Carl Mather,

Since belief is psychological rather than intellectual religious people are pretty much immune to logical argument, the need for a sky father is very compelling. The argument that we need to be religious to possess a moral sense has been refuted many times over the centuries, believers never seem to get the message.It's appalling that the menace of institutionalized religion to the liberal democratic secular state still exists in the 21st century. I wonder if the graph overstates the loss of scientific progress with the collapse of classical civilization. Roman society was conservative, there's no reason to believe it could have developed along the same lines as Europe after the Enlightenment.

Well presented, Carl, however,I'd like to qualify your phrase concerning your discussing religious ideas with followers of Islam and Buddhism.

Islam certainly is a religion with a belief in a god, but Buddhism is not.

It is an atheist lifestyle, based on awareness and understanding of philosophy, psychology and spirituality.

Buddhists deny the existence of any supernatural being, yet remain grateful for the teachings of Siddhatta Gotama, a Nepalese prince born 2600 years ago who gained complete enlightenment, hence the Sanskrit term "Buddha".
This gratitiude underlies much of the ceremony and ritual which serves to maintain followers' awareness of the truths which the Buddha taught.
The steady rejection of religion by a more enlightened society is seeing an increased acceptance of the morality of this lifestyle.

I think there comes a time when irrational hatred even if it comes with a colourful a graph ceases to be a ‘hit getter’ for OLO. There comes a time when people will start to switch off. Repetition after repetition of anti Christian screeds that barely even deign to include an argument within all the vitriol time and time again bypass ordinary editorial control.

How many times have Christians had to cop such prejudice? The article merely dishes up what has been reheated and served up to us dozens of times before. This kind of popular prejudice has been adequately answered, in excruciatingly patient detail (speaking from my own experience). What is the value, I ask, of an article that contains not a single new argument or valid piece of data, or insight? Is it the graph that dazzled the editor? I can’t believe anyone would take it seriously.

There comes a time when it gets a bit old.

Am I so far out of bounds that OLO cannot direct prospective authors to previous articles and comments? Direct them to an introductory article on history or philosophy?

I presume an article was rejected in favour of this one.

I’d like to see THAT article!

I think everyone whether atheist or theist would like a bit more quality, people don’t care whether it is pro or anti Christian as long as it doesn’t insult our intelligence.

No reasonable atheist would dare try and say this article was more than blatant mere prejudice.

Do individuals really want OLO to be known as the place where there are virtually no standards regarding intellectual quality whatsoever?

Is OLO happy with the inevitable intelligent comment going elsewhere?

I am somewhat sympathetic to the belief that religious doctrine can be harmful to society, but to bring up paedophilia and rely on the impact of what happened hundreds of years ago to denigrate modern religion does not advance this debate at all. I am not in any way religious, but I can accept that a lot of people find great spiritual comfort in their faith and that this can benefit the wider society.

We could similarly argue that past scientific research, including that in the classic ancient civilizations, has been commonly used to invent to new weapons to kill people, including, more recently, weapons of mass destruction. So should we denigrate all scientific research as a result? Of course not, it brings many benefits to society.

The graph that masqueraded as some sort of science was very colourful, but really looked like nonsense. How was scientific advancement being measured? And what assumptions were being made about continued growth of technoclogy in that time? Complete rubbish really.

I am also intrigued that Carl Mather believes that University graduates are any more intelligent than any one else when it comes to sprirtual matters. My experience of teaching at univeristies was that critical thinking was sadly lacking, giving way to multi-choice components of exams and short answer questions. These have no place in exams meant to test critical thinking. University was more like an extension of high school with longer courses. The arrogance of his last paragraph showed that Mr Mather's crictical thinking is, perhaps, not quite as good as he might think.

To finish off, I do not ascribe to any religion and am very sceptical of being told what I should think on issues by people often shielded from the reality of modern life and blinded by doctrine.

It is a reasonable assumption that no one person is the arbiter of what articles should or should not appear on OLO.

