Nobody is suggesting that all religious people are violent, intolerant, racist, bigoted, contemptuous of women and so on. It would be absurd to suggest such a thing: just as absurd as to generalize about all atheists. I am not even concerned with statistical generalizations about the majority of religious people (or atheists). My concern here is over whether there is any general reason why religion might be more or less likely to bias individuals towards all those unpleasant things in Christopher Hitchens’s list: to make them more likely to exhibit them than they would have been without religion. I think the answer is yes.

Religion changes, for people, the definition of good. Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer. Most religious people think them bad, too, but some religions (for example the religion of the Taliban) sanction all of them under some circumstances. For non-religious people, the behavior of consenting adults in a private bedroom is the business of nobody else, and is not bad unless it causes suffering – for example by breaking up a happy family. But many religions arrogate to themselves the right to decide that certain kinds of sexual behavior, even if they do no harm to anyone, are wrong.

Rest of the article here: Link

------------------------------------------
It's a lot like blindfolding a group of people then putting them on a pirate ship to walk around with a couple planks off the side of the ship set up... They won't all walk off and drown but they're still all blind. It's that blindness that has and will create so much more evil.

Religion provides the moral justification to do evil to others that would otherwise be unthinkable.

Yes, it does smack of the blind leading the blind doesn't it.

Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if people sat quietly for a while and just thought, "what is it I truly believe, what do I think God really is, what is best for the whole...." they may be surprised at what they find out.

Unfortunately, for some, years and years of being indoctrinated and told what to think have done a lot of damage, both to themselves and to others.

Anything can do and probably has done that.

http://www.tfn.org/religiousright/texasorgs/index.php

In researching a whole other area of interest to me I came across this link and i find it along the lines of what you may be saying Kratos how religion implements ideas i
..i found this article interesting a birds eye view on the religious right in the US...

here is an interesting quote from the Bible that supports the original idea:

"
Mathew 11-12 and on...

and then Jesus spoke unto them:
Truly I say unto you, who ever kills a man that lies down with another man in my name,
and whoever touches small children in my name, and whoever kills he who had not received
the word of God into his heart in my name, will reserve a place for himself by my side
in heaven.
For isn't it written, that for every drop of blood of a sinner, there is a reward waiting for you,
and for every tear in childes eyes, there is a reward for you.
But seek not this reward in this world, for it is in the kingdom of heaven to come"

So, I say, have a police raid every time a group of Christians come together, or worship or whatever, because
some of this stuff what Jesus said here is not only immoral but illegal.

Good thread by the way

feel teh love

What? I'm suppose to feel THAT love? child abuse and murder of homosexuals?

That's your loving Jesus?

I am not particularly interested in religious text, or religion for that matter.

But, I did not know that those quotes were attributed to the Book of Matthew. Just to check, I went to the Bartelby website. Again, I did not find those cited.

Link

It's not just the Bible. There are questionable texts and practices throughout religion. And, much superstition. Personally, I think all aggressions are biological or instinctual, like land grabs, taking women or slaves or crops or gold or anything. It's to prepare to reproduce our genes. We may require additional assurances for the term, and religious aggressions are little different.

The Romans forced worship of Caesar on the Jews. When the Jews refused, they had their land seized.

I don't know why homosexuals are persecuted, unless it goes against the grain of normal instinct, and threatens the stability of the group's success through irrational behavior.

That's life, and the history of our species.

Funny I never read that. Is that from SAB?

Could you at least be intelligent in your criticisms? Making fun of comments such as your's just doesn't hold the appeal that it once did.

IMO, the idea of pre-marital sex between two people is corrupt and wrong. In my idea it should be illegal.

But why should it be illegal? From a religious standpoint you may find it immoral, wrong, and an abomination. But is it truly harming the couple in question to the point that they're in danger?

Would you like someone else forcing their views on you?

Does something have to harm someone to be wrong? We teach children that lying is wrong, but suppose they lie and no one is harmed? Suppose they lie simply for their own interest? How about if an adult has sex with a willing minor? The minor isn't above the age of consent, but the minor isn't harmed. They liked it. Little Sally loves her boyfriend. Why should that be illegal? Worse, why should a 17 year old get jail for ten years because he had sex with a 16 year old simply because she is under the age of consent? Or abortion? That's legal, and yet what it is, is a parent saying to their potential child "You cannot have a future because I do not want you." Whether or not the fetus is life in the womb, we can all agree that an Abortion is denying the potential child its right to life, IMO someone is harmed then, yet it happens every day. We can't have things legal, just because people like it and no one is harmed. What about the future family? What about the wife who waited all her life, maintaining sexual purity, who has to learn that the man she loves couldn't wait for her? People aren't animals, like it or not we are human and have defining differences from animals. We don't just go around having sex with every Tom Dick and Harry just because it feels good and harms no one. There must be a standard, and IMO that standard is marriage or no sex. People can wait, they've done it before. I myself won't have sex until marriage, and I won't even consider someone who has committed such an act. What does harming someone have to do with the legality of laws?


