Can Someone Tell Me What's the point of Religion?

It's true... religion, if observed properly, gives people a moral/ethical compass and a support system. Not everyone is blessed with parents or guardians who brought them up the right way. Being religious and feeling that you will answer for wrongdoings to a higher power stops these from making mistakes and going down the wrong path...

So if religion is a positive influence 90% of the time and a negative one 10% of the time... i'm all for it. My philosophy is simple: You should use whatever helps you improve yourself, make the right decisions, live an honorable life, etc.

rwo power wrote:Well, obviously the religion of gun worship in certain areas of the US works very similar to certain other religions. Their church is called NRA and they worship at gun fairs. Doesn't look too different from other kinds of worship.

show me where people start shooting and crying out NRA. or suiside Bombers crying NRA. guns don't kill people. people kill people. ive never seen a gun brain wash anyone into killing. but religion has brain washed lots of people into killing for hundreds of years. religion tells people to pick up a gun and kill. religion is the motive. the gun is the tool. why blame the tool. and over look the motive.

I'm not too heavily involved in the Gun Control debate in the US, because it doesn't affect me.

But isn't it all about the "Gun Culture" that's been created as a result of this tool. I mean that's sort of like saying there's no point trying to stop class A drugs entering the country because its just the tool.

and in response to sportszy, surely though - despite the fact that relatively speaking so few deaths occur at the hands of legally owned firearms - surely the gun culture that exists in most parts of America contributes to an inundation of weapons. I've never been to America but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be hard to get my hands on an illegal weapon. Whereas it isn't so straight forward elsewhere - also easier for police/intelligence to track weapons and put a stop to them falling into the wrong hands.

Peccadillo wrote:I'm not too heavily involved in the Gun Control debate in the US, because it doesn't affect me.

But isn't it all about the "Gun Culture" that's been created as a result of this tool. I mean that's sort of like saying there's no point trying to stop class A drugs entering the country because its just the tool.

and in response to sportszy, surely though - despite the fact that relatively speaking so few deaths occur at the hands of legally owned firearms - surely the gun culture that exists in most parts of America contributes to an inundation of weapons. I've never been to America but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be hard to get my hands on an illegal weapon. Whereas it isn't so straight forward elsewhere - also easier for police/intelligence to track weapons and put a stop to them falling into the wrong hands.

true. but if a person shoots people they say ban the guns. if someone dies from a drug we ban the drug. people die from drink driving and we blame the drink. but when people blow stuff up. and shoot people in the name of religion. people say its nothing to do with religion. how does that work.

is that a real question? Despite what some may have you believe, the point of religion is clearly not to blow or shoot people up. The point of a gun is to shoot, the point of a drug is to get munted. Both objectives come with pretty obvious societal consequences.

Clearly guns serve alternative purposes to murder. Hunting is usually harmless, unless you'rea deer or dick cheney. Of course there are benefits to military/police/special forces having guns. ut I really don't see why everyday people need guns and I suspect there are a disproportionate number of gun owners to deer hunters.

Peccadillo wrote:is that a real question? Despite what some may have you believe, the point of religion is clearly not to blow or shoot people up. The point of a gun is to shoot, the point of a drug is to get munted. Both objectives come with pretty obvious societal consequences.

Clearly guns serve alternative purposes to murder. Hunting is usually harmless, unless you'rea deer or dick cheney. Of course there are benefits to military/police/special forces having guns. ut I really don't see why everyday people need guns and I suspect there are a disproportionate number of gun owners to deer hunters.

I think you miss my point buddy. my point is. if some deaths are linked to drugs we blame the drugs. if some people get shot. we blame the guns. but if people get shot or blown up in the name of religion people say its nothing to do with religion. yet far far far more people have been killed in the name of religion than have ever been killed by guns and drugs. now im not saying drugs are good. or everyone should own a M16. im just saying in the world today. people are dying in the name of religion yet people look the other way.

More people killed in the name of religion than by guns? Well, that sounds like bullshit, but maybe it could be true, if you pit the history of religion aka pretty much the entire history of the human race, against the history of guns, how long they been around exactly?

But fyi, in all the history of wars, the majority with a religious theme had other underlying motives, religion often got mixed into things, but as a % of all wars of history, religion was the driving force of very few of them.

DuringTheWar wrote:More people killed in the name of religion than by guns? Well, that sounds like bullshit, but maybe it could be true, if you pit the history of religion aka pretty much the entire history of the human race, against the history of guns, how long they been around exactly?