Religion has dominated civilisation ubiquitously since Eve was a girl. It is now time to examine the claims of the many faiths because of their impacts on civilisation.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and if certain articles upset, annoy or disturb, then don’t read them.

Funny, how, as soon as words appear pointing out unsavoury aspects of religion, the immediate response is to condemn the writer and the contents in any way possible. This leads one to think that some people hang on to their faith with a very tenuous hold indeed.

One affect of gratuitous postings on any given thread, is that it causes a kind of subtle censorship, which psychologically limits others from responding.

My guess is that sometimes, that is the intention.

David

Whether we subscribe to it or not, religious belief has been a core feature of the human experience, and these articles about morality, ethics and religion are part of an extremely important discussion about what role belief should play in the management of human affairs.

Both received doctrine and rigorous science are important in this discussion, but so is opinion. As a result, it’s entirely appropriate that OLO should provide a platform for this simple opinion piece.

That said, I’m a little bothered by the lack of a citation for the “graph”, and the failure to question any of its assumptions. I’ve tracked it down, and the original is highly qualified, described as “an approximate graph of the advancement of science through time.” http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm However even here there is no acknowledgement of the major assumption that scientific progress is linear and constant.

Similarly, there is no support for the central assertion that “History clearly shows that any society that relies on religion for moral guidance hastily plummets into barbarism.” The fact that some religious-based states are sinking into chaos is no logical basis for the view that religion leads to barbarism.

So, while I largely agree with Mather’s underlying opinions, I could wish for some better evidence to support them

This article, while I agree with the underlying premise of atheism, is not well argued and is unconvincing. It contains assertions not backed up by fact. It jumps from topic to topic and concludes from this smattering of "facts" that all religions produce cataclysm.

This is simply untrue. I have a materialist view of the collapse of societies, one that I think better explains their failure than blaming religion. indeed I think this concentration on religion as the root of all evil is actually a dead end for analysis, since religion is a product of the human brain and the society in which people find themselves. It makes more sense to analyse those societies and their class relations than to separate out an artifical construct like religion unsullied by its environment.

From the article “Religions promote elitism, xenophobia, intolerance, ignorance and fascism (n. a governmental system with strong centralised power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs, etc.).
Religions encourage slavery, torture, murder, and unquestioning obedience to rulers, i.e. the church.”

Yep

That is organized religion, maintain the status quo, deny change and human evolution.

The thing which amazes me is how far from Christian values religious organisations and institutions are.

Somehow I can never imagine Jesus sitting peacefully in the company of a Jesuit, Cardinal, Pope or Bishop.

The authority versus the humanity would be in eternal conflict.

Martin Ibn Warriq “Is OLO happy with the inevitable intelligent comment going elsewhere?”

Sounds like another of those who believe that heretics must be being silenced (like Chris Hamilton)

Mind you Martin, you are fond of calling the majority of the population “fools” in one recent abortion debate.

Carl – The only reason it is possible to (quite rightly) criticize hypocritical behaviour by professing Christians is because Christians claim to have an identifiable standard of morality against which they can be measured.

The same is not true for an atheist. There are no absolute, objective moral standards in a godless universe and so in a very real way atheists can never be hypocrites. Atheists are free to make up their own standards and change them whenever it suits them.

You say: “we must find ways to interact, not just peacefully, but co-operatively for the benefit of ourselves and our progeny.” You may think these are noble sentiments that you have decided upon but who are you to say what we “must” be doing? What do you say to a fellow atheist who says that he/she doesn’t care about working cooperatively for the benefit of others, but just wants to have as good a time as he/she possibly can before they die and go into oblivion? Would you set yourself up as some sort of secular “pope” and say they would be wrong to live that way?

You are quite right to point out the gross inconsistencies evident in the practices of some professing Christians – but that is meaningful only if absolute, objective standards exist. Under atheism though morality is completely subjective and relative. No one is in a position to make any meaningful comment on the rightness or wrongness of any behaviour. Thus if your belief that there is no God is correct your article is valueless.