Am I forcing my view on someone? Or am I asking people to have self-control and wait a few more years?

If you made pre-marital sex illegal then that would be forcing your view on other people. If you suggested people shouldn't do that and leave it at that, no law, just a suggestion, then you wouldn't be forcing your view on someone.

Well ok. I agree with Plato in that the best way to learn is through questioning. Why would you want pre-marital sex to be legal? Why do you want the opportunity to galavant and sexually indulge yourself in all the human flesh you can find?

Because personally (and I'm not saying this as a debate but simply because you asked my opinion, and I'm not saying it's the right choice but it's mine), people go through life and they fall in love with different people. Not everyone always stays in love forever. I feel if you are in love, it's not wrong to show that love and if that's through pre-marital sex, that's fine. I have no problem with people having as much premarital sex, for love or other, because that's their choice. I see no harm in it and while you say that having no harm doesn't constitute making something legal, but I see no reason it needs to be illegal. Laws are made to protect people (in the most case) and I don't see how preventing people from having sex will protect them. That's just my opinion.

I don't think it's right to show your "love" without knowing for sure you love someone. True love does last forever, and if your sure your in love, than show it through marriage, not carnal indulgence, right? IMO pre-marital sex harms the two people involved.

That's your opinion and I'm not going to argue that. If we go all the way back, I wasn't argueing whether or not pre-marital sex is morally right or wrong, I was simply saying that I think it's wrong to make it illegal to have pre-marital sex. And I'm going to leave it at that. You have your opinion and I have mine and that's the way the world should be.

Have a good evening.

Peace.

Ahh, if only more people thought like you.

That can be your opinion. In a modern society we shouldn't crack down on people's freedoms just because you want to ban them from them.



In the way you're using it, yes. Having willful sex before married isn't harmful.



Now you're just twisting the meaning to fit your own backwards ideaology. Lying is wrong overall but there are times when it's acceptable.



We have laws from adults taking advantage of minors among other things. It's illegal because a minor isn't in the vast majority of cases mentally ready to have sex let along have sex with an adult no matter how much they want to consent to it.



I don't think that's right because they're both underage and they're also so close in age. That's why many places have 'Romeo and Juliet' laws. They're also still both minors in the eyes of the law.




Yet, that is morally right because it's a woman's body and it's also not a child.



Yes, we actually can. We can't have them illegal just because you want to be stuck in some bigoted ideaology that is against personal freedoms and a free society. If you don't want to have sex before you're married... Don't. If you don't want to have an abortion if you're a woman... Don't. If you don't want to... (enter anything here)... DON'T! It's your personal freedom to do or not to do.

It's your willful ideas to simply make things illegal and to crack down on human rights here is what leads to more evil in the world thanks to "religious morality".



And for us that don't want to get married but still want to have sex? Just going to strap us to a board and shoot us up with lethal injection drugs?

Your views again, are only based on bigotry, against personal freedoms of expressing ones self and personal choice. You even stated that you won't have sex until you're married... Yet it's not against the law or anything... It's your personal freedom to make that choice. Something you don't seem willing to give to anybody else that don't fit your views.

You sir are a moron and views such as this will always lead to the persecution of others who do not share your beliefs.



There should be no standard for consenting adults or even teenagers for the matter. I have lots of sex and I'm not married nor do I subscribe to your extremist views either because unlike you I am free from the clutches of fascist ideologies... BTW a 17 year old will not get 10 years for sleeping with a 16 year old due to how close they are in age in fact i don't even think a 19 or 20 year old would get 10 years for sleeping with a consenting 16 year old. A 13 or 14 year maybe but not 16...


Sex is not love although it can be used to express love it is nothing more then a pleasurable act. I have sex all the time and not because i am sharing love but because it feels good and if something feels good why not. Premarital never harmed me or any of the women who were gracious enough to sleep with me over the years it was always fun and in most cases about the pleasure.

What you don't think is right and what reality is for most people are 2 completely different things.

