[karajorma]

So wait a second, you brought Einstein into this to counter colecampbell666 comments about the low value of religion. You put him next to Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi.

And now you're claiming (and I do agree) that his religion was basically his own personal belief, not strongly connected with Judaism and basically close to atheism (and for that matter agnosticism).

Surely that brings us back to my original comment that he's a really bad example then?

[WMCoolmon]

I didn't bring them up to argue that religion has a high or low value, I brought up MLK, Gandhi, and Einstein to dispute the generalization that religion "does things" to people. All three are still seen as positive figures today for their contributions to humanity. It's not uncommon to see quotes by Einstein on physics or just success in general around the physics departments at colleges.

Einstein is a bad example, but not for the reasons you were arguing.

Einstein is a bad example because in order to (dis)prove the effects that his religion had on him, you're going to have to go into historic, psychological, and quantum physics data. Basically you have to argue that (A) Einstein's arguments against Quantum Mechanics were worthless/irrational, and had no value to future study into the subject, (B) his irrationality was caused by his religious ideas, and (C) his previous successes were not caused by his religion. I'm not going to do the research required to argue at that level of depth, and I daresay that nobody else on this forum is prepared to either. (Someone who did that level of research on the subject would probably be more interested in publishing a book)

And of course once you did all that, as you've pointed out, someone could argue that Einstein's "religion" is closer to a scientific hypothesis of reality. Then start to argue that rejection of mainstream religion actually leads to irrationality.

Of course it's also possible that someone might find that Einstein's early belief in religion did motivate him to his early successes; but then as he grew older, it became a sort of hideaway for him to pretend that QM was not real. I would not consider that as disputing my point, because I do believe that either atheism or religion can have mixed pros and cons.

But at any rate, I do believe that Einstein was not like Benny Hinn, and did hold some kind of belief that was unprovable through scientific means, and has continued to serve as a positive symbol for generations since...that's good enough for me.

[Agent_Koopa]

Well, um... getting back to our main topic...


Religion separates people. This is true. But how many other things separate people? Money. Race. Values. Place of birth. These are all differences that separate people from each other. If somebody is willing to kill someone else over something as petty as a difference in religion, then they will be willing to kill someone over something else, if religion is taken away. Few, if any, actually kill people because God told them so. They kill people because they are different. They kill people because they have an honest belief that the other person is something to be hated. Religion can cause this. But so can a multitude of other things.

If you waved a magic wand, and made religion disappear from the world, you would not remove the root cause of faith-motivated violence. That root cause is the warped values of those who perpetrate such violence. For some reason, there are people on this earth that you and I share who value the lives of others less than their own personal beliefs. Religion is used as a motivator by these people, and it gives them a "cause" for which to kill. If there was no religion, you would still have people who are willing to kill. And then you would have hate crimes, and gang wars. More of them than there are now.

And do you know what? When you get down to it, religion is just philosophy. If you remove religion from the world, do you also remove all philosophy? Or do you just remove all philosophy that involves a deity? Better to remove all philosophy, isn't it? Because people will be willing to kill over that, once you magically ban deities. I mean, what's to stop me from creating a movement of my own, with a vast following of people who hate other people, where I preach that others are unworthy of life, because of whatever reason? The Nazis weren't following a religion. They held a philosophy.

So, what then? No philosophy? We can't think? We can't form a system of beliefs about the world and how we should live our lives? You want us to be zombies? Well? If you want free will, you have to take everything that comes along with it. Remember what the Supreme Being had to say about the existence of evil, in Time Bandits: "Ah... I think it's something to do with free will."

[Nuclear1]

Frankly I agree.  People will find other things to fight about besides religion.

What really is a double-edged sword about the human race is being passionate about things.  On one end, you can see extreme passion turning religion into bigotry, politics into corrupt government, patriotism into nationalism...  It can do some really horrible things when people are led to believe certain tenants of religion by corrupt demagogues; hence why I dislike organized religion in general.  People like Fred Phelps and various insane Muslim sheiks in the Middle East are my prime examples...

However, on the other hand, passion can also turn religion into charity (Lutheran World Relief being an excellent example), politics into a driving force for the protection of people's rights, and patriotism into protecting one's country even from inside forces.

Unfortunately, we see a lot more of the former into today's world.

[G0atmaster]

I have stayed away from this argument.  I may join it.  Either way, I do believe religion for its own sake is a pointless folly and is among the highest forms of wasted time known to man.

[karajorma]

Einstein is a bad example, but not for the reasons you were arguing.

