| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Desertphile" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2006 02:54:16 PM |
| Object: |
Is religion the root of all evil? |
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=3D674933
Belfast Telegraph Home > News > Opinion
Is religion the root of all evil?
Professor Richard Dawkins
06 January 2006
Known as ' Darwin's Rottweiler', Professor Richard Dawkins
relishes controversy. In his new TV series he explains how religion is
a form of abuse - and why God is man's most destructive invention
++ Why do you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your
head? The Yorkshire Ripper claimed his murders were ordered by Jesus
Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide
bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder
Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indian partition, no Israel/Palestine war,
no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland "troubles".
Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of
blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an
inch of it. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews - no Jews to
persecute indeed, for, without religious taboos against marrying out,
the Diaspora would long ago have merged into Europe.
Hitler invoked "My feelings as a Christian" to justify his
anti-Semitism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf: "I believe that I am
acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by
defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the
Lord." Nevertheless, most such atrocities are not directly motivated
by religion. IRA gunmen didn't kill Protestants (or vice versa) over
disagreements about transubstantiation or such theological niceties.
The motive was more likely to be tribal vengeance. One of "them"
killed one of "us". "They" drove "our" great-grandfathers
out of ancestral lands. Grievances are economic and political, not
religious; and vendettas stretch "unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me". Quoting Exodus reminds me,
incidentally, that humanists prefer Gandhi's version: "An eye for
an eye make the whole world blind."
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and
various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today's most
divisive label of group identity and hostility. If a social engineer
set out to devise a system for perpetuating our most vicious enmities,
he could find no better formula than sectarian education. The main
point of faith schools is that the children of "our" tribe must be
taught "their own" religion. Since the children of the other tribe
are simultaneously being taught the rival religion with, of course, the
rival version of the vendetta-riven history, the prognosis is all too
predictable.
But what can it mean to speak of a child's "own" religion?
Imagine a world in which it was normal to speak of a Keynesian child, a
Hayekian child, or a Marxist child. Or imagine a proposal to pour
government money into separate primary schools for Labour children,
Tory children and Lib Dem children. Everyone agrees that small children
are too young to know whether they are Keynesian or Monetarist, Labour
or Tory: too young to bear the burden of heavy parental labels. Why,
then, is almost our entire society happy to privilege religion, and
slap a lab like Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew, on a tiny child?
Isn't that a form of mental child abuse?a I once made that poiint in
a broadcast debate with a Roman Catholic spokeswoman. I've forgotten
her name but I she was some kind of agony aunt, and a stalwart of the
Today programme's "Thought f the Day". When I said that a primary
school child was too young to know whether it was a CCatholic child,
she bristled: "Just come and talk to some of the children in our
local Catholic school! I can assure you they know very well that they
are Catholic children." I believe it. The Jesuit boast - "Give me
the child for his first seven years, and I'll give you the man"-
is no less sinister for being familiar to the point of clich=E9.
But what if religion is true? Surely sectarian indoctrination
wouldn't be child abuse if it saved the child's immortal soul?
Despite the smug presumptuousness of that, I can almost sympathise, if
you sincerely believe your religion is the absolute truth. Let me,
then, be ambitious if not presumptuous, and try to shake your belief.
Why do you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your
head? Alas, the Yorkshire Ripper's murders were ordered by the
perceived voice of Jesus inside his head. The human brain is a
consummate hallucinator, and hallucinations are a poor basis for real
world beliefs. Or perhaps you believe in God because life would be
intolerable without him. That's an even weaker argument. Lots of
things are intolerable and it doesn't make them untrue. It may be
intolerable that you are starving, but you can't eat a stone by
believing - no matter how passionately and sincerely - that it is
made of cheese.
By far the favourite reason for believing in God is the argument from
improbability. Eyes and skeletons, hearts and nerve cells are too
improbable to have come about by chance. Man-made machines are
improbable too, and designed by engineers for a purpose. Surely any
fool can see that eyes and kidneys, wings and blood corpuscles must
also be designed for a purpose, by a master Engineer? Well, maybe any
fool can see it, but let's stop playing the fool and grow up. It is
146 years since Charles Darwin gave us what is arguably the cleverest
idea ever to occur to a human mind. He demonstrated a beautiful,
working process whereby natural forces, by gradual degrees and with no
deliberate purpose, forge an elegant illusion of design, to almost
limitless levels of complexity.