It is clear to me that your posts lack any real maturity and they are also ignorant and discriminatory in a way to those who don't share such extremist views which you made clear should be imposed on everyone. Now I know people get flack for saying but saying I can't sleep with anyone I want in the comfort of my own home in private LEGALLY puts you on the same page as muslim extremists... To put it simply you are a fascist.

Of course you never read that in the Bible, wasn't it clear that I was just mocking ?

you actually went to check that up? lol

Pedophilia in the Bible.
Man you people must really have a grim vision of religion, when you actually for a second believe this "quote" was anything other than mockery

Isn't that against forum rules? You can't call someone a moron for not sharing your beliefs

Since you did not produce a proper Bible reference, I cannot say where you got it from. However, it is not from the book of Matthew. I've read through the four gospels over and over and remember nothing of such a verse. But just to triple check, and going by your "11-12" reference, I went through each chapter and read verses 11-12. Then I read chapters 11-12. I did not find anything remotely resembling the passage you cited here. And since I have never even read anything remotely similar to it - my only conclusion is that it is not in there.

Methinks you have been duped.

edit:

You were the one purporting it as fact I still don't know why you would pretend that something was in the Bible when it was not. Mockery? Perhaps. But in very bad taste, in my most humble and biased opinion.

And to answer the original post - it might be true that religion can lead to evil behaviour. But it is also true that religion can lead to good behaviour.

In the years preceding my conversion to Christ, I was an all-round selfish gimp. Especially in the year before, when I was doing drugs every single week, not caring about anything except the next club, the next chance to dance my way to oblivion. Quitting uni, getting a job so that I could go out and have fun at those clubs, dancing, taking drugs.

Then coming home and getting drunk. See someone in need - not my problem. See a person in trouble - not my problem. True, I never did anything as evil as bombing the subway, but I was not a nice man. If I had been on here back then, I probably would have been banned for trying to circumvent the language filters, or abusing a mod, or telling someone that they were full of it.

When I became a Christian, that all changed. I stopped living only for myself. I started to work for others, do things not because I could get something out of it, but for the sole purpose that I wanted to help. This is the work of religion also. There is a bad side (extremism, fanatics), but there are also the many positive stories to come out of it. I believe I am living proof of that.

~ Regards, PA

Religion is an insult
to human dignity.

With or without it
you would have
good people doing
good things and
evil people doing
evil things.

But
for good people
to do evil things,
that takes religion.

– Professor Steven Weinberg, 1999




If this has been posted before ,then accept my apologies


fullywired

If that is true, we are probably going to need to expand the list of religions.

yes, mockery, I'm mocking those who seem to connect teachings of Christ to pedophilia and attacks on gays.

distasteful, yes, so is the thing I'm mocking too

And I never wrote it as a fact, I thought from the very first sentence it was clear it was a joke

Ok. So I guess a 17 year old is just so much more able to consent than a 16 year old?




It doesn't matter whether or not its a child, it's denying the child that will come from that fetus the right to live.






And you sir are a fool.

the fetus has rights that the mother gives it, or government.

Rights depend on where and when you are born.

I know this isn't a topic about abortion, but what happens if the woman carrying the child is in danger of dying if she has the child? Or what if the woman is raped by a man, should she still keep the child not knowing who the father is or what kind of child it will be?


It's nice to hear that you became a better person by going to Christianity, but people don't need Christianity to become better people. In the end PA, you became a better person because you wanted to become a better person, not because Jesus shone his love on you. It was your choice to be more giving and caring, and yours alone. I truly am glad though that you do not live the lifestyle that you described anymore, it breaks my heart to hear people who live lives like that, thanks for sharing.

It works both ways, cloud, wouldn't you say. Either religion helped me be better, and made the followers of Al Qaeda worse. Or religion had nothing to do with either. You can't say that I became good because of me, and Al Qaeda became bad because of religion. It just doesn't work that way. Either both, or neither.

If it is neither, then this thread is redundant and we can throw out the works of Richard Dawkins (or at least this essay of his). If it is both, then you cannot ignore that religion is a force for good as well as bad.

I never said that religion is a force for good or bad, I'm just stating that someone else isn't forcing you to be more giving or caring, or pulling strings on you like a puppet, it's all you. People are responsible for their own actions, you may have some type of influence, but in the end it is the person's decision to do something, and in this case it was to become selfless. Just because there are radical islams, as well as radical anybodys, the things they do are put on their shoulders, not an outside influence. It was the radical islam's choice to go bomb a temple in the middle east, just as it is a radical christian's choice to scream God-haters to people passing by on the street. You don't need religion to become a good person or a bad person, that's the main point of what i was trying to say.

^Ok, thank you for clearing that up. That makes sense, if you look at it like that.