As long as you agree that he is a bad example I can't be bothered to dispute why.

And do you know what? When you get down to it, religion is just philosophy. If you remove religion from the world, do you also remove all philosophy? Or do you just remove all philosophy that involves a deity? Better to remove all philosophy, isn't it? Because people will be willing to kill over that, once you magically ban deities. I mean, what's to stop me from creating a movement of my own, with a vast following of people who hate other people, where I preach that others are unworthy of life, because of whatever reason? The Nazis weren't following a religion. They held a philosophy.

While I agree with you for the most part there is one very large difference between religion (at least the ones with deities) and other philosophies. And that is the presence of an ultimate authority who can't be questioned. With any other philosophy you can take it apart and show that it is incorrect if it is being used for violent purposes.

You brought up the Nazis as an example of an ideology. But look at Germany 5 or 10 years later, were there still large numbers of Nazis? Or did they quickly convert back to a more rational philosophy once they were faced with the horrors of what they had done?

Do you honestly think that there would have been such a complete conversion had the Nazis been religiously motivated? Or would they have continued to believe that it was God's plan for them to be the master race?



So I'm still on the fence about whether removing religion would make the world better. But I don't think we should say that religion is just the same as any other philosophy. It has a lot more power to resist change than other philosophies.

[DeepSpace9er]

1 word: Prozium

[TrashMan]

While I agree with you for the most part there is one very large difference between religion (at least the ones with deities) and other philosophies. And that is the presence of an ultimate authority who can't be questioned. With any other philosophy you can take it apart and show that it is incorrect if it is being used for violent purposes.

Go back to 1940 and try to convince Hitler and Goring of that..

You brought up the Nazis as an example of an ideology. But look at Germany 5 or 10 years later, were there still large numbers of Nazis? Or did they quickly convert back to a more rational philosophy once they were faced with the horrors of what they had done?

Do you honestly think that there would have been such a complete conversion had the Nazis been religiously motivated? Or would they have continued to believe that it was God's plan for them to be the master race?

What would happen if they won? Who knows.
The driving force of philosophy like that (nacism) is hate..and strong belief in ones superiority.

Religions are generally about love.

[vyper]

While I agree with you for the most part there is one very large difference between religion (at least the ones with deities) and other philosophies. And that is the presence of an ultimate authority who can't be questioned. With any other philosophy you can take it apart and show that it is incorrect if it is being used for violent purposes.

Go back to 1940 and try to convince Hitler and Goring of that..

You brought up the Nazis as an example of an ideology. But look at Germany 5 or 10 years later, were there still large numbers of Nazis? Or did they quickly convert back to a more rational philosophy once they were faced with the horrors of what they had done?

Do you honestly think that there would have been such a complete conversion had the Nazis been religiously motivated? Or would they have continued to believe that it was God's plan for them to be the master race?

What would happen if they won? Who knows.
The driving force of philosophy like that (nacism) is hate..and strong belief in ones superiority.

Religions are generally about love.

Interesting, and while Godwins law stalks it's prey in the shadows here let me point something out:

Consider the "Fuhrer Cult" or Cult of the Fuhrer - essentially a cult built up around Hitler that had very little to do with ideology and everything to do with religious fervour. People who had grown up knowing nothing but him soon began to think of him as a divine being (albeit not in such terms). He became a Pope, an Imam, a spiritual leader who could give people hope and leadership - and provide answers when others could not. In effect, Nazi Germany was host to a religion that started with a lie, and ended with mass slaughter.

That being said the reason why the majority of the German population soon lost faith in Hitler was because he betrayed them, and failed them. He killed himself, and he failed to provide them with the glorious future he had promised. Of course they lost faith. No religion so young could possibly survive such a trauma.

And one other thing - as far as it's founders and followers were concerned, Nazism was about love - love of their country, their "race", and of their human saviour. They believed Hitler loved them - like a parent and a child. Hence why the end was so unthinkable to them, and why they were suddenly jolted out of their faith based daze when it all came crashing down.

There's a saying I've liked for a long time: The difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers.

[karajorma]

While I agree with you for the most part there is one very large difference between religion (at least the ones with deities) and other philosophies. And that is the presence of an ultimate authority who can't be questioned. With any other philosophy you can take it apart and show that it is incorrect if it is being used for violent purposes.

Go back to 1940 and try to convince Hitler and Goring of that..

I didn't say it was easy. I said it was possible.

What would happen if they won? Who knows.

Who cares? What does it have to do with the matter at hand?