Of course people can choose to group together to force their preferences on others who disagree but that is to rely on might and not on moral conviction

Thanks Carl - your article is a bit vituperative but I can't say I blame you, Christianity is so SILLY! It's hard not to get a bit hot under the collar when you look at it.

I remember a poor young lady I saw a few years ago nearly in tears at the idea that God so loved the world that he sent his only son who then got killed. Imagine that, his only son - how much he must have loved us!

OMG how stupid is that, I mean God is supposedly all-powerful and can have as many sons as he (she?) wants. And didn't JC go back to heaven anyway? Maybe God was using contraceptives which is why he (she?) only had one child.

It goes on and on and is just so basically crazy that you wonder how it can possibly have survived through to the 21st century. The trouble is the human intellect seems not to have developed in pace with the technology we have, so we keep on adhering to primitive belief systems of early agricultural societies in the middle east well after their use-by date has come and gone.

I could go on (e.g. all the contradictions in the bible) but maybe that's enough of a rant.

Am I intolerant? Maybe - of course people should be free to believe whatever nonsense they want, but I can't see why they should get taxpayer support. I wish some political party would propose abolishing all tax breaks for supernatural belief systems. It beggars belief that these parasites continue to pay no land tax, rates, income tax etc etc... needs to be swept away immediately.

This piece is so badly written, it has to be a set-up.

If I were a Christian, this is the kind of article I would write, simply so that I could throw mud at it and say "well, if that's the best you atheists can produce, just yah boo sucks to you all."

It makes no allowance for the fact that mankind has only had the tools to see through the "it must be magic" veil for the last couple of hundred years. For the millennia before that, the vastness of human ignorance was bound to breed superstition.

What is more natural, when observing the sun rising in the east and setting in the West, than to insist that it was Helios' chariot, pulled by four horses, Pyrios, Aeos, Aethon, and Phlegon, that drove it across the sky?

But simply listing a set of superficial grievances against religion from a position of some weakness ("I have a made a point in reading up on others and have discussed religious ideas with followers of Islam and Buddhism..." Wow) does nothing more than illustrate a shallowness of thought, and leave the author - rightly - open to some derision.

Unfortunately, it is then an easy target for the religious posters, which does the non-religious position no good at all.

If that is not enough, the tone of voice is one long sneer.

"To be perfectly honest, religions disgust me and I'm constantly amazed on meeting otherwise intelligent people, especially university graduates, who have been taught critical thinking, who have this blind spot of idiocy."

Nope. It has to be a stalking horse, neatly inserted by some seminary undergraduates for a laugh.

Does the Pope have an Internet connection, I wonder? Just the sort of thing to while away a boring afternoon in Kenthurst.

Pericles you are a hard one to follow. Of course it is understandable that people will develop and adhere to superstitious beliefs in a society where mankind doesn't have the tools to see through the "it must be magic" veil.

But how much allowance do you want? Surely 200 years is enough to relegate the flimsy superstitions of Christianity to the dustbin where they belong.

Instead of which we have the absurd spectacle of "World Youth Day" (the title is so pretentious - what world, what youth, what day) with poor brainwashed children rambling around in their confusion shouting jesus jesus jesus oi oi oi as if it was the Olympics - AND a supposedly educated Prime Minister giving the whole thing the thumbs up.

Let's get it straight, we DO now have the tools to see through the magic veil and it is high time we used those tools. Christianity is a load of superstitious man-made hogwash propagated by power-tripping brain-damaged cross-dressing child molesters who can never, when you ask them, provide a shred of evidence for their outrageous claims.

In case you take exception to the child molesters bit, I mean (mainly) psychological molestation - anyone who brainwashes a child to believe in one religion in preference to another is certainly doing them no favours - a healthier approach would be to give all children a measured exposure to all religious and non-religious thought.

We have the insane spectacle of people like George Buish praying for an intercessionary god to come in and stop floods, droughts, tsunamis, earthquakes as if there is any possibility of god even being able to change the traffic lights. And of a "cardinal" (read thinly-veiled witch doctor) telling us all to have more children, as if the world is not already overpopulated.

