Are we speaking of religion here? Or, just the human predicament in general? I don’t think it would be possible to ever get rid of strife.
I don’t know, what’s the big deal? It’s simply nature that we’ll fight over the things that are most important to us. Everyone considers it some great tragedy for people to die in the name of God. Is it really so tragic compared to all the people who have died in the name of kingdom’s territory, or some ruler’s pride, or the ownership of some natural resource like oil?
Simply put, if it’s such a shame to fight a war over religion, what would you prefer our wars to be about?
Personally I would prefer a war over natural resources, its a war that can actually end.
Or a war against evil aliens… I mean, that’d be cool.
Anyway, I think that what really causes these conficts is that these people just don’t realise religion is pointless. I mean, logically, if there was no religion there would be no religious wars right?
If that statement offends anybody that with any particular religion, then think about this; Does it offend you more that I said your religion is pointless, or would it offend you more if I killed you because I think your religion is wrong?
Agreed
Of course. At the same time, I could argue that if everybody just accepted my particular flavor of Christianity, there would also be no religious wars. All you're saying is "Disagreement would cease if everybody agreed with me". No kidding. Such is the motivation of every would-be world conqueror.
Atheism isn't 'special', it's just one more competing faction.
I don’t know/respect you enough to be offended by what you say yet, personally. If you mean to point out that calling other people’s religions pointless is preferable to killing them over it, then I’d have to agree. But then, we do set our own hurdles in life.
The words I used were the words I meant, saying it like that is just misinterpretation. Anyway, I’d prefer it if “disagreement would cease if everybody agreed with each other.”
Well, let’s take this carefully then. You say what you want is for religious disagreements to cease, and for everybody to come to agree with each other. If that’s true, your most rational, most ethical step is to immediately join up with whatever religion currently has the greatest world-wide membership, and strive to convince yourself of all their creeds, thus bringing us one step closer to global concensus. Yes, no?
I said I’d prefer it, however being the rational person I am I realised long ago people will never totally get along, they’re too stupid.
It would probably be one of the fastest methods of gaining global concensus, if it worked. But unfortunatly there will always be those, even if they did try their hardest, that could never accept the notion of a God.
To me, it would seem more rational if their was no religion, especially when confronted with all the atrocites that religious people have commited. There doesn’t seem to have been or be any beneficial attributes to any religion at all, excepting Buddhism perhaps. So sorry no, I disagree.
This is exactly why I have come to the conclusion that organized religion isn’t healthy. I think spirituality is essential. I believe in God. I pray. I meditate. I revere. I live by the Golden Rule written by Jesus of Nazareth. I read the Tao and find great wisdom in it. I love unconditionally. I help my neighbor. I give free piano lessons to those who can’t afford it. I live and let live. l pray and let pray. I pray and let not pray.
