Thread: Thank-you Bill Maher

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The Spanish Inquisition was a direct action in the name of religion that resulted in thousands of people being tortured to death because they were heretics.

The Salem Witch trials were a direct action in the name of religion that resulted in the deaths of innocent people that just couldn't prove that they held the right religion.

Stalin and Mao killed people as a way of gaining or maintaining power, not because those people had different religious beliefs.

Neither situation is any more justified, don't get me wrong, I just mean to say that there has yet to be a connection between not having a religion and being more likely to commit murder.

And vice versa, thus my original issue with Maher's drawn & overly dramatic conclusion.


And I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...of course nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Huh?

It's been suggested by various statisticians that abortion and crime are inversely related. I am not personally endorsing or disagreeing, I am just explaining why it was brought up.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Wait a second. Bill Maher's conclusion is "Religion must die if the world is to survive"


Where'd that come from?

There's the old rant about "so many wars have been fought about religion..."


Can somebody please name a few of these, that actually were about/because of religious belief, and not actually due to regular political/socio-economic agendas?


Let's take a look at some secular, Godless, human ideology examples of mass violence:

Mao Tze Tung and his cultural revolution: ~500,000 killed

Stalin and his great purge: ~2 million killed

Abortion: 1.3 million lives lost annually, 46 million since Roe vs. Wade and that's just in the U.S.


You tell me who is more dangerous- a person who believes in God, and at least tries to live acording to those tenents, or someone who doesn't?

All the Crusades, including the ones in Europe and the 3rd which was against Constantinople - a Christian city.

The Thirty Years War

Cortez, Pizarro both were accompanied by priests- to convert the heathens.

Polish/Livonian/Teutonic Order incursions into the Ukraine/Russia were based on Roman vs. Eastern Christianity.

Last week, Christians in India were fleeing in the face of threats from Hindus.

Pakistan and India - Muslim vs. Hindu...with nukes.

Were/are these conflicts based on adherence to religious tents? No, these were/are the perversion of religious teachings for the benefit of those in power....(hmmm...sounds familiar....). However, you have to have followers who are willing to fight/die for what you tell them to believe.

I have always found it interesting that it is the followers who are doing the dying - be it terrorist bombings or "crusaders".....I don't recall many religious leaders who had exhorted theri followers to kill in God's name out in front, facing the "enemy".

I do not care what a person believes.....no religion can be proven to be the absolute truth - that is why we have the word "faith" and the word "science"....until they try and force their views on me.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

And vice versa, thus my original issue with Maher's drawn & overly dramatic conclusion.

Ah, but there are examples of people killing in the sole and explicit name of religion and idolotry, while there has yet to be an example of a person killing in the sole and explicit name of secularism or reason.

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Were/are these conflicts based on adherence to religious tents? No, these were/are the perversion of religious teachings for the benefit of those in power....(hmmm...sounds familiar....). However, you have to have followers who are willing to fight/die for what you tell them to believe.

I do not care what a person believes.....no religion can be proven to be the absolute truth - that is why we have the word "faith" and the word "science"....until they try and force their views on me.

Thank you. I think these two quotes above best sum up the message of the movie. They aren't the only opinions in the movie, but this is why you should SEE it before taking an out-of-context quote from the internet and perverting the meaning.

Originally Posted by Philadelph

Thank you. I think these two quotes above best sum up the message of the movie. They aren't the only opinions in the movie, but this is why you should SEE it before taking an out-of-context quote from the internet and perverting the meaning.

I apologize to Mr. Maher for using his quotes out of context just to make a point.



I look forward to seeing his film, as I'm sure that is not the way he'd go about it

Some others great theocratic wars and atrocities, Iran/Iraq war, the Crusades, the support of Fascist States by the Church (Italy and Germany), the Inquisition., the burning and torturing of witches, the mutilation of female genitals, the ethnic/racial/religious genocides in the the Balkans and Africa, the Taliban, Pakistan/India, Israel/Palestine and the Religious Police in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria ect.

The question isn't really what wars were over religion, but what wars and atrocities theocratic societies have instigated, participated in or condoned.

That is not to say there have not been secular atrocities as well. Unlike religious folks I don't feel the need to defend all secularist or atheists, nor do I take offense for the acts of other brutal mammals.

Some other wars and atrocities that are attributed to the secular world were committed by totalitarian regimes which are actually faith based systems, such as North Korea, China, and Soviet Union.

Its not really about a tally, its about the hypocrisy of the argument that religion is good. All those who practice it are somehow superior to those that question or don't believe in "Faith", when the imperical evidence is that religious mammals are no better than non religious mammals, both are capable of good and bad. Morals come from within not from outside. To attribute ones moral and ethical stance to a religious belief personally is doing oneself a disservice, this says that if you didn't believe you'd be unethical and immoral.

Originally Posted by Hutch

Unlike religious folks I don't feel the need to defend all secularist or atheists, nor do I take offense for the acts of other brutal mammals.

What are you getting at? That statement seems to be randomly tossed into your post. I'm not even sure what it means

I think the point should be made that it may not be religion that is the final resting place of blame for the above mentioned atrocities. It's blind adherence to a system of beliefs and actions as a general phenomenon.

And I think WireBeard was getting at this as well; people have a strange tendency to get so wrapped up in a belief system, be it religious, governmental (as in the worship of a dictator like Stalin or Mao) or otherwise, that they will follow the ideologies of that groups leader(s) to astounding degrees.

The "us vs. them" mentality is prayed upon to no end in all of the abhorrent examples of mass murder/violence cited above. And it's that tendency of not thinking critically that facilitates the whole mess. It's too bad that the phenomenon occurs, but the facts are that the people of have historically been able to exploit this sad tendency are egocentric megalomaniacs and extremist religious leaders. And as long as people remain ignorant to the need for awareness of such events and tendencies, they will continue to be vulnerable to a repeated history. Which is what I get as the essence of Maher's claim, not necessarily that all religious people are dangerous to society (on the contrary, many are wonderful individuals, as the gentleman of this forum, no doubt, typify).

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The "us vs. them" mentality is prayed upon to no end...

Yes. Often, and in many settings