It's time we grew up and 200 years is enough!

Aaarrrgh, I'm going to say it, the tooth fairy doesn't exist! Nor does Santa Claus. How can we be moral without those two?

GP You say 'There are no absolute, objective moral standards in a godless universe' but there are no absolute moral standards in the universe of the Abrahamic religions either.

Take the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'. In the very early Christian era this was adhered to faithfully, but once Christianity became the faith of government, it had to be modified so wars could be fought. No point being the Christian ruler of the Roman Empire if you couldn't defend your patch, and the corruption of the absolute moral standard began. So the concept of 'just wars' evolved, and we now have the bizarre practice of military chaplains blessing armed forces as they set out to kill.

Of course Christians, Jews and Muslims have killed and awful lot of people over the centuries, and do not seem to regard this as incompatible with their faith. The few who are committed pacifists, such as the Quakers, are a tiny minority and all sorts of killing are now condoned by apparently faithful people - in war (pretty well everywhere), by execution (in the USA),for revenge (Middle East), and by disease (Africa, due to the ban on condoms driven by the Catholic church).

And I don't see how a moral standard attributed to a deity of which there is no evidence could ever be described as 'objective'.

DEAR CARL.....

Quote:

"You must be joking."
Unquote

Version No. 001
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
Act No. 47/2001
Version as at 1 January 2002
TABLE OF PROVISIONS

PART 2—UNLAWFUL CONDUCT 6
Division 1—Unlawful Vilification 6
7. Racial vilification unlawful 6
8. Religious vilification unlawful 6
9. Motive and dominant ground irrelevant

8. Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious
belief or activity of another person or class of
persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred
against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or
severe ridicule of, that other person or class of
persons.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or
e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other
material.

NOTE CAREFULLY THE WORDS
-hold up to serious contempt
-severe ridicule"
-incite hatred against.

That rather says where your article belongs....right?

-You mentioned 'Christians'
-You ridiculed
-You said: "that immoral behaviour, say pedophilia, conducted by adherents is OK because they're “of the chosen”;

which is true for Islam but not for Christianity... thus this is inciting hatred against Christians and thus cannot be seen to be 'in good faith or in the public interest as it is a falsehood.

While it almost causes me a coronary to say this..

Both John Passy and Pericles show considerably enlightened approaches!

At least they saw the article for what it was.

A good start boys :) *I see hope*

Of course religion is fantastical nonsense. But why stop there?
All right brained thought processes are an impediment to logic and science, distracting us from the literal, material, immediate reality of our existence as producing/consuming meat machines.

I'm so glad my parents didn't read me fairytales or celebrate Christmas.
Thankfully my childhood was devoid of stupid cartoons, witches, dragons, unicorns and other such nonsense.

I feel so sorry for other children who wasted their lives playing pirates and cowboys, when they could have been memorising the periodic table of elements.

We should not only outlaw religion, but all art, philosophy and mythology.

Due to our scientific advances, it is now possible to perform brain surgeries very precisely.
As all religious and other fantastical nonsense is the product of our right brain, we should perform compulsory right-brain lobotomies on all new born babies.

When the right brained generations have died out, only pure left-brained people will be left, producing a peaceful, productive and absolutely logical society.

The RIGHT brain inherits the earth
[ie,the meak ,right brain,dreamers

The typical left brain error
thinking they are the only ones who get it RIGHT.

The left_brain controles the right_hand side of the body!

The left brain sheeple [yes_man] who university and the dumbing down de-education SUStem produces into left brain thinking party machine men,

ie the black suited clones
that play on the deck of the titanic while the ship is sinking because they live by faith and their own im-mortal thinking.

The type that believes we have a democracy,
and cant see we have a two_party demonic_autocracy ,

who thinks there is a difference between the two-parties,

who believe science or the party machine men
who knows_it_all
despite science never finding a cure for cancer ,
and both_parties playing the_same numbers-game.