[Mefustae]

What would happen if they won? Who knows.

Who cares? What does it have to do with the matter at hand?

It's standard operating procedure to bring up the obligatory "what if the Nazis had won?" query when someone starts talking about Hitler. Duh!

[TrashMan]

Consider the "Fuhrer Cult" or Cult of the Fuhrer - essentially a cult built up around Hitler that had very little to do with ideology and everything to do with religious fervour. People who had grown up knowing nothing but him soon began to think of him as a divine being (albeit not in such terms). He became a Pope, an Imam, a spiritual leader who could give people hope and leadership - and provide answers when others could not. In effect, Nazi Germany was host to a religion that started with a lie, and ended with mass slaughter.

That being said the reason why the majority of the German population soon lost faith in Hitler was because he betrayed them, and failed them. He killed himself, and he failed to provide them with the glorious future he had promised. Of course they lost faith. No religion so young could possibly survive such a trauma.

And one other thing - as far as it's founders and followers were concerned, Nazism was about love - love of their country, their "race", and of their human saviour. They believed Hitler loved them - like a parent and a child. Hence why the end was so unthinkable to them, and why they were suddenly jolted out of their faith based daze when it all came crashing down.

Natzism isn't a religion. Alltough you can have "faith" in people and their propaganda, but it's not the same. By that logic every single popular philosophy is actuallya religion...heck ATHEISM is a religion then.

There's a saying I've liked for a long time: The difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers.

And in allosst everything else... if they are the same to you than all I can say is that you're blind or aren't looking hard enough.

[Mefustae]

And in allosst everything else... if they are the same to you than all I can say is that you're blind or aren't looking hard enough.

Vyper was polite enough to state a logical reason why they're the same, how about providing a logical counterargument about why they're different?

Regardless, just look it up in a dictionary. Cults are only differentiated from major religions by the size of the support base. Ignore the modern stigma around the word and look at the facts. Jeez.

[karajorma]

And in allosst everything else... if they are the same to you than all I can say is that you're blind or aren't looking hard enough.

Christianity was a cult at Jesus' time so it's evident you don't know what the word means.

[jr2]

Ah, yes, it's always fun to pretend we don't know which definition of a word is being referred to, isn't it?

# S: (n) cult (followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices)
# S: (n) fad, craze, furor, furore, cult, rage (an interest followed with exaggerated zeal) "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
# S: (n) cult (followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader)
# S: (n) cult (a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false) "it was a satanic cult"
# S: (n) cult, cultus, religious cult (a system of religious beliefs and rituals) "devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin"

[NGTM-1R]

Hitler's problem, IMO, was a lack of "apostles" if you will; for a couple of years after the end of WWII faith and belief in him still ran high in Germany. (Lots of people, for example, initially caught the blame in German eyes for the Holocaust. Hitler wasn't one of them; there are numerous accounts by US soldiers after the war of German civilians defending him by saying he must have known nothing of it.) However all the true believers commited suicide along with him, or were locked up for years, and the time for entrenchment of National Socialist ideas was lost.

Though it is also quite arguable that Naziism was a "cult of personality" to use the Soviet term, and it derived all its real strength among the people from just that: Hitler's personality. That was his strength, the inflexible and dominating will that enthralled everyone around him. Without it, the system began to crumble; and the signs showed well before he died.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Ah, yes, it's always fun to pretend we don't know which definition of a word is being referred to, isn't it?

# S: (n) cult (followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices)
# S: (n) fad, craze, furor, furore, cult, rage (an interest followed with exaggerated zeal) "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
# S: (n) cult (followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader)
# S: (n) cult (a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false) "it was a satanic cult"
# S: (n) cult, cultus, religious cult (a system of religious beliefs and rituals) "devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin"

One of the definitions above:

S: (n) cult (followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices)

"Exclusive" seems to imply the size of the believer base.

Ed

[TrashMan]

Atheism is also a cult then.

[karajorma]

There are no religious beliefs involved in atheism. That's what the term means. On top of which there are lots of followers which would make it a religion even if we believed the nonsense you were spouting.

As for early Christianity when you have 12 followers and one man who says he's the son of God what the **** is it if not a cult?

[Flipside]

@Kara - The Manson Family?

Religion is Faith-based, Atheism is Evidence-based, I suppose you could theoretically say that Atheism is a Cult based on their faith that
God does not exist, however, I think that would be stretching the term a little.

If Atheism has an identifier, I suppose you could call it a 'Group' or a 'Club'