. Aside from Christian-specific sexual taboos, our lives are quite free from barbarism and superstition, or could be. Crime rates are overall lowering, always a sign something 'good' is happening.

What I'm trying to say is, religion is not necessary or 'vital', nor is it THE source of 'good' that many Christians insist it is. The 'good' in humanity acts upon religion just like our less fortunate 'bad' tendencies. So half of your point I agree with, I'm sure others do to. What I don't agree with is the stubbornly blind, willfully dishonest assertion only 'good' comes from religion. It is obviously untrue, and disingenuous to insist that it is. Religion is also not axiomatic, any more than any other ideology, and should not be regarded as having special status.

[enviousintheeverafter]

On the contrary, if bonobo apes practice in-group / out-group hostility and have no religiosity it very strongly suggests that religion is NOT the influencing factor.

No, I'm afraid that doesn't follow. It merely suggests that religion is not the only factor. And given that religion introduces a new and unique set of motivations/justifications for such violence and persecution (religious disputes, doctrines, and so on), its not really credible to suggest that religion is not at all a factor. It most certainly and clearly is.

Perhaps you and OnceConvinced should consider that religion, in humans, is an attempt to rise above the primitive ape-like behaviour and transcend the ammoral 'law of the jungle' violence.

Perhaps you should consider that this is a genetic fallacy, as well as the patent fact that religion simply has not done a very good job at this (given that it has motivated/justified "primitive ape-like behavior").

[tam]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

Just to avoid any hang-ups on the dictionary definition of religion - let me just state that the following is about organized religion (in particular Christendom). So as to the OP:

Of course he has a point. His motives might be another matter, but his motives do not matter as to the statement. There is no argument that I know of against the fact that religion causes harm. The Inquisition, the execution of heretics, burning at the stake, the harm to children taken from parents (in particular native american children), the harm to children not being believed or swept under the rug with regard to sexual or physical abuse; the fear used to control the masses; shunning and disfellowshipping of family members or friends and the suicides that come as a result, the lies about God.

None of the above is from Christ.

Nor does it matter if these atrocities are ancient history (to us) or not. Whoever sanctioned them or taught them was not listening to Christ... so how can any of the doctrines, policies, etc, that these same people influenced be said to have come from Christ?

Yes, religion also does some good - when it is listening to Christ. But then is it religion that should get the credit for that, or Christ?

People think that Christianity = Christ. It does not. One does not have to be in a religion to belong to Christ, to listen to Christ, to follow Christ. So why waste your time defending religion? Why not just leave it (and BTG)? Why not stop touching the unclean thing? The same as you would leave anything once you have learned its dirty secrets and deeds, the innocent blood it has spilled, the children it has harmed, the lies it has told in the name of God?

"Whoa! I want nothing to do with YOU... and I sure don't want to share in your sins, by having a share in YOU. I'm outta here; gonna follow Christ instead."


How can any Christian think that Christ had anything to do with any of those atrocities: the Inquisition, the holy wars (with the possible exception of defense), torture and execution, burning at the stake, abuse of children, and covering that abuse up? If these things were not from Him, even though the 'church' did them in His name, then who were those people at the helm listening TO? Who were they truly serving?


**

It is true that without religion, men will still commit atrocities, even against religious people one day (that has already happened once with Stalin, yes?). They (men, governments, religious leaders) just won't be able to use religion and God's name to justify their own deeds and desires, or to get other people to carry out their will.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 43 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

Eugenics and concepts of the master race come straight out of evolutionary understanding from the 19th to the 20th century culminating in the need for WW2.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

Then I am sure you will agree and won't distance yourself from the fact that the ideology of evolution killed the most people last century. Let alone the Holocaust of abortion taking place today.

Abortion is much different than invading and murdering people for not holding the same beliefs as you. Not even comparable. Not to mention a fetus is a fetus, not a human being yet. Preventing life is not taking life.

With respect, you have no idea what you are talking about... A fetus is not a human being? What?... Are you referring to a gorilla fetus or something?

You think partial birth abortion and harvesting the fetus' organs is PREVENTING life not TAKING it?

I'm going to assume you are ignorant of these brutal facts but if you aren't I have no respect for the position you are taking.

I don't even know what you're talking about with your "ideology of evolution". How exactly did the "ideology of evolution" kill the most people last century?

"There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Moderator Comment
Please don't call people ignorant.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[KenRU]

Show me another social system or belief system that has that kind of power over its adherents if you can.

Well, the one I already mentioned in this thread is atheism. In the USSR it had the power to convince people, both in the highest levels of leadership and in the day to day government operations, to arrest and execute millions of individuals solely because they believed in God.

Saying that they were all “bad people� seems like a cop out. I’m sure a few of them were indeed “bad people� who searched for any excuse to exercise power and harm others. But we are talking about thousands of people actively taking part in these murders, and millions more sitting on the sidelines watching it happen. Are they all just “bad people�?

If so, how is that different from saying that everyone involved in the inquisitions were just “bad people�? How is it different from saying that those who allow their children to die when it is in the power to save them are simply “bad people�?

If we are going to excuse the fact that people have done bad things to advance atheism in the world by saying those were all “bad people� and their belief system, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it, then shouldn’t we give the same excuse when people do things because of religion?

Show me another social system or belief system that has that kind of power over its adherents if you can.

Well, the one I already mentioned in this thread is atheism. In the USSR it had the power to convince people, both in the highest levels of leadership and in the day to day government operations, to arrest and execute millions of individuals solely because they believed in God.

Saying that they were all “bad people� seems like a cop out. I’m sure a few of them were indeed “bad people� who searched for any excuse to exercise power and harm others. But we are talking about thousands of people actively taking part in these murders, and millions more sitting on the sidelines watching it happen. Are they all just “bad people�?

If so, how is that different from saying that everyone involved in the inquisitions were just “bad people�? How is it different from saying that those who allow their children to die when it is in the power to save them are simply “bad people�?

If we are going to excuse the fact that people have done bad things to advance atheism in the world by saying those were all “bad people� and their belief system, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it, then shouldn’t we give the same excuse when people do things because of religion?

While Hamsaka has done a nice job of refuting your analogy, it seems worth mentioning that you still appear to be missing the point.

How many, in your example, are of mothers killing their own children, all the while thinking they are helping them?

It is one thing to understand the reasoning why someone might turn in their neighbor to an oppressive regime in order to save their hide, or even if they think it is for the greater good of the community. But, imo, it requires power of a magnitude greater to come between a parent and their child. To me, that is inarguable and undeniable.

I challenge you, once again, to show me another social system that has the capacity and ability to warp a parent so far as to be able to be a participant in their own child’s death. Then have another one – and do it all again. All the while thinking it was the right thing to do.

This is the kind of power I'm referring to:

Evidence: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... h/5612317/

Evidence: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/fait ... ng-deaths/

Evidence: http://www.alternet.org/belief/shocking ... ed-healing

good luck

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 43 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

Eugenics and concepts of the master race come straight out of evolutionary understanding from the 19th to the 20th century culminating in the need for WW2.

And your ability to send this message via the internet comes straight out of a Technology Boom. Does that mean their is a causal relationship between your faith and the technology? Or vice versa?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 43 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

Eugenics and concepts of the master race come straight out of evolutionary understanding from the 19th to the 20th century culminating in the need for WW2.

That was not what culminates in the need for WW2 this was not discovered until after the war.

Secondly because someone creates an ideology from an understanding of something else does not make that something else the ideology. If you are going to say eugenics is evil that's one thing if you say evolution is evil that is another thing. If you are going to refer to eugenics as the point of your debate use that instead of a misappropriated label that is misleading.