The same adgenda [regardless_of_party]
keating sold us out as much as howard [as much as rudd now is]
BUT RUDD 's cure has no set price!
the market sets the_price of this 83 trillion dollar NEW_global_tax ,

built on a lie [we are asked to decide now!
[yet dont get the numbers till near years end,
guess and make judgment on a sealed box?[gift or curse?]

The MARKET will set the price!

[LETthe TAX payers pay WHATEVER price THE MARKET SETStoday

[typical left brain thinking
thus they cant see the ILL-logic of it

SCIENCE has not been able to create its_own_cell!

[Nor createA cell_membrane
[NOR EVOLVING it into anything else!
yet it KNOWS all?

with its flawed evolutional-THEORY,

its global warming THEORY[as caused by man]made carbon ]THEORY

The earth is heating up!
[but not from the carbondioxideOR hydrofluroCARBONS[or its the sun luke [and man-made cloudless skies from the over the horison''radar''called haarp[google HAARP]

scientists ARE divided

trees being murderd
that affects the co2 conversion into oxegen?
indeed global warn=ming

BUt left-brain pay as_you_earn,clones that serve the media[and the laws[fed_and_state govt]passed a few years ago ]allows GOVT to lie to us
[TOswallow camels while logiclly straining GNATS]

WHO claim to 'believe' in god
yet cant hear his LIVING quiet still voice
[of conscience] inside them

GP, "in a very real way atheists can never be hypocrites."
Wrong again, athiests, agnostics etc can be hypocrites in the same way that thiests can be hypocrites - by proclaiming one set of values, demanding others live by them and doing something else themselves. Hypocracy is about the difference between our public stance on an issue and our personal actions on the issue.

There are plenty of examples of non religious hypocracy - I'll list a few which reflect my personal bias's (others may see these as justified choices)
- those who insist on higher taxes and better social welfare systems but do whatever they can to minimise their own contributions to the tax system
- the environmental campaigners who fly around the world in private jets to tell others to carpool
- those who insist on freedom of speech for people who think like themselves but want those who think differently to be silenced

When you have a single thiest position agreed to by all thiests about what is right and wrong you may have a case for some of your views but until that occurs you don't have absolutes, you have make it up as you go values and morality. Actually I'll make it easier, get your god to convince all the adherants to your faith to come to agreement about what your gods commands are and how those commands should be applied and I'll take your claims seriously.

R0bert

There is a fine line between an opposing opinion being reasonably put and simply out yelling your opponent. While the article has some truth its design, language and factual rigor are lacking. One could say it's biased, selectively chosen facts and borders sadly, on swapping one form of zealotic hyperbole for another.

The graph and the credibility of the conclusions are suspect and misleading.
To wit its graph shows:
• That scientific development as starting with the Egyptians not true. The most important scientific developments, Agriculture, Civilization, Construction and Writing, mathematics, astronomy, trade and money started in the Fertile Crescent take you pick which civilization(s).
• “The Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages “is again wrong, wrong and wrong again. During this time the scientific advancements were being made in the Arabic world and after about 600AD under the encouragement of (perhaps one of the most prescriptive religions) ISLAM.
• Likewise no mention of anything Asian.
It is widely accepted that the enlightenment could not have taken place without their in put.

The author fails to acknowledge that much of the age of enlightenment was under the patronage of Christianity. Da Vinci, Michelangelo etc sec

Paedophilia being linked with religion is again nonsense as it is universal. The ‘morals’ that vilify these practices are cultural. But the practice isn’t. (In this culture they are abhorrent and unacceptable.)

Hitler a good (?) Christian. Relevance? Starlin was a good Atheist?
“Religions promote elitism, xenophobia, intolerance, ignorance and fascism” Doesn’t every hierarchical system? Communism.

“I'm still appalled and deeply ashamed of what was done by my forebears” Why you personally? I believe that the Country owes an apology by me personally? I didn’t do it. Howard is an ideologue and unable to see the difference between the self and the country.