I have written books on the subject and obviously can't repeat the
whole argument in a short article. Let me give just two guidelines to
understanding. First, the commonest fallacy about natural selection is
that it is a theory of chance. If it were, it is entirely obvious that
it couldn't explain the illusion of design. But natural selection,
properly understood, is the antithesis of chance. Second, it is often
said that natural selection makes God unnecessary, but leaves his
existence an open plausibility. I think we can do better than that.
When you think it through, the argument from improbability, which
traditionally is deployed in God's favour, turns out to be the
strongest argument against him.
The beauty of Darwinian evolution is that it explains the very
improbable, by gradual degrees. It starts from primeval simplicity
(relatively easy to understand) and works up, by plausibly small steps,
to complex entities whose genesis, by any non-gradual process, would be
too improbable for serious contemplation. Design is a real alternative,
but only if the designer is himself the product of an escalatory
process such as evolution by natural selection, either on this planet
or elsewhere. There may be alien life forms so advanced that we would
worship them as gods. But they too must ultimately be explained by
gradual escalation. Gods that exist ab initio are ruled out by the
argument from improbability, even more surely than are spontaneously
erupting eyes or elbow joints.
Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious
contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true.
But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where
nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads.
"You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."
Professor Richard Dawkins is the Chair of the Public Understanding of
Science at Oxford University. The Root of All Evil?, Professor
Dawkins' series looking at religion, is on 9 and 16 January at 8pm on
Channel 4
.
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 12:39:20 AM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136753656.545302.12060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=674933
Belfast Telegraph Home > News > Opinion
Is religion the root of all evil?
Obviously. Religion created evil. Religion breeds discrimination, hate and
mind control.
America is now a christian theocracy, via mind control.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
12 Jan 2006 08:23:13 AM |
|
|
"ManMadeGod" <spamhere@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3EIwf.52161$ih5.26052@dukeread11...
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136753656.545302.12060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=674933
Belfast Telegraph Home > News > Opinion
Is religion the root of all evil?
Obviously. Religion created evil. Religion breeds discrimination, hate and
mind control.
America is now a christian theocracy, via mind control.
Wrong!!! Through the courts, America has become an atheist dictatorship,
bent on imposing atheism and censorship on its religious population.
Government gives the ACLU our tax money to prosecute Christians who want to
exercise their constitutional right to practice their religion, but
Christians have to pay their defence out of their own pockets.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 09:38:42 PM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=3D674933
Belfast Telegraph Home > News > Opinion
Is religion the root of all evil?
Professor Richard Dawkins
Interesting and profoundly truthful. Religion has been and continues
to be profoundly evil -- with few exceptions.
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Rooker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 10:05:50 AM |
|
|
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Many (as you actually point out) abuse religion to force their own agenda on
others, but the root of evil is the desire of man to have what someone else
has, and his willingness to do anything to get it.
Truly following Christ's commands would be the solution to what you have
mentioned. A world without any religion would be just as bad as it is now,
because evil people will use what ever they can to do their thing.
Your using Christianity as a scapegoat is merely showing your own ignorance
and bigotry, and is (and always will be) part of the problem. You would
have made a fine Inquisitor, or Nazi. You do their thing just great.
God bless
Carl
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136753656.545302.12060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=674933
Belfast Telegraph Home > News > Opinion
Is religion the root of all evil?
Professor Richard Dawkins
06 January 2006
Known as ' Darwin's Rottweiler', Professor Richard Dawkins
relishes controversy. In his new TV series he explains how religion is
a form of abuse - and why God is man's most destructive invention
++ Why do you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your
head? The Yorkshire Ripper claimed his murders were ordered by Jesus
Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide
bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder
Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indian partition, no Israel/Palestine war,
no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland "troubles".
Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of
blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an
inch of it. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews - no Jews to
persecute indeed, for, without religious taboos against marrying out,
the Diaspora would long ago have merged into Europe.
Hitler invoked "My feelings as a Christian" to justify his
anti-Semitism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf: "I believe that I am
acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by
defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the
Lord." Nevertheless, most such atrocities are not directly motivated
by religion. IRA gunmen didn't kill Protestants (or vice versa) over
disagreements about transubstantiation or such theological niceties.