Wow. I hope you're joking. What if I don't believe in marriage and find it an unrealistic proposition? I can't have sex? That's a slippery slope, friend. Where does it stop when you want to start applying religious dogma to human behavior. I can cite a whole lot more evidence that pure monogamy is unrealistic amongst humans (and all primates for that matter) than you could cite how it is morally damaging. It's only damaging if it takes place within a culture that looks at it with disdain, but factually, please tell me the difference between a relationship outside of marriage as opposed to within. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here (but not much) and I'd hope you'd see how badly things would go when laws start to be made governing the most basic rights of a human being. What would follow? What else do you, personally, find profane? Should I be arrested for swearing? Taking the lord's name in vain? Writing a sexually explicit novel? Better yet, say I get a girl pregnant out of wedlock. Should I then go to jail? Should she? I mean, really, what your saying is some crazy Orwellian BS.

You know, I hate to be the one to point out the obvious here, but people have been having sex at all kinds of ages, not married for thousands upon thousands of years. Marriage does not exist in the natural world, another ideal made up by man. Not god, not nature, man.

Its a rather silly argument to make that pre-marital sex should be illegal. If you are against it, great for you, do not do it. Nothing good comes though, when the government makes laws regarding what we can and cannot do with our own bodies, nothing good.

I bet you couldn't stop laughing when you posted that ,Your pulling our legs ,When I was your age I would have walked over broken glass to get at it ( I think I still would !!!!!)



fullywired

One of the main reasons marriage exists is because of children, it is good for them to have a warm emotional relationship with both parents (and not have parents abandon them) , and that parents have the same relationship between each other. A child usually suffers when parents fight.
So its good to stay together at least as long as the child is living in the parents home

Even though marriage is not natural, I would really like to see how kids would turn out to be, if they had a father leave them at 5 years to go and have sex with another woman. It would be difficult to explain to the kid why dad doesn't love mom anymore.

No, the main reason marriage exists is for monetary reasons. Marriage in all cultures was used to solidify family worth and standing. Hence, the matter of women having no choice in the affair in most early cultures.

It happens every day. I am not in anyway defending it .it's been going on from time immemorial and will still be going on when we are gone


fullywired

That too, but are you saying that a child would be able to have a normal emotional development (not saying they can't turn out healthy, but I'm saying they would have extra challenges to do so) if one of their parents abandoned their family at an early period in life?
You know, the kid loves his dad, and his mom too, and he wants them to be together.

You know people fight for a reason. They stop loving each other for a reason. You can't just walk away because you are bored, it happens when they grow cold.
Every emotional problem has a solution, and walking away is not the best one.
You don't walk away from your friends when things get rough, and your family is your closest set of friends

I know it happens, but it does leave marks.

Trust me, a lot of my friends wish their parents had divorced. Watching two people as your role models that are constantly at each other's throats is a worse alternative to having them live seperate lives where the child sees them at different times. Is two parents in a healthy relationship the best scenerio? Sure. It's simply not all that realistic in every case. As far as childrearing in general, in most cultures up until fairly recent times it was a community effort of extended family and neighbors. To me this dwindling sense of communal life in our face paced world is far more detrimental to our society.

In the case of the woman who's life is for sure in danger than according to Rabbinic authority "the woman shall not be sacrificed to save the child's life in any case."


You can. I just won't like it.

Religious dogma? I could swear that I said IN MY OPINION.


I could also swear that I said it's corrupt and disgusting...I don't remember saying it was morally damaging.


Again, I could swear I was stating my personal opinion and not a religious opinion (though the religious opinion is the same).



I wasn't making an argument against it, I was saying that I think it should be illegal. I wasn't trying yo convince anyone that it should be, I was merely saying what I thought in comparison to the post I quoted.


I am more self-controlled than that.

If your opinion matches the dogma then it is dogma. So, saying something is corrupt and disgusting is not the same as saying something is immoral? And you're not arguing against it you just think it should be illegal? You're not making much sense here, my friend.

Things like that have been tried in the past, and sadly are still being tried. Recently and off the top of my head, Indian boarding schools in 1880s-1920s in the US, the Nazi Lebensborn program, slave owners in the southern US breaking up slave families. All removed children from their biological parents. Take your pick and see if you can find what happened to the children.

Breaking up families is a very very very very bad idea (inform your congressmen!). Leads to all sorts of problems, juvenile crime, lower standards of education, lower standards of living, etc.

My opinion doesn't derrive from the dogma, and our government is corrupt and disgusting but it isn't immoral.

I fail to see the distinction.