The list goes on.

Atheism is based on reason unfortunately this article is little more than Christian Bashing. As an essay to prove his point was given to me by any student beyond year 9 I would mark it as an… F

BTW. I am an atheist and Secular Humanist.

re: Polycarp and, "A person must not, on the ground of the religious
belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons."
I note that the law quoted says serious contempt and severe ridicule. In my view the adjectives, serious and severe, adequately protect the article and the author or they should. Revulsion could still be a bit of a problem. The display in Sydney of the casket reputedly containing the body of Pier Giorgio Frassati causes revulsion in me. Bury the poor guy; he's dead, like John Clease's parrot. He deserves to 'Rest in Peace'.
I am reminded of Terry Lane's comment about ridiculous beliefs deserving ridicule. In his conversation with God, (God the interview) when discussion miracles, Terry riles God to the point where God says, "Stand back, I'll make a caterpillar drive a double decker bus up a spiral staircase." to which Terry replies, "Don't be ridiculous." Which is the point, if something is ridiculous it didn't happen. No one who understands modern science can really believe the 'Water into wine' and other impossible miracles including those attributed to Lourdes and the other ridiculous claims of the modern religions.

Excellent article. Couldn't have said it better although the graph seems a little dubious.

Christ
I have been told that a man whose name was Christ lived by a fundamental precept that is; ‘compassionate love towards the person, any person, one happens to be near to’.

Probably this man Christ didn’t know the word precept; probably his behavior was natural to him.

I thought his way uncomplicated and adopted it as my way of living.

This compels me to avoid anyone who has chosen the opposite precept; that of overpowering his/her neighbor.

And it is a lot of avoiding.

Politicians; Bureaucrats; Diplomats; Judges; Journalists; Academics; Industrialists; Financiers; Merchants; Accountants; Estate agents; Sports Executives, Do-gooders Prelates, Policemen of all kinds and unthought-of…fanatics writing on OLO.

Did I say uncomplicated?

Poor Christ! Were he to be here now, they would have him stitched in no time.

Albert Trianni

The pope mentioned global/warming[speach today]

He is part of the plan to gets rudds new_WORLD_order tax installed

Its built on a lie!
The con-cept is rebutted on alex jones show

he revealed the blair rabbit theory[good cop bad cop]that set up the play gwbusche is hated so he [like howard before him CLAIMS to hate the carbon excuse of global_warming

[thus we think it good[knowing them to not be good]

So in comes the 'new' GOOD guy
and the pope
and next thing we have a new NEW tax

not set at any rate!
BUT LEFT TO GLOIBAL MARKET FORCES

we think a twenty dollar carbon-tax
but market forces WILL set this new global tax!

at ANY RATE the MARKET decides!
[remenmber how the market forces built up the price of the phone spectrums?]
allowing markets forces to set the price is treasonous
[no matter who is selling this cow]
THE good guy as usual fixes the rule

then the markets rule over it FOREVER,see you not the price of petrol[and everything else the MARKET_forces us_to pay?

YOUR FALLING FOR THE DOUBLE[XX] play yet again

this one costs us gods creation

IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent!

The Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases.

Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere,”
see

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Temperatures have gradually declined and studies indicate that there will be no further warming for the next 10 years.

Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto have warmed at the same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun having been more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

“CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C)
to global mean surface temperature by 2100.”

http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/index.php

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/index.php
http://morgana.forumco.com

http://www.youtube.com/1oneundergod1
http://www.youtube.com/1under1GOD
http://thinkfreebefree.proboards105.com/index.cgi

http://www.youtube.com/profile_favorites?user=oneundergod

http://www.youtube.com/profile_favorites?user=1oneundergod1
http://swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/hh00toc.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/heavenearth.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/life.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/facts.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/morelife.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/hereafter.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/morelight.html

This is my first attempt and I appreciate your responses and criticisms of my writing. I'll use this to improve next time. Where I don't know the source I haven't attributed.
My point of view may be harsh but I'm writing from an emotional point of view.