But fyi, in all the history of wars, the majority with a religious theme had other underlying motives, religion often got mixed into things, but as a % of all wars of history, religion was the driving force of very few of them.

but to say all the terrorist acts that have gone on in the last 15-20 years have nothing to do with religion is like saying the Nazis were not anti semitic.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

Look at the pie chart at the top of the article.

6% Muslims
7% Jews

That's it. Don't underestimate the effect selective media coverage can have on public perception.

MR BOND wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:More people killed in the name of religion than by guns? Well, that sounds like bullshit, but maybe it could be true, if you pit the history of religion aka pretty much the entire history of the human race, against the history of guns, how long they been around exactly?

But fyi, in all the history of wars, the majority with a religious theme had other underlying motives, religion often got mixed into things, but as a % of all wars of history, religion was the driving force of very few of them.

but to say all the terrorist acts that have gone on in the last 15-20 years have nothing to do with religion is like saying the Nazis were not anti semitic.

Idea's can be dangerous. Religious, non-religious and hey, even anti-religious.

You can't ban ideas and you can barely regulate people sharing their ideas with others.

Lets take Adam Lanza, violent video games were also a topic of conversation surrounding the shooting. Would it be fair to ban violent video games? If you can prove that video games contributed to Lanzas motives/ability to carry out the act to a significant enough level - then yes an argument could be made. But I am unconvinced that the proof would be there.

But I think what is unquestionable is that Lanza would not have been able to kill 20 and injure 6 with such ease without a gun. I doubt he could do so with a kitchen knife, in fact its quite possible he wouldn't have been able to do it at all. For some, its not that hard to shoot someone and look the other way.

Pretty funny clip on gun control by an Aussie comic - Jim Jefferies. Who by the way is a pretty vocal antitheist, if that offers his opinions any sway to your ears:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c

If you can point to one instance where guns in the hands of regular people have brought anything good to society, without me being able to say "yeah but the only reason the gun was a force for good, was because the other guy had a gun for evil" - then I will take my hat off to you sir. I can give you a gazillion for religion.

Cruijf wrote:http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

Look at the pie chart at the top of the article.

6% Muslims
7% Jews

That's it. Don't underestimate the effect selective media coverage can have on public perception.

tbh. im gona call crap on them stats.

No but this comment sounds completely academic, balanced and supported by reliable statistics:

"but to say all the terrorist acts that have gone on in the last 15-20 years have nothing to do with religion is like saying the Nazis were not anti semitic."

Ironic also that your analogy is an example of atrocities carried out against a religious group and not in the name of religion.

Peccadillo wrote:

MR BOND wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:More people killed in the name of religion than by guns? Well, that sounds like bullshit, but maybe it could be true, if you pit the history of religion aka pretty much the entire history of the human race, against the history of guns, how long they been around exactly?

But fyi, in all the history of wars, the majority with a religious theme had other underlying motives, religion often got mixed into things, but as a % of all wars of history, religion was the driving force of very few of them.

but to say all the terrorist acts that have gone on in the last 15-20 years have nothing to do with religion is like saying the Nazis were not anti semitic.

Idea's can be dangerous. Religious, non-religious and hey, even anti-religious.

You can't ban ideas and you can barely regulate people sharing their ideas with others.

Lets take Adam Lanza, violent video games were also a topic of conversation surrounding the shooting. Would it be fair to ban violent video games? If you can prove that video games contributed to Lanzas motives/ability to carry out the act to a significant enough level - then yes an argument could be made. But I am unconvinced that the proof would be there.

But I think what is unquestionable is that Lanza would not have been able to kill 20 and injure 6 with such ease without a gun. I doubt he could do so with a kitchen knife, in fact its quite possible he wouldn't have been able to do it at all. For some, its not that hard to shoot someone and look the other way.