The motive was more likely to be tribal vengeance. One of "them"
killed one of "us". "They" drove "our" great-grandfathers
out of ancestral lands. Grievances are economic and political, not
religious; and vendettas stretch "unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me". Quoting Exodus reminds me,
incidentally, that humanists prefer Gandhi's version: "An eye for
an eye make the whole world blind."
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and
various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today's most
divisive label of group identity and hostility. If a social engineer
set out to devise a system for perpetuating our most vicious enmities,
he could find no better formula than sectarian education. The main
point of faith schools is that the children of "our" tribe must be
taught "their own" religion. Since the children of the other tribe
are simultaneously being taught the rival religion with, of course, the
rival version of the vendetta-riven history, the prognosis is all too
predictable.
But what can it mean to speak of a child's "own" religion?
Imagine a world in which it was normal to speak of a Keynesian child, a
Hayekian child, or a Marxist child. Or imagine a proposal to pour
government money into separate primary schools for Labour children,
Tory children and Lib Dem children. Everyone agrees that small children
are too young to know whether they are Keynesian or Monetarist, Labour
or Tory: too young to bear the burden of heavy parental labels. Why,
then, is almost our entire society happy to privilege religion, and
slap a lab like Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew, on a tiny child?
Isn't that a form of mental child abuse?a I once made that poiint in
a broadcast debate with a Roman Catholic spokeswoman. I've forgotten
her name but I she was some kind of agony aunt, and a stalwart of the
Today programme's "Thought f the Day". When I said that a primary
school child was too young to know whether it was a CCatholic child,
she bristled: "Just come and talk to some of the children in our
local Catholic school! I can assure you they know very well that they
are Catholic children." I believe it. The Jesuit boast - "Give me
the child for his first seven years, and I'll give you the man"-
is no less sinister for being familiar to the point of cliché.
But what if religion is true? Surely sectarian indoctrination
wouldn't be child abuse if it saved the child's immortal soul?
Despite the smug presumptuousness of that, I can almost sympathise, if
you sincerely believe your religion is the absolute truth. Let me,
then, be ambitious if not presumptuous, and try to shake your belief.
Why do you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your
head? Alas, the Yorkshire Ripper's murders were ordered by the
perceived voice of Jesus inside his head. The human brain is a
consummate hallucinator, and hallucinations are a poor basis for real
world beliefs. Or perhaps you believe in God because life would be
intolerable without him. That's an even weaker argument. Lots of
things are intolerable and it doesn't make them untrue. It may be
intolerable that you are starving, but you can't eat a stone by
believing - no matter how passionately and sincerely - that it is
made of cheese.
By far the favourite reason for believing in God is the argument from
improbability. Eyes and skeletons, hearts and nerve cells are too
improbable to have come about by chance. Man-made machines are
improbable too, and designed by engineers for a purpose. Surely any
fool can see that eyes and kidneys, wings and blood corpuscles must
also be designed for a purpose, by a master Engineer? Well, maybe any
fool can see it, but let's stop playing the fool and grow up. It is
146 years since Charles Darwin gave us what is arguably the cleverest
idea ever to occur to a human mind. He demonstrated a beautiful,
working process whereby natural forces, by gradual degrees and with no
deliberate purpose, forge an elegant illusion of design, to almost
limitless levels of complexity.
I have written books on the subject and obviously can't repeat the
whole argument in a short article. Let me give just two guidelines to
understanding. First, the commonest fallacy about natural selection is
that it is a theory of chance. If it were, it is entirely obvious that
it couldn't explain the illusion of design. But natural selection,
properly understood, is the antithesis of chance. Second, it is often
said that natural selection makes God unnecessary, but leaves his
existence an open plausibility. I think we can do better than that.
When you think it through, the argument from improbability, which
traditionally is deployed in God's favour, turns out to be the
strongest argument against him.
