Atheism Vs. Religion

[Traditz]

Gud pm bro. Naa interesado ko sa inyong debate kai I find it educating so to speak. The reason I want to join kai I want to learn the proper defense of a Theist against the attacks of the Atheist and to avoid the erroneous bashing of the Theist against the stand of the Atheist.

So anyways...

Perhaps cguro the reason why the Crusades or Inquisition happened must have been because of Religious Fundamentalism and Radicalism. When we say fundamentalist and radicals, they are the ones who would do everything and I mean everything in order for them to achieve their goal -including religion.

During the Crusades, what is in Jerusalem that the Church wanted so badly? Easy...

Political power and dominion over the region.

In order to dominate the regions of the middle east (for trading purposes), then it is only logical to have total control over Jerusalem.

This my friend is the ulterior motive of the Crusades. The Church did it because of this reason. It was a political battle and Religion was just used for a scape goat.

Ad2 ta sa Inquisition? Asa man na time na Inquisition? Kato sa Medieval or sa Spanish Inquisition? 4 now ad2 lng ta sa Spanish Inquisition. During those time, uso kaau ang Protestantism and other break-away sects of the Roman Catholic Church. Also Spain was having problems because of Jews and Muslims and other non-Catholic Christians. For the rulers of Spain, they see these groups as a threat to the state and they must be check. So what did they do? They made the Spanish Inquisition to serve as a "secret police" in order to maintain fear and order to the society.

Ulterior motive gihapon dri, Religion is the scape goat...

Kang Hitler sad? Abnormal man na siya wa man na syay au. He will do anything to get what he wants no matter the cost. Please don't take Hitler's words that he was 'sent by God' as to be true and correct. He just said this in order to justify his damned war.

Ulterior motive gihapon dri and as always Religion is still the scape goat.

Kahinumdum mo sa quote ni Bro Bisdak sa Bible?

I think those atrocities being done in the name of Religion are condemned on this verse. Did these criminals trully did the will of the Father? I think not. Do you think otherwise?


Lingaw kaau ning Religion bro kai maau kaau ni gamiton as a scape goat and people are still doing it. Bin Laden, Jim Jones, Ecleo, Bush etc, etc, etc... Ug ang nakalingaw pa jud kai people always, ALWAYS buys it!

I've seen this kinds of debate before and almost everytime the Atheist would point out the errors of the Crusades, Inquisition, Galilieo's injustice and then the Theist would counter the mass murders being made by the Communists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pots) blah blah blah blah blah...

My friends, this is not the correct path for this debate because this will just lead to senseless bashing.

It doesn't matter who has the many kills... The fact that you killed is still bad and I do not think there is any Religion (Kanang truest, trully, truthfully, true form anang Religion dli kanang twisted interpretation ana) that promotes death and destruction...

If you killed one of my friends, whether Atheist ka or Theist ka, you still killed my friend and you are by all means answerable to the law or to the law above. Would you believe otherwise?

So mga bros, let us move back a little and stop this wrong path for this debate. Intelligent people man kaha so let us not start a bashing contest kai murag padung nata dra.

Point well taken.

Let us heed this good advice: "When you throw mud at others, not only do you get your hands dirty, you also lose a lot of ground." (Anonymous)

[Traditz]

Is atheism fundamentally evil?

Hmmm... I just wonder, can atheism really speak about "evil"? For it seems that in a purely Naturalistic point of view, there's no such thing as good or evil? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[regnauld]

Hmmm... I just wonder, can atheism really speak about "evil"? For it seems that in a purely Naturalistic point of view, there's no such thing as good or evil? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right in atheism there is no purely evil. There is only what works and what doesn't work. Maybe there is no clearly defined morality in atheism. I'm not sure!

[Traditz]

^ It seems so. Richard Dawkins wrote, "There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA."

If there is no such thing as evil or good, how can we condemn atrocities like the Holocaust as morally evil?

[tarpolano]

the question is not on facts, but rather of comprehension.

True, that the crusades was established de facto and de jure by the Church, but as far narrow minded atheists are concern, they see merely religious-power playing in the field, they do not recognize that the secular powers were motivated not merely by God but also by non-religious concern. It was more political rather than religious, there was no separation of church and state, it was an assembly of European-Christian nation to begin with, religion was never the point in all that, it was power interests. Religion was merely incidental, because it was the theme of the age. transpose this to the napoleonic era, you do not say the british went against the french because the french were atheist, of course not, the theme of the era was ideology, that is what they were fighting, Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, which was not the cup of tea for His Majesty's Empire. The same powerplay works in every age, only that the theme changes.