Pretty funny clip on gun control by an Aussie comic - Jim Jefferies. Who by the way is a pretty vocal antitheist, if that offers his opinions any sway to your ears:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c

If you can point to one instance where guns in the hands of regular people have brought anything good to society, without me being able to say "yeah but the only reason the gun was a force for good, was because the other guy had a gun for evil" - then I will take my hat off to you sir. I can give you a gazillion for religion.

my point is guns don't harm anyone until someone is motivated to pick one up and kill with it. so if someone is motivated by religion to pick up a gun and kill. then why blame the tool and not the motive. and again I say. if a few people kill after playing video games people say ban the games. but the biggest motivation in the world today for blowing people up and killing them is religion. yet people say it has nothing to do with religion. now if I invented a new drug tomorrow. and 50 murders were committed by people using it. the world would say its down to the drug. its like this mate. if a person is high on drugs and kills. its down to the drugs. if a person gets drunk and kills its down to the drink. if the world is at war with terrorist that kill in the name of religion then people say it has nothing to do with religion. total cop out imo.

Peccadillo wrote:No but this comment sounds completely academic, balanced and supported by reliable statistics:

"but to say all the terrorist acts that have gone on in the last 15-20 years have nothing to do with religion is like saying the Nazis were not anti semitic."

Ironic also that your analogy is an example of atrocities carried out against a religious group and not in the name of religion.

my point was. the Nazis were anti semitic. the same as the terrorist acts of today are for most parts religios motivated.

It's a funny example to be honest because I highly doubt the main reason behind Hitler doing what he did was his passionate hate for Jews. It was a convenient tool he used at the time for the same reason terrorists today use religion (the few that do): it's convenient.

And I don't know what to say to your other post mate. These aren't numbers I pulled out of thin air, this is a study done by the FBI. You might as well call BS on the moon landing and 9/11 while you're at it...

Cruijf wrote:It's a funny example to be honest because I highly doubt the main reason behind Hitler doing what he did was his passionate hate for Jews. It was a convenient tool he used at the time for the same reason terrorists today use religion (the few that do): it's convenient.

And I don't know what to say to your other post mate. These aren't numbers I pulled out of thin air, this is a study done by the FBI. You might as well call BS on the moon landing and 9/11 while you're at it...

the problem with your stats are thay only include the USA. try adding the rest of the world to them stats and see what it throws up. and hitler hated the jews because he said thay made all the money in Germany. and in ww1 thay didn't fight for the country. he classed them as leaches.

I am still dumbfounded how you can't see the irony in you saying that denying all violent terrorism in the last 20 years is religiously motivated is akin to holocaust denial, a non-religious based genocide of a religious/cultural group.

Please tell me you get it? Bar the 20 years thing (god knows why you picked that number), you have successfully discredited your own argument within a sentence.

Peccadillo wrote:
I am still dumbfounded how you can't see the irony in you saying that denying all violent terrorism in the last 20 years is religiously motivated is akin to holocaust denial, a non-religious based genocide of a religious/cultural group.

Please tell me you get it? Bar the 20 years thing (god knows why you picked that number), you have successfully discredited your own argument within a sentence.

my point was this. it would be stupid to say anti semitisom had nothing to do with the things the Nazis did. the same as it would be stupid to say its nothing to do with religion in the world of terrorisom we see today.

MR BOND wrote:

Peccadillo wrote:

MR BOND wrote:

but to say all the terrorist acts that have gone on in the last 15-20 years have nothing to do with religion is like saying the Nazis were not anti semitic.

Idea's can be dangerous. Religious, non-religious and hey, even anti-religious.

You can't ban ideas and you can barely regulate people sharing their ideas with others.

Lets take Adam Lanza, violent video games were also a topic of conversation surrounding the shooting. Would it be fair to ban violent video games? If you can prove that video games contributed to Lanzas motives/ability to carry out the act to a significant enough level - then yes an argument could be made. But I am unconvinced that the proof would be there.

But I think what is unquestionable is that Lanza would not have been able to kill 20 and injure 6 with such ease without a gun. I doubt he could do so with a kitchen knife, in fact its quite possible he wouldn't have been able to do it at all. For some, its not that hard to shoot someone and look the other way.

Pretty funny clip on gun control by an Aussie comic - Jim Jefferies. Who by the way is a pretty vocal antitheist, if that offers his opinions any sway to your ears:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c

If you can point to one instance where guns in the hands of regular people have brought anything good to society, without me being able to say "yeah but the only reason the gun was a force for good, was because the other guy had a gun for evil" - then I will take my hat off to you sir. I can give you a gazillion for religion.

my point is guns don't harm anyone until someone is motivated to pick one up and kill with it. so if someone is motivated by religion to pick up a gun and kill. then why blame the tool and not the motive. and again I say. if a few people kill after playing video games people say ban the games. but the biggest motivation in the world today for blowing people up and killing them is religion. yet people say it has nothing to do with religion. now if I invented a new drug tomorrow. and 50 murders were committed by people using it. the world would say its down to the drug. its like this mate. if a person is high on drugs and kills. its down to the drugs. if a person gets drunk and kills its down to the drink. if the world is at war with terrorist that kill in the name of religion then people say it has nothing to do with religion. total cop out imo.