The beauty of Darwinian evolution is that it explains the very
improbable, by gradual degrees. It starts from primeval simplicity
(relatively easy to understand) and works up, by plausibly small steps,
to complex entities whose genesis, by any non-gradual process, would be
too improbable for serious contemplation. Design is a real alternative,
but only if the designer is himself the product of an escalatory
process such as evolution by natural selection, either on this planet
or elsewhere. There may be alien life forms so advanced that we would
worship them as gods. But they too must ultimately be explained by
gradual escalation. Gods that exist ab initio are ruled out by the
argument from improbability, even more surely than are spontaneously
erupting eyes or elbow joints.
Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious
contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true.
But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where
nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads.
"You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."
Professor Richard Dawkins is the Chair of the Public Understanding of
Science at Oxford University. The Root of All Evil?, Professor
Dawkins' series looking at religion, is on 9 and 16 January at 8pm on
Channel 4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 09:47:51 PM |
|
|
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Logic fallacy: Begging the question.
Nobody can "refuse to obey Christ" since there's no evidence for said
"Christ" -- nor any evidence for anything it may have written.
Ergo you're debunked -- and left trying to defend profound evil.
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Rooker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 12:03:47 PM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s6bf6bh8i085a@corp.supernews.com...
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Logic fallacy: Begging the question.
Nobody can "refuse to obey Christ" since there's no evidence for said
"Christ" -- nor any evidence for anything it may have written.
Only demonstrating your lack of knowlege, and bias. This is your oppinion,
and you are entitled to it, but your are entitled to be wrong too.
Ergo you're debunked -- and left trying to defend profound evil.
You have not debunked anything. You just continue to use an ignorant
argument, not based on any fact, just your own oppinion.
And, you do not even answer my statement.
God Bless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 01:19:20 PM |
|
|
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote in message
news:1136916234.275378@w9.dnx.net...
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s6bf6bh8i085a@corp.supernews.com...
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ
to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Logic fallacy: Begging the question.
Nobody can "refuse to obey Christ" since there's no evidence for said
"Christ" -- nor any evidence for anything it may have written.
Only demonstrating your lack of knowlege, and bias. This is your
oppinion,
and you are entitled to it, but your are entitled to be wrong too.
Ergo you're debunked -- and left trying to defend profound evil.
You have not debunked anything. You just continue to use an ignorant
argument, not based on any fact, just your own oppinion.
And, you do not even answer my statement.
God Bless
Carl, aren't you the least bit embarrassed by the fact that all you are
capable of in your posts is
unsubstantiated and insulting remarks. When are you going to get your head
out of the Jesus *****
and provide some objective verifiable evidence that substantiates your
beliefs I thought all good
Christians had the obligation to convert others.
If your beliefs had ANY validity I would think you would be converting
theists by the hundreds.
You certainly are not going to convert anyone with your crude
unsubstantiated nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
12 Jan 2006 02:50:47 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rKTwf.109944$k76.73004@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote in message
news:1136916234.275378@w9.dnx.net...
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s6bf6bh8i085a@corp.supernews.com...
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ
to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Logic fallacy: Begging the question.
Nobody can "refuse to obey Christ" since there's no evidence for said
"Christ" -- nor any evidence for anything it may have written.
Only demonstrating your lack of knowlege, and bias. This is your
oppinion,
and you are entitled to it, but your are entitled to be wrong too.
Ergo you're debunked -- and left trying to defend profound evil.
You have not debunked anything. You just continue to use an ignorant
argument, not based on any fact, just your own oppinion.
And, you do not even answer my statement.
God Bless
Carl, aren't you the least bit embarrassed by the fact that all you are
capable of in your posts is
unsubstantiated and insulting remarks. When are you going to get your head
out of the Jesus *****
and provide some objective verifiable evidence that substantiates your
beliefs I thought all good
Christians had the obligation to convert others.
If your beliefs had ANY validity I would think you would be converting
theists by the hundreds.
You certainly are not going to convert anyone with your crude
unsubstantiated nonsense.
While you are at it, why not "get your head out of your own *****", Bill?
You are such a crude buffoon and expect others to prove their beliefs in
polite language. You also don't make any effort to prove your disbeliefs.
For that matter prove your belief in your parents, wife and child, or
don't you have any faith in them? Do you disbelieve in them too or are you
biased?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 10:17:39 PM |
|
|
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s6bf6bh8i085a@corp.supernews.com...
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Logic fallacy: Begging the question.