Mac – the graph may overstate but I think the point is about the effect of religion.
Ponder – I'm aware that buddhism lacks a god, in theory, but every follower I've spoken to refers to Siddhattha Gautama as a god.
Martin – OLO is about opinions, this is mine.
Phil – I think paedophilia is entirely relevant and also that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' (George Santayana).
JPW – How about, for example, the Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch hunts, various pogroms throughout Europe? Are they not barbarism? I think the logic is that the moral vacuum of religion leads to barbarism.
GP – I used the word must as a figure of speech. But you're right I have no place to tell anyone what they must do. I didn't think my sentiments were noble, just obvious. I guess that's rather arrogant.
Pericles – We can't all be Shakespeare. And Epicurus (circa 33AD) was clearly atheistic. I find it difficult to believe that doubters haven't existed for as long as believers.
Polycarp – Christian moral law is that atheists should be killed. I think any law the stifles freedom of speech deserves to be ignored.
Stuart – I'm not advocating outlawing religion, just to see it in its proper light.

Carl.

Carl,

In my experience, OLO authors who also participate in discussions about their articles are very much in the minority, so first, thanks for your willingness to test the rigour in your article by debating it here.

My objection was: “The fact that some religious-based states are sinking into chaos is no logical basis for the view that religion leads to barbarism.”

The Machiavellian view is that religion has always been a tool of statecraft: “According to Machiavelli, religion can be used to generate loyal bounds between the ruler and his subjects, and must be used if the situation requires it.” http://snipr.com/2zycl It’s much easier to deal with a political enemy by calling him an apostate or heretic (inquisition) and it’s easier to control a disgruntled populace by whipping up religious prejudice (pogrom).

The use of religion as a cover for barbaric practices doesn’t mean that religion necessarily leads to barbarism. In most northern European countries, there is no separation of church and state. Monarchs have religious roles, the state collects and distributes church taxes, and often (e.g. in the UK) minor religious figures have significant roles in political life. Yet these same countries have the highest standards of living, the best human rights protections, and lowest participation in what one would call barbarism.

As a result, I would argue that religion, or religious morality, does not of necessity lead to barbarism. Barbarism comes about when religious people allow themselves to be used by politicians and despots.

I said above that the debate about the role of religion in public affairs is a very important one. A pre-requisite for this discussion is an understanding that religions don’t always need to be regarded as a threat. Similarly, the northern European experience shows that accepting the rights of non-believing humans to live by their own moral lights can actually bring greater security for religion, rather than threatening it.

Belief has always been a part of the human experience. Finding ways to get along with it will be much more fruitful than making provocative claims about the causes of barbarism.

Thermoman, I think you're being a little optimistic.

>>Surely 200 years is enough to relegate the flimsy superstitions of Christianity to the dustbin where they belong.<<

200 years is actually quite a short timeframe.

Don't lose sight of the fact that Christianity is just one of a number of lingering superstitions, all based on the fear of the unknown. Religion itself seems to focus on the unknown that is "death", and is built around the view that "there has to be more to it than this".

There are lesser manifestations of superstition of course. I make a point of putting on my left sock before my right, and my left shoe before my right shoe. I have no idea what would happen if I reversed this process, but the simple fact is, I'm not about to try.

Just in case.

The fear-patterns that give rise to religious belief are far stronger than my sock-and-shoe weirdness, and - without the "snap out of it" solution that might cure these irrational leanings - are therefore likely to take longer to be rid of. Don't forget that we are talking here about emotion, not logic.

And Carl, don't hide behind the notion that not being Shakespeare is a defence. I was not talking about the lack of limpid prose, but the heavy use of scorn and derision to put your point across. It simply is not constructive to write a sentence like this one...

"Religions encourage slavery, torture, murder, and unquestioning obedience to rulers, i.e. the church.<<

...however much you personally may believe it to be true. Because it provides the religious with a perfect opening to reply in kind "...and so do atheists, so yah boo sucks the same to you with knobs on".