I reiterate... ideas can be dangerous. religious or non-religious. Despite what you're attempting to say, most violent acts are NOT carried out in the name of religious institutions or as a result of a belief in a deity. We will agree however, that they are usually carried out in the name of an idea.

You're looking at this completely the wrong way and your posts are riddled with contradictions. Such as this:-

"then why blame the tool and not the motive. and again I say. if a few people kill after playing video games people say ban the games."

Again... almost within the same sentence. By this you are suggest that banning violent video games would not do anything to prevent massacres/shootings. But the video game is not the tool, it is suggesting that it may be a catalyst - much like religion can be in religious acts of terrorism.

You can't ban ideas and you can't ban the catalyst for ideas (like video games or religion) - unless you have absolute proof that they/it motivates people to carry out crimes. It would be beneficial however to ban that tool, which serves a singular purpose and gives an individual the ability to carry out that crime.

MR BOND wrote:

Peccadillo wrote:
I am still dumbfounded how you can't see the irony in you saying that denying all violent terrorism in the last 20 years is religiously motivated is akin to holocaust denial, a non-religious based genocide of a religious/cultural group.

Please tell me you get it? Bar the 20 years thing (god knows why you picked that number), you have successfully discredited your own argument within a sentence.

my point was this. it would be stupid to say anti semitisom had nothing to do with the things the Nazis did. the same as it would be stupid to say its nothing to do with religion in the world of terrorisom we see today.

Your analogy made sense as an analogy to get your opinion across that disagreeing with your statement is akin to disagreeing with another cold hard fact - I never said it didn't - it was just a laughably ironic one to choose because it contradicted the point you were trying to make (with exception to the fact the holocaust was not within the last 20 years).

Peccadillo wrote:

MR BOND wrote:

Peccadillo wrote:


Idea's can be dangerous. Religious, non-religious and hey, even anti-religious.

You can't ban ideas and you can barely regulate people sharing their ideas with others.

Lets take Adam Lanza, violent video games were also a topic of conversation surrounding the shooting. Would it be fair to ban violent video games? If you can prove that video games contributed to Lanzas motives/ability to carry out the act to a significant enough level - then yes an argument could be made. But I am unconvinced that the proof would be there.

But I think what is unquestionable is that Lanza would not have been able to kill 20 and injure 6 with such ease without a gun. I doubt he could do so with a kitchen knife, in fact its quite possible he wouldn't have been able to do it at all. For some, its not that hard to shoot someone and look the other way.

Pretty funny clip on gun control by an Aussie comic - Jim Jefferies. Who by the way is a pretty vocal antitheist, if that offers his opinions any sway to your ears:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c

If you can point to one instance where guns in the hands of regular people have brought anything good to society, without me being able to say "yeah but the only reason the gun was a force for good, was because the other guy had a gun for evil" - then I will take my hat off to you sir. I can give you a gazillion for religion.

my point is guns don't harm anyone until someone is motivated to pick one up and kill with it. so if someone is motivated by religion to pick up a gun and kill. then why blame the tool and not the motive. and again I say. if a few people kill after playing video games people say ban the games. but the biggest motivation in the world today for blowing people up and killing them is religion. yet people say it has nothing to do with religion. now if I invented a new drug tomorrow. and 50 murders were committed by people using it. the world would say its down to the drug. its like this mate. if a person is high on drugs and kills. its down to the drugs. if a person gets drunk and kills its down to the drink. if the world is at war with terrorist that kill in the name of religion then people say it has nothing to do with religion. total cop out imo.

I reiterate... ideas can be dangerous. religious or non-religious. Despite what you're attempting to say, most violent acts are NOT carried out in the name of religious institutions or as a result of a belief in a deity. We will agree however, that they are usually carried out in the name of an idea.

You're looking at this completely the wrong way and your posts are riddled with contradictions. Such as this:-

"then why blame the tool and not the motive. and again I say. if a few people kill after playing video games people say ban the games."

Again... almost within the same sentence. By this you are suggest that banning violent video games would not do anything to prevent massacres/shootings. But the video game is not the tool, it is suggesting that it may be a catalyst - much like religion can be in religious acts of terrorism.