Nobody can "refuse to obey Christ" since there's no evidence for said
"Christ" -- nor any evidence for anything it may have written.
Only demonstrating your lack of knowlege, and bias.
Ah, then you're claiming you have evidence for the existence of
this "Christ" of yours, and you further claim you have evidence
that it has written things you're supposed to obey.
Okay, logical one, how about you hike your ***** off of that chair
and go collect that evidence and present it to the world for all
to see? You can do that, right?
You may begin at any time. Thanks.
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
12 Jan 2006 05:54:47 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11s6bf6bh8i085a@corp.supernews.com...
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Logic fallacy: Begging the question.
Nobody can "refuse to obey Christ" since there's no evidence for said
"Christ" -- nor any evidence for anything it may have written.
Ergo you're debunked -- and left trying to defend profound evil.
That rule can be applied to every author, for no one knows whether
anything "written" isn't a forgery or plagiarism or etc. etc. Authenticity
is merely an assumption.
But there is something to the atheist position, for were it not for
religion advocating and promoting good, no one would know what is evil. So
indeed, religion creates the concepts of both good and evil.
Atheists are known to apply the same logic to many other institutions,
i.e. school who create failures, and courts which create felons. Were one to
abolish schools and courts, the concept of failure and criminality would be
merely personal or private opinion, easily refuted by wily atheist
anarchists, antiauthoritarians and die-hard contrarians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xeno" |
|
| Title: Theocracy sucks, dude |
14 Jan 2006 12:48:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Pastor Frank wrote:
Authenticity is merely an assumption.
That sounds very inauthentic, dude.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 12:37:36 PM |
|
|
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Since there appears to be no "christ" to obey, that freaky argument is
rendered moot.
And why in the world would you "obey christ?" Doing so just renders you
non-human and back into the sub-human animal world of alpha male
dominance and subjugation.
You really ought to learn to think for yourself, get off your knees,
and stand on your own feet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Rooker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 11:51:20 AM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136831856.257934.13830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ
to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Since there appears to be no "christ" to obey, that freaky argument is
rendered moot.
Your oppinion, and you are entitled to it. No matter how wrong it is.
And why in the world would you "obey christ?" Doing so just renders you
non-human and back into the sub-human animal world of alpha male
dominance and subjugation.
And where, pray tell, do you get that. Just from listening to your own too
much.
You really ought to learn to think for yourself, get off your knees,
and stand on your own feet.
Take your own advice instead of such mindless attacks as this one.
God Bless
Carl
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 10:19:52 PM |
|
|
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136831856.257934.13830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Since there appears to be no "christ" to obey, that freaky argument is
rendered moot.
Your oppinion, and you are entitled to it.
Go find that evidence and present it, then. Come on, hop to it.
Whadefuck's taking you so long?
---
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ -- Not one Democrat
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
12 Jan 2006 06:22:43 PM |
|
|
Carl Rooker wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136831856.257934.13830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Since there appears to be no "christ" to obey, that freaky argument is
rendered moot.
Your oppinion, and you are entitled to it. No matter how wrong it is.
Got any evidence your opinion is correct? You made the claim: produce
this "christ" of yours or some evidence that it exists. What are you
waiting for? Be the first on the planet to ever do so.
And why in the world would you "obey christ?" Doing so just renders you
non-human and back into the sub-human animal world of alpha male
dominance and subjugation.
And where, pray tell, do you get that. Just from listening to your own too
much.
Please consider some remedial high-school education regarding biology.
Your need to kneel at the crotch of an alpha male in the sky is pure
ape behavior.
You really ought to learn to think for yourself, get off your knees,
and stand on your own feet.
Take your own advice instead of such mindless attacks as this one.
"Mindless?" You are the one who appears to sufer from a profound lack
of critical thinking.
By all means do produce some evidence for your big ape in the sky.
Fortune and fame await you if you do.
God Bless
I didn't sneeze.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 12:11:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:51:20 -0500, "Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net>
wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136831856.257934.13830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ
to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Since there appears to be no "christ" to obey, that freaky argument is
rendered moot.
Your oppinion, and you are entitled to it. No matter how wrong it is.
Why do you continue to lie? Until you demonstrate its existence it is
merely your fantasy. But we know you can't because there is zero, zip,
zilch nad evidence. But instead of acknowledging this you lie about
those less ignorant than you, who have nothing to back it up and
resort to personal lies instead.