Which they invariably do. And which doesn't get us anywhere.

It is people who make these decisions to enslave,torture etc. etc.,with or without the benefit of a religious or secular upbringing.

Handing your opponent a shillelagh with which to whack you over the head is never a good strategy.

The claim that religion is responsible for the dark ages is fundamentally flawed. The progress during the Greek and Roman empire that preceded the dark ages, which your chart outlines, was during an era that was also driven largely by religious (Pagan) beliefs. Much scientific advancement occurred through the actions of people who were religious themselves, notably SIr Isaac Newton.
The atrocities that are mentioned in the article such as the crusades and the various religious wars are a constant objection against religion. However when religion has subsided there has been no decline in atrocities or wars. If religion was a major driver of war and atrocities, why was an atheist ideology such as Communism responsible for so many atrocities, from Stalin, Mao to Pol Pot. Why was nationalism largely responsible for the two world wars. I would also point out that your claim that Hitler was a 'good Christian' is breathtakingly ignorant of Adolf Hiter and his beliefs.

OMG Pericles don't turn human on me after all this time!

I am seriously concerned for you and I very much hope you will NOT dare to put on sock or shoe in the wrong order, this could result in disaster not only for yourself but for all of us, including JC and God and Herr Ratsinger and all the rats he sings for!!

There I go again I just have an OCD for blasphemy, something perhaps like Mozart's for copraphiliac matters.

Never mind, I think you are extraordinarily brave to raise in the public domain your approach to footwear donning and I am humbled and amazed at your candour. I know a good therapist (in fact I see her every week to try to overcome my various and significant personality flaws)

Ah I can see why people relish this space

Dear Anthony P

As soon as I read your post the words "Gott mit uns" sprang to mind. I seemed to remember that these words, translated as "god with us" were inscribed on the buckles of the belts of just about every poor hapless Nazi soldier.

I have read before that Hilter was quite religiously affected - a quick Google poured more fuel on this particular fire, quite apropos of what our original writer (peace be with him) was saying

I will dump the following - if you want any more just google gott mit uns

"Hitler justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

"Hence today 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."

Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest.

Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him.

etc etc etc

There's a touch of inconsistency here, I feel, Thermoman.

>>Surely 200 years is enough to relegate the flimsy superstitions of Christianity to the dustbin where they belong.<<

...followed a couple of posts later by:

>>"Hitler justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning... 'Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator:'"

Given the amount of carnage wrought by this particular puppy, 200 years of enlightenment would seem to be nowhere near enough.

Your concern over my quirks and foibles is quite touching. Indeed, if the world comes to an end tomorrow, you will know that I dared to challenge the fates with my right sock.

Sorry to hear about your coprophilia, though, that must suck.

I doubt that the Christian religion has a great deal to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

It's Saul of Tarsus who's the real villian, who dreamed up a lot of this stuff up and from whom his fellow fascist, Hitler drew his strength, particularly with respect to his anti Semitism.

And 2000 years before Goebbels, Saul knew that if you told a lie often enough there was a good chance that it would become the truth.

I'm blowed if I can work out what Saul saw in the philsophy of Jesus, they seem to be diametrically opposed.

... fascist, misogynist, authoritarian, intolerant ...

The establishment of the canon is interesting; why pick on the letters of Saul as being the inspired word of god unless you want to use his philosophy to dominate the world around you? The Western World picked the wrong philophy and it's still hanging around our necks like a millstone.

What I don't understand is why the people controlling this philosophy would think it a smart thing to dress up in drag, wear red shoes, observe a vow of celibacy and, for all intents and purposes eschew a flamboyant lifestyle.

It doesn't add up, it's all very strange, weird in fact.

And watching Tim Fischer kiss the Pope's ring is enough to make you want to put your fingers down your throat. Our Government should have nothing to do with this tin pot, undemocratic, gerontological theocracy. If it were any other 'country' we'd be calling for sanctions.