pj ailipps/quote..""Is a world without religion preferable?

..the statistics suggest it is.""

present them
then give back to caeser
[see later reply]

""We can get the sense of community and all the other benefits you speak of in many ways without religion.""

mate...your in denial..about what religeons have done
to make the world better..lest we forget an ATHIEST...saing god made him do it..isnt the same as RELIGIOUNS DECLARING WARS

please give your proof
HOW MANY POPES have started wars
do popes declare wars..or do govts..or figure heads

""try naming one benefit religion has provided
us with that cannot possibly come about through secular means."'

everything from reading to writing
schools to hospitals..and hospis

from holding records to money
moral guidance/law/medicine/
animal husbandry..farming
food wine science's
""How do you explain the fact..that the less religion plays a role in our societies,..the healthier they become?""

mate less we forget the many charities
there alone holds a healthier society

""Only 70 odd years ago we had a large-scale war..run by a psychopath.""

right
NOT A PRIEST
not a pope..a darn madman...lol

his alies were also a godless gred/creed

""The thought of that happening today is unimaginable.""

lol

we got so many wars
let alone civil wars
premptive wars..occupation
how many are religious wars
declared and payed for by the church?

"You would be hard-pressed to find a 10 year period
since the dawn of civilisation where war, poverty

and famine..were at such
proportionately low levels..as they are now.""

lol
a ten year period*

lol your such a funny liar
please provide proof of your athiestic self agrandisations?

Valid question, oug.

>>HOW MANY POPES have started wars<<

The most obvious is Urban II, who in 1095 called upon the Franks, specifically and directly, to go and fight "a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God".

"Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and honey'... Let that then be your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: 'It is the will of God! It is the will of God!'"

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2a.html

I reckon that qualifies, don't you?

Here's a Pope bent on world domination:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." – Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302

They really weren't shy of getting others to do their dirty work. In his Bull "Intra Arcana" written in 1529, Pope Clement VI wrote to Charles V...

"...you will compel and with all zeal cause the barbarian nations to come to the knowledge of God, the maker and founder of all things, not only by edicts and admonitions, but also by force and arms, if needful, in order that their souls may partake of the heavenly kingdom"

Probably not the answers you were looking for, oug.

But then, when you invoke the papacy, you find many incumbents bring with them a whole lot of nasty baggage.

Google Pope John XII. He was a classic.

AJ Philips,

"Most religious people do still make claims regarding the supernatural"

It's human nature. Both religious and non-religious people make claims regarding the supernatural. The fact that a claim is made by a religious person does not make it more or less accurate than claims by non-religious people.

"from what I can remember, you at least have the advantage of a religious belief that has been purposefully devised with the sole intent of sheltering it from criticism."

My basic belief is that there is nothing but God. This however is not too important because it's the practice that matters, not the words. When I consciously acquired my belief over 30 years ago, I was yet unfamiliar with atheism and the scientific criticism of religions, so when I came across those, I listened to the criticism and my religious belief-system went through the refiner's fire and came out purer and stronger. As a result my beliefs are consistent not only with my own direct experience, but also with science.

In particular, I found that the belief in God's existence is superfluous and generally does not contribute to religion (except perhaps in relation to children and primitive tribes). On the contrary, it may even weaken religion because it conflicts with science - faith that depends on belief is weak. One does not need God to exist in order to love Him with all one's heart, soul and strength. One does not need to believe that God exists in order to direct one's whole life towards union with God. I Also found that one need not expect material rewards, either in this life or thereafter, in order to devote oneself to God, otherwise one is just a dealer/trader/bargainer, not a lover of God. The only reward to be gained is God Himself.

Science and religion do not conflict: science answers questions such as "what is", "what is not", "how does it work", while religion relates to questions such as "why" and "what's worthwhile". Science only conflicts with certain impurities that attached themselves to religious-thought over the millenia. Once purified, religion is stronger.

AJ Phillips,

You stated "the less religion plays a role in our societies, the healthier they become?" But, you have it back to front, and confirm this in your following "The further we progress, the less of a role religion plays and the more peaceful we become." There, you answered yourself - religion, for better or worse laid the groundwork, even in spite of some dramatic tumult along the way, and now a growing segment of society feels less need for the reassurance of religion - but it is development that has enabled society's relative comfort and complacency - western society that is.

