Ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere?

[ThomasSoerensen]

Stalinism, Maoism.

different but similar on many points.

Do you consider Stalinism and Maoism good?

[TykeMerc]

Stalinism, Maoism.

Just another form of religious belief when you think about it.

The obedience of doctrine bypasses common sense and decency, as I have pointed out repeatedly religions are very little to do with a deity, they represent a mechanism to exert political control over a population.

[sasguru]

Stalinism, Maoism.

Have all the characteristics of a religion and probably taps into the same needs:

- blind faith in the rightness of the cause
- a leader or 'God' to follow
- usually have some sort of "Bible" - usually thoughts of aforesaid great leader
- the leader or God is always right
- the leader or God has absolute power over you


The only difference is that you replace a supernatural God with an earthly one.

[BrilloPad]

Have all the characteristics of a religion and probably taps into the same needs:

- blind faith in the rightness of the cause
- a leader or 'God' to follow
- usually have some sort of "Bible" - usually thoughts of aforesaid great leader
- the leader or God is always right
- the leader or God has absolute power over you


The only difference is that you replace a supernatural God with an earthly one.

Was it Marx who said that religion is what you place highest in life?

[TimberWolf]

Nicely put.

It's the reason why religions are so effective at controlling populations and making them perform unspeakable atrocities ranging from terrorism through holy wars to genocide.

I don't think that's so much due to religion as human nature, put there by evolution as well as the other stuff. Anger was around before weapons of mass destruction were around, but apparently didn't catch on to the fact that more than teeth and nails are involved. Perhaps one day our anger will evolve to match technological progress.

[NotAllThere]

Tell that to the 3000 odd victims of sept 11 to name but 1 incident. Religiously motivated killing is widespread and wrong, not peurile. Comparing it to football violence is demonstrating how feeble your argument really is...

The argument that religion is evil because people have done evil thing in its name is puerile.

If it can be demonstrated that on average non-religious people are less likely to kill, maim, rape and torture than religious people, i.e. that non-religious people are better than religious people, then it could be said that religion is evil. But in any case, you'd have to state which religion you're talking about.

The old "research has shown" line is boll0x too. How could you possibly quantify something like that?

Seems pretty obvious to me.

You could, for example, look at the work people do, and their religious beliefs. So, if you found that Jedi knights are over-represented among those who work for charities, as nurses, or in low paid, thankless, vocational jobs, it would be safe to conclude that Jedi knights are more likely to persue activities that benefit society than non-Jedi knights. You could even distinguish between nominal Jedi knights, and those who overthrow dark emporers every sunday and one evening a week.

[NotAllThere]

different but similar on many points.

Do you consider Stalinism and Maoism good?

No, but Mao and particulalr Stalin did their deeds in the name of Atheism.

[ThomasSoerensen]

The argument that religion is evil because people have done evil thing in its name is puerile.

If it can be demonstrated that on average non-religious people are less likely to kill, maim, rape and torture than religious people, i.e. that non-religious people are better than religious people, then it could be said that religion is evil. But in any case, you'd have to state which religion you're talking about.



Seems pretty obvious to me.

You could, for example, look at the work people do, and their religious beliefs. So, if you found that Jedi knights are over-represented among those who work for charities, as nurses, or in low paid, thankless, vocational jobs, it would be safe to conclude that Jedi knights are more likely to persue activities that benefit society than non-Jedi knights. You could even distinguish between nominal Jedi knights, and those who overthrow dark emporers every sunday and one evening a week.

And who would pay for the work involved in gathering the information. The jedi society perhaps?

[NotAllThere]

Have all the characteristics of a religion and probably taps into the same needs:

- blind faith in the rightness of the cause
- a leader or 'God' to follow
- usually have some sort of "Bible" - usually thoughts of aforesaid great leader
- the leader or God is always right
- the leader or God has absolute power over you


The only difference is that you replace a supernatural God with an earthly one.

Pretty much. But I'm not sure about the blind faith. Many religious adherents would at least claim that their faith is reasoned, not blind. They could of course be deluded.

[The Lone Gunman]

If it can be demonstrated that on average non-religious people are less likely to kill, maim, rape and torture than religious people, i.e. that non-religious people are better than religious people, then it could be said that religion is evil. But in any case, you'd have to state which religion you're talking about.

I think SAS posted a link that showed 99% of the prison population in the US were followers of 1 religion or another. Less than 1% were non religious. Would that be good enough?