I didn't say most violent acts are carried out by religios people. I said when violent acts are carried out in the name of religion people should acknowledge that. im not suggesting we should ban anything. but if a man picks up a gun and shoots 20 people people say ban the gun and it will stop that kind of thing. but when thousends of people get killed in the name of religion people say religion has nothing to do with it. but the truth is religion brain washes people. a gun cant do that. so the point is people. are more worred about the tool for killing. than thay are the motive.

Peccadillo wrote:

MR BOND wrote:

Peccadillo wrote:
I am still dumbfounded how you can't see the irony in you saying that denying all violent terrorism in the last 20 years is religiously motivated is akin to holocaust denial, a non-religious based genocide of a religious/cultural group.

Please tell me you get it? Bar the 20 years thing (god knows why you picked that number), you have successfully discredited your own argument within a sentence.

my point was this. it would be stupid to say anti semitisom had nothing to do with the things the Nazis did. the same as it would be stupid to say its nothing to do with religion in the world of terrorisom we see today.

Your analogy made sense as an analogy to get your opinion across that disagreeing with your statement is akin to disagreeing with another cold hard fact - I never said it didn't - it was just a laughably ironic one to choose because it contradicted the point you were trying to make (with exception to the fact the holocaust was not within the last 20 years).

but would you agree that most of the violent problems in the world today are mostly religios bassed.

MR BOND wrote:

Peccadillo wrote:

MR BOND wrote:
my point was this. it would be stupid to say anti semitisom had nothing to do with the things the Nazis did. the same as it would be stupid to say its nothing to do with religion in the world of terrorisom we see today.

Your analogy made sense as an analogy to get your opinion across that disagreeing with your statement is akin to disagreeing with another cold hard fact - I never said it didn't - it was just a laughably ironic one to choose because it contradicted the point you were trying to make (with exception to the fact the holocaust was not within the last 20 years).

but would you agree that most of the violent problems in the world today are mostly religios bassed.

For the avoidance of doubt. No.

Religion often gets tied into conflict because religion historically makes up such a large part of culture and each "tribe" often adopts a slightly different culture.

I'll give you an example.

Anders Breivik carried out the largest terrorist attack in Europe in the last 10 years.

Did religion in any way influence the attack? In a way and on the surface, arguably. It stemmed from a delusional fear of the "Islamification" of Europe and the perceived threat that brought to European Judeo-Christian culture/values.

Was it motivated by a belief in god or religion? No - clearly not. Anders Breivik refers to himself as a "Christian-Agnostic/Atheist". He claims to be a Christian by culture only.

He didn't do it because God told him to do it in his mind. He didn't do it because he read religious scripture that convinced him to do it.
But you will no doubt try to convince me that this too was a form of religious terrorism?

Peccadillo wrote:

MR BOND wrote:

Peccadillo wrote:


Your analogy made sense as an analogy to get your opinion across that disagreeing with your statement is akin to disagreeing with another cold hard fact - I never said it didn't - it was just a laughably ironic one to choose because it contradicted the point you were trying to make (with exception to the fact the holocaust was not within the last 20 years).

but would you agree that most of the violent problems in the world today are mostly religios bassed.

For the avoidance of doubt. No.

Religion often gets tied into conflict because religion historically makes up such a large part of culture and each "tribe" often adopts a slightly different culture.

I'll give you an example.

Anders Breivik carried out the largest terrorist attack in Europe in the last 10 years.

Did religion in any way influence the attack? In a way and on the surface, arguably. It stemmed from a delusional fear of the "Islamification" of Europe and the perceived threat that brought to European Judeo-Christian culture/values.

Was it motivated by a belief in god or religion? No - clearly not. Anders Breivik refers to himself as a "Christian-Agnostic/Atheist". He claims to be a Christian by culture only.

He didn't do it because God told him to do it in his mind. He didn't do it because he read religious scripture that convinced him to do it.
But you will no doubt try to convince me that this too was a form of religious terrorism?

I take your anders breivik and raise you IS.

9/11. 7/7.madrid bombing. bali bombing. lee rigby. paris attack. that's without all the wars and beheadings in the middle east.  how many holy wars are being fought all over the world today. nearly every day we see news that people are getting blown up and killed. but hey. religion has nothing to do with it.

this has officially been declared a No Spin Zone!