And why in the world would you "obey christ?" Doing so just renders you
non-human and back into the sub-human animal world of alpha male
dominance and subjugation.
And where, pray tell, do you get that. Just from listening to your own too
much.
From listening to what it has done to your mind.
You really ought to learn to think for yourself, get off your knees,
and stand on your own feet.
Take your own advice instead of such mindless attacks as this one.
We do think for ourselves, liar. It's why we don't share your
delusions.
God Bless
Who farted, in-your-face nasty, sanctimonious hypocrite?
Carl
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
12 Jan 2006 01:50:24 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:uut7s1lke2upjr36a8srgfcut9epolb379@4ax.com...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:51:20 -0500, "Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net>
wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136831856.257934.13830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ
to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Since there appears to be no "christ" to obey, that freaky argument is
rendered moot.
Your oppinion, and you are entitled to it. No matter how wrong it is.
Why do you continue to lie? Until you demonstrate its existence it is
merely your fantasy. But we know you can't because there is zero, zip,
zilch nad evidence. But instead of acknowledging this you lie about
those less ignorant than you, who have nothing to back it up and
resort to personal lies instead.
Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and we not only know our
God, but have seen Him in Jesus Christ. In other words we are witness to His
glory and nothing you can say Chris, will shake our certainty in that
knowledge. Go back to your handler in shame and tell him you failed convince
even one Christian of your atheism. On the other hand you can also join us
glorifying Christ and be saved. The choice is yours alone.
Pastor Frank
"GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND
HAVE SEEN HIM."
Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one.
Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes
in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees
Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever
believes in me should not abide in darkness."
Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "erikc" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
13 Jan 2006 05:12:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:50:24 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:uut7s1lke2upjr36a8srgfcut9epolb379@4ax.com...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:51:20 -0500, "Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net>
wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136831856.257934.13830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ
to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Since there appears to be no "christ" to obey, that freaky argument is
rendered moot.
Your oppinion, and you are entitled to it. No matter how wrong it is.
Why do you continue to lie? Until you demonstrate its existence it is
merely your fantasy. But we know you can't because there is zero, zip,
zilch nad evidence. But instead of acknowledging this you lie about
those less ignorant than you, who have nothing to back it up and
resort to personal lies instead.
Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and we not only know our
God, but have seen Him in Jesus Christ. In other words we are witness to His
glory and nothing you can say Chris, will shake our certainty in that
knowledge. Go back to your handler in shame and tell him you failed convince
even one Christian of your atheism. On the other hand you can also join us
glorifying Christ and be saved. The choice is yours alone.
Pastor Frank
Eat this:
"There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet."
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "xeno" |
|
| Title: Theocracy sucks, dude |
14 Jan 2006 01:46:35 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Pastor Frank wrote:
Our Christian "God is love"
You have frequently said that you know this is true because love exists.
So you're implying that the converse of this statement is true. If so,
you're begging the question that God & love are identical. That's a wee
bit problematical, dude.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Theocracy sucks, dude |
15 Jan 2006 04:24:16 AM |
|
|
"xeno" <xeno@transbay.net> wrote in message
news:20060113233901.U86016@synergy.transbay.net...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Pastor Frank wrote:
Our Christian "God is love"
You have frequently said that you know this is true because love exists.
So you're implying that the converse of this statement is true.
I see. In your world, when you say money is green, then everything
green is money?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ipcress" |
|
| Title: Re: Theocracy sucks, dude |
15 Jan 2006 09:30:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Pastor Frank wrote:
Our Christian "God is love"
You have frequently said that you know this is true because love exists.
So you're implying that the converse of this statement is true.
I see. In your world, when you say money is green, then everything green
is money?