You state, without any real foundation, that a world without religion is both possible and preferable. I'm afraid there would be a few billion people who would strenuously disagree.

Your predisposition to refer to age-old conflicts to justify your intolerance of religion generally, is clutching at hollow straws to support an insupportable criticism of the constructive role religion continues to play in the lives of billions of followers in a multitude of denominations worldwide. You ply your obvious vindictiveness towards Christianity to encompass all the world's religions in your irreligious zealotry, and it serves you no favour.

Pericles,

You seem to be in the same camp as AJ, yet in your last post you seem to be arguing with him. I am confused. However, your conviction that the world would be a better and more peaceful place without religion also denies the far wider and greater good that religion plays on the world stage, far outweighing the smaller localised current conflicts purportedly of religious base, and mostly more likely of a covetous base. People lie about their real motives, don't you know.

If you guys are just taking the mickey, I would appreciate you letting me know.

Yuyutsu; (sigh);
I seems I owe you an apology for suggesting you have claimed an 'arbitrary' definition for the word 'Religion'. You have successfully demonstrated this is not so.
You merely had to reach back a couple of thousand years into a dead language, to find a definition which accorded with your beliefs.
IOW, you have simply created your own religion, which you are as unilaterally convinced by as any other fundamentalist.
When you say 'science and religion do not conflict' you actually mean science and your religion do not conflict. You insist that even atheists can commit acts which bring them closer to a non existent God, which is to say Atheism is impossible, because God exists, whether they like it or not.
Hardly an original argument, and side steps the question of opposing beliefs.
Pronouncing judgements on all belief systems, held by billions of people both theist and atheist, according to the rules of your own (literally 'singular') religion is just a tad arrogant, don't you think?
Saltpetre, you have yet to establish the logic of your position.
“There, you answered yourself - religion, for better or worse laid the groundwork...”
I believe AJ's point is that as we become more secular, we also become more peaceful. IOW, is we had been secular to start with, we would have been peaceful to start with (or at least more peaceful). I would have to admit, history seems to be at least superficially on AJ's side; although AJ's assertion:
“If you take one of the motivations/excuses for war and terrorism out of the equation, the chances are the occurrences of those atrocities will drop.” ...while admirably logical and difficult to refute, does open other doors; eg nationalism is 'one of the motivations/excuses for war', and I would suggest an even greater one.
Ultimately, both religion and nationalism are, I would suggest, both 'natural' inventions of humans to define a collective and embracing set of moral and ethical conventions; 'Culture', in short.
As we see in OZ today, people don't like it when you mess with their culture.

Not sure what you mean, Saltpetre.

>>Pericles, You seem to be in the same camp as AJ, yet in your last post you seem to be arguing with him. I am confused.<<

That makes two of us. In my last post I was addressing an issue raised by one under god (oug), in which he posed what I imagined was intended to be a rhetorical question, but one that I chose to take at face value:

>>HOW MANY POPES have started wars<<

And quite frankly, I think you are wearing rose-tinted glasses when you make this statement:

>>However, your conviction that the world would be a better and more peaceful place without religion also denies the far wider and greater good that religion plays on the world stage, far outweighing the smaller localised current conflicts purportedly of religious base, and mostly more likely of a covetous base. People lie about their real motives, don't you know.<<

The "wider and greater good" that you speak of makes the traditional Christian assumption, that somehow religious people are nicer to each other. Given the evidence of history, of atrocities conducted in the name of religion, I cannot accept this.

As I see it, if we now have - as you describe them - nothing more than "smaller localised current conflicts purportedly of religious base", it is clear evidence of the failing power of religion alone to move people to war.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that your analysis is correct, and suspect we will continue to see wars waged under banners similar to Urban II's "It is the will of God! It is the will of God!"

I see religion as a manifestation of mankind's inherent fear of the unknown - part of human nature, if you will - and therefore a convenient excuse for channelling the expressions of violence that accompany that fear. If that aggression were confined to mere territorial conquest, we'd be far better off.

>>If you guys are just taking the mickey, I would appreciate you letting me know.<<

I'm happy to take it seriously, if you are.