Religion Doesn't Kill; People Do

[Capitalist Lawyer]

CNN to the contrary, religion doesn't kill people. People kill people:

Why single out a belief in God as a cause of violence? What about the "religion of the state" or the "cult of personality" as practiced under Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among many others of their ilk?

Violence comes from humans. God -- or, more precisely, religion -- is but one excuse for violence. There are many other excuses....
In fact, religion fosters generosity toward strangers, which is probably why Red-Staters are more generous givers than Blue-Staters. Religious belief, true or not, seems to be a beneficial evolutionary adaptation that, on the whole, causes believers to live more positive and productive lives than non-believers.

The influence of religion on human behavior is asymmetrical because the anti-social aspects of human nature -- the urge to dominate, enviousness, and aggressiveness -- outweigh the pro-social ones. That is to say, religion is a counterweight to our natural anti-social impulses, which would (and do) dominate our pro-social ones in the absence of religion.

http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2005/01/...al-atheism.html (http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2005/01/beware-of-irrational-atheism.html)

[spartan]

i belive this also for certain PEOPLE use ideologies to basically kill. thats why i cant understand when people go "oh but communism killed 500 million people" :lol: what aload of bullshit for people use ideologies as an excuse.

[Dean]

No, the Muslims are the enemy because we hate religion and we have to get latent islamophobia out.

Remember, it's more important to hate than to be productive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Shitty Blog+--> (Shitty Blog)Why single out a belief in God as a cause of violence? What about the "religion of the state" or the "cult of personality" as practiced under Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among many others of their ilk?
[/b]

Yes, why not single them out? They serve as perfect examples of the dangers of false beliefs about reality and of rigid orthodoxy, which religions have in spadeloads.


Originally posted by Shitty Blog+--> (Shitty Blog)Violence comes from humans. God -- or, more precisely, religion -- is but one excuse for violence. There are many other excuses....
[/b]

That doesn't negate the fact that among the many excuses, religion is a particularly common common yet despicable excuse.


Shitty [email protected]
In fact, religion fosters generosity toward strangers, which is probably why Red-Staters are more generous givers than Blue-Staters. Religious belief, true or not, seems to be a beneficial evolutionary adaptation that, on the whole, causes believers to live more positive and productive lives than non-believers.


That's a hasty generalisation. You can't extrapolate the properties of an entire type of behaviour based on one limited sample.


Shitty Blog
The influence of religion on human behavior is asymmetrical because the anti-social aspects of human nature -- the urge to dominate, enviousness, and aggressiveness -- outweigh the pro-social ones. That is to say, religion is a counterweight to our natural anti-social impulses, which would (and do) dominate our pro-social ones in the absence of religion.

This is simply a lie in the face of evidence of beastly behaviour motivated by religion.

[Capital Punishment]

When I discuss religion with people I often cite the immorality of indoctrinating children at a young age. I feel that they should hear all sides of the argument and choose for themselves. Most people would reply, "But they need guidance," as if non-religious children are lost causes and will end up in jail just because of a secular upbringing.

[Led Zeppelin]

Of course religion doesn't kill people; it's a metaphysical idea. The point is that people acting on that idea kill people, and they justify it with that idea.

So in effect religion does kill people, when people use it to justify killing others.

The same goes for any other metaphysical idea, like Nazism, nationalism etc.

[Le Libérer]

This thread reminds me of Charlston Hestons NRA quote, " Guns dont kill people, people kill people."
And I love what Eddie Izzard had to sayu to that.
" Guns dont kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too, if they have a gun."
Tell ya anything?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Debora [email protected] 30, 2007 08:22 pm

Tell ya anything?
No, because both people and monkeys kill each other perfectly dead without guns.

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 30, 2007 04:05 pm--> (pusher robot @ August 30, 2007 04:05 pm)
Debora [email protected] 30, 2007 08:22 pm

Tell ya anything?
No, because both people and monkeys kill each other perfectly dead without guns. [/b]
Yes, and monkeys arent religious.

[kelly-087]

From that logic.

Communism doesnt kill people people do.

Fascism doesnt kill people people do.

NAZISM doesnt kill people people do.

:rolleyes:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Of course, that article on "liberty corner" is full of bullshit - making the absurd claim that religious conviction is the cause of charity (if that were true, Brazilians and Iranians should be the most generous people on Earth) or that religion is some kind of "evolutionary adaptation." But the biggest error of them all lies in considering religious ideas to be a major driving force behind human behaviour. This is idealism; this goes contrary to historical materialism. Ideas don't determine material conditions; and the driving force of history is class interest, not ideas or beliefs. We all know this.

Or do we?

Many comrades here seem to have a surprising willingness to actually believe that religion can be a cause of major historical events or trends. But it is a mistake to buy into the idealism of bourgeois atheists like Dawkins who would have you believe that if only people didn't promote bad ideas, we could all hold hands and sing happy songs in a world of plenty.

The truth is, religion doesn't kill people. Neither does it cause prosperity or charity. Religion doesn't cause much of anything - not on the level of whole societies, anyway. Religion is part of the superstructure of society, and it is an effect of existing material conditions.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 31, 2007 01:37 am
This is idealism; this goes contrary to historical materialism. Ideas don't determine material conditions; and the driving force of history is class interest, not ideas or beliefs. We all know this.
That's right, class interest isn't an idea held by many. Oh, wait, it is an idea. NOW how can we fight those who would have communism progress (oh no!) by recognizing the basis of social change - the humans in the society - and their ideas?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It seems we are using two different definitions of the word "idea." You appear to use the word "idea" with the meaning of "anything that human beings think of." Now, obviously, the basis for all human action (including social change) is thought of some kind or other, so under that definition I guess you could say that "ideas" - in other words, human minds - are the driving force of history.

But I used the word "idea" in a narrower sense, to refer to ideals or goals that have no basis in material conditions. When I said that ideas don't drive history or social change, what I meant was that human society and human events cannot be driven forward by force of will alone; and in fact, your force of will and your beliefs are affected by the world (rather than the other way around). You don't shape the world, the world shapes you.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 31, 2007 02:22 am
But I used the word "idea" in a narrower sense, to refer to ideals or goals that have no basis in material conditions. When I said that ideas don't drive history or social change, what I meant was that human society and human events cannot be driven forward by force of will alone; and in fact, your force of will and your beliefs are affected by the world (rather than the other way around). You don't shape the world, the world shapes you.
Everything not only is based in material reality, but is material reality.

That inclues thought. The fact that your environment shapes you more only lends more to the concept that thought matters in these discussions; if people don't think they can revolt, why would they? If you control people's minds, you control their actions, including social orientations that encourage or discourage revolution. It is blind and wrong to claim that human action is not to be judged by humans, and that some cold, unthinking "history" makes us do what we do. We revolt because we want to be free. That is a thought.

I'll assume by your definition that you mean ideas whose apparent output don't properly reflect the material conditions of that human. In other words, ideas which do not see material reality. But they also affect the world. If I ran the world, and I was schizophrenic, I can guarantee you that my "immaterial" ideas would change history.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 30, 2007 09:05 pm--> (pusher robot @ August 30, 2007 09:05 pm)
Debora [email protected] 30, 2007 08:22 pm

Tell ya anything?
No, because both people and monkeys kill each other perfectly dead without guns. [/b]
The gun certainly helps.

Not that I oppose gun ownership, I was just pointing it out.