No, you don't apparently see, dude. You're merely projecting the flaw in
your own argument. You're implying that love existing indicates that God
exists. That's not logically necessary. So, what *credible* circumstantial
evidence do you have that indicates that this is really the case? All you
tend to cart out are appeals to consequences, to justify what you deem is
ideal, or you make an appeal to tradition, although your relationship with
tradition rather idiosyncratic. The Jesus depicted in the gospels is
arguably enigmatic & contradictory, not to mention that there is no
necessary connection between somebody claiming to know God and any such
being. Like, hasn't any of this ever occurred to you, man? Or, were you
just counting on trying to distract people from the obvious?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BDK" |
|
| Title: Re: Theocracy sucks, dude |
14 Jan 2006 09:51:07 AM |
|
|
In article <20060113233901.U86016@synergy.transbay.net>,
xeno@transbay.net says...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Pastor Frank wrote:
Our Christian "God is love"
You have frequently said that you know this is true because love exists.
So you're implying that the converse of this statement is true. If so,
you're begging the question that God & love are identical. That's a wee
bit problematical, dude.
Doesn't matter to Frank, all it takes is enough booze and drugs, and it
all makes sense.
Frank has problems, to put it mildly.
BDK
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
11 Jan 2006 06:04:08 AM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136831856.257934.13830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
Since there appears to be no "christ" to obey, that freaky argument is
rendered moot.
And why in the world would you "obey christ?" Doing so just renders you
non-human and back into the sub-human animal world of alpha male
dominance and subjugation.
You really ought to learn to think for yourself, get off your knees,
and stand on your own feet.
Are you just ignorant? Or are you downright stupid? See below what
"obeying Christ" means.
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another.
Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another,
as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
Jesus in John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command...
Jesus in John 14:21-24 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the
one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will
love him and show myself to him." He who does not love me will not obey my
teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who
sent me."
Jesus in Mt:7:21-23: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it
does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it
is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight
in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts,
always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
1 John 4:7-13 (KJV) "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of
God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that
loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the
love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into
the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we
loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for
our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth
in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in
him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit."
.
|
|
|
| User: "goldielocks" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
11 Jan 2006 01:27:22 PM |
|
|
It is so hard sometimes to reconcile 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 with the
behavior one observes in many Christians. Do you not find it so?
*/*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
12 Jan 2006 06:31:07 PM |
|
|
goldielocks wrote:
It is so hard sometimes to reconcile 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 with the
behavior one observes in many Christians. Do you not find it so?
It is impossible to reconcile much of the Bible with the rest of the
Bible, let alone any reconciliation between what the Christian
Testiment teaches and how many of the world's Christians act. See, for
example, the cowardly baby killer in the USA's Oval Office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gods Creator!" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
12 Jan 2006 06:55:50 PM |
|
|
Desertphile wrote:
goldielocks wrote:
It is so hard sometimes to reconcile 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 with the
behavior one observes in many Christians. Do you not find it so?
It is impossible to reconcile much of the Bible with the rest of the
Bible, let alone any reconciliation between what the Christian
Testiment teaches and how many of the world's Christians act. See, for
example, the cowardly baby killer in the USA's Oval Office.
*Thus spake God's Creator*
*No religion can exist without a fresh supply of ignorant people*
i.e. People who will not educate themselves, and constantly
study *ONE BOOK* all their entire... LIFE!
And spend a good deal of their life trying to get others to do
the same... stupid... things...
While hypnotizing themselves many times a day trying to believe
the impossible. (A _guaranteed_ way to lose touch with reality) :-(
God's Creator!
( *Sorry, I don't forgive ****** )
:-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "goldielocks" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
13 Jan 2006 12:04:30 PM |
|
|
Desertphile wrote:
goldielocks wrote:
It is so hard sometimes to reconcile 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 with the
behavior one observes in many Christians. Do you not find it so?
It is impossible to reconcile much of the Bible with the rest of the
Bible, let alone any reconciliation between what the Christian
Testiment teaches and how many of the world's Christians act. See, for
example, the cowardly baby killer in the USA's Oval Office.
War seems so unnecessary, such a failure of common sense ~ if we would
but be content with simple things. Is there not enough here, in our own
country, to provide for all we need? (If not all we, in our vanity &
greed, desire.)
*/*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 10:57:10 AM |
|
|
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
The one thing you got right in your petulant response: the root
of evil is not religion, it's just the inevitable result.
The root of all evil is absolute certainty, and the purpose of
religion is to give certainty when there is none. And since
religion provides absolute certainty, ergo evil is the inevitable
result of religion.
Many (as you actually point out) abuse religion to force their own agenda on
others, but the root of evil is the desire of man to have what someone else
has, and his willingness to do anything to get it.