So next time you folks start asking people to get their facts straight, you should also try tocalibrate your mindset to wider possibilities of explanation not merely fixed your heads on mere atheist-theist framework as if the world revolves around that. Do not be guilty of historical hindsight.

I agree with you that it was power interest. But you have to admit that for them to launch the crusade they need to have people believe into something that what they are doing was right and they used relegion for that to justify it. Even the pope blessed the crusade cause. By meaning relegion was incidental do you mean that the crusade would still have happen if relegion wasn't the "theme of the age". The way I see it there wouldn't be a crusade if there was no relegion. And you are probably confused between secular and atheism. They are not the same. As you may have point out crusade was "triggered" by secular agenda and used religion to attain it. No argue from me.

[AshmoR]

guys there is a Saying na "Leave what is in the Mind and Beliefs of Others and they will never Harm you..."

so Religion and other Beliefs are supposed to be not Debatable diba?...

[The_Child]

I agree with you that it was power interest. But you have to admit that for them to launch the crusade they need to have people believe into something that what they are doing was right and they used relegion for that to justify it. Even the pope blessed the crusade cause. By meaning relegion was incidental do you mean that the crusade would still have happen if relegion wasn't the "theme of the age". The way I see it there wouldn't be a crusade if there was no relegion. And you are probably confused between secular and atheism. They are not the same. As you may have point out crusade was "triggered" by secular agenda and used religion to attain it. No argue from me.

at that level, it was not a conscious endeavor, but rather it was the zeitgeist. And yes, religion was instrumental but again its opposite, is also instrumental, it is precisely in the reciprocity of religious and non-religious motivation that made the crusade possible.

Secularism and atheism has a difference. but in the context, it fits. (not to mention the thread directly pits religion and atheism as opposed together, and using that, some mentioned historical event to further claims that derides religion) atheism is bound upon the non-religious theme - secularism, i.e, it is a position that does not into account religious themes thus, a non-religious theme. And transposing this to historical events, we see that according to the zeitgeist, power-relations, is the the transhistorical value that is primarily responsible for these violence, and not religion, as religion was merely the form in which this power-relation assumed during the time of the crusades.

[flying fish]

you have knack for oversimplified analogies.

How you compared a hand held device which can be engineered by a single person, to a complex system such as religious institutions which uses inter-disciplinary depth to understand significantly its phenomenon.

oversimplification? or just clear insight, i think theres no perfect system, philosophy to a person who loves chaos over peace, who loves greed over justice & fairness. a system cannot exist w/o humanity who invent it...& however much we try to device a perfect sytem it would still be a failure granting the human being who will use it will mis use it. i hope im not complicating it or oversimplified it as well,

[flying fish]

guys there is a Saying na "Leave what is in the Mind and Beliefs of Others and they will never Harm you..."

so Religion and other Beliefs are supposed to be not Debatable diba?...

yes, better add the these comndments: "thou shall keep thy religion or thy atheism or thy in
between to thyself"

If you cant help but sharing: "thou shall remember that its a sharing of ideas & not
selling of ideas"

to remind you to be humble; "thou shall remember that any ideas are borrowed ideas,
its not yours you just have the capacity to recall thats
all"

[tarpolano]

at that level, it was not a conscious endeavor, but rather it was the zeitgeist. And yes, religion was instrumental but again its opposite, is also instrumental, it is precisely in the reciprocity of religious and non-religious motivation that made the crusade possible.

Secularism and atheism has a difference. but in the context, it fits. (not to mention the thread directly pits religion and atheism as opposed together, and using that, some mentioned historical event to further claims that derides religion) atheism is bound upon the non-religious theme - secularism, i.e, it is a position that does not into account religious themes thus, a non-religious theme. And transposing this to historical events, we see that according to the zeitgeist, power-relations, is the the transhistorical value that is primarily responsible for these violence, and not religion, as religion was merely the form in which this power-relation assumed during the time of the crusades.

There really seems to be a lot of confusion on Atheism. Atheism by defenition is the lack in belief of the existence of God plain and simple. It's not a relegion and certainly no secular about it. Athiesm does not assert any separation of state and relegion, secularism does. Thanks for pointing me out to the thread's topic. May I suggest the topic be changed to Athiesm vs Theism. That would seem to be very appropriate. Or it should have been Secularism vs Relegion.