You're not trying to ram your religion down others' throats?
There are two ways you can prove you're not lying:
1. Don't ram your religion down others' throats.
2. Stop other xians from ramming religion down others' throats.
Since you're replying instead of writing to other xians and
telling them not to proselytize, you're obviously full of *****.
Truly following Christ's commands would be the solution to what you have
mentioned. A world without any religion would be just as bad as it is now,
because evil people will use what ever they can to do their thing.
Adolf Hitler, Pius XII, Pope John Paedophile, Dennis Rader,
James Kopp and Eric Rudolph all followed "christ's commands".
Pretending otherwise is feeble copout.
You would
have made a fine Inquisitor, or Nazi. You do their thing just great.
You're the xian, five-watt, so you're more qualified to be a nazi.
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
EAC's chief cook and brainwasher
-----
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,
it's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
- George W. Bush, US President
"I've never seen a pro-choicer bomb any churches. Have you?"
- Aaron Kinney, speaking on Eric Rudolph
"The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the
non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God."
- 15-year-old fundamentalist fan of the books
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Rooker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 11:49:51 AM |
|
|
<bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136825830.299867.318950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ
to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
The one thing you got right in your petulant response: the root
of evil is not religion, it's just the inevitable result.
The root of all evil is absolute certainty, and the purpose of
religion is to give certainty when there is none. And since
religion provides absolute certainty, ergo evil is the inevitable
result of religion.
My anwer was not "petulant". The responses to it are.
Many (as you actually point out) abuse religion to force their own
agenda on
others, but the root of evil is the desire of man to have what someone
else
has, and his willingness to do anything to get it.
You're not trying to ram your religion down others' throats?
There are two ways you can prove you're not lying:
I am only responding from "alt.christian, religion. The ones trying to ram
their beliefs down my throat are the ones who are initiating these hate
filled, and fact depleted attacks.
1. Don't ram your religion down others' throats.
Not me, it is you guys coming here to attack us.
2. Stop other xians from ramming religion down others' throats.
We are not ramming anything down your throat. You are attacking us.
Since you're replying instead of writing to other xians and
telling them not to proselytize, you're obviously full of *****.
So, you want me to deny another his/constitutional right of free speech? I
do not deny it to you, so I will not deny it to them either.
Truly following Christ's commands would be the solution to what you have
mentioned. A world without any religion would be just as bad as it is
now,
because evil people will use what ever they can to do their thing.
Adolf Hitler, Pius XII, Pope John Paedophile, Dennis Rader,
James Kopp and Eric Rudolph all followed "christ's commands".
Pretending otherwise is feeble copout.
BS, and you know it. They may have falsely claimed the name of Christ, but
they were not following His commands by any reasonable interpretation of
those commands. Quit using this feeble lie.
You would
have made a fine Inquisitor, or Nazi. You do their thing just great.
You're the xian, five-watt, so you're more qualified to be a nazi.
I am not the one who is scapegoat a group they do not like. It is you, and
certain others doing so.
Just because I am a Christian you think I am qualified to be a Nazi. Thanks
for proving my point so well.
God Bless
Carl
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is religion the root of all evil? |
11 Jan 2006 05:33:29 AM |
|
|
<bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136825830.299867.318950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Carl Rooker wrote:
Despite your illogical argument (using those who refuse to obey Christ to
bolster your argument), the root of evil is not religion.
The one thing you got right in your petulant response: the root
of evil is not religion, it's just the inevitable result.
The root of all evil is absolute certainty, and the purpose of
religion is to give certainty when there is none. And since
religion provides absolute certainty, ergo evil is the inevitable
result of religion.
Smart boy!!!! You are quite right, the "inevitable result" of the
knowledge of good is the knowledge of evil. Along with the exercise of free
choice, it is "inevitable" that some, if not most will chose evil some
times, if not most or all of the time.
We have many atheists arguing similarly, that schools are responsible
for creating failures, and the criminal justice system is responsible for
creating criminals and they should therefore be abolished. They argue, that
without either institutions, there would be no authoritative voice deciding
who is a failure and/or who is a criminal. Those evaluations would then be
mere personal opinions which could be refuted, if not simply ignored the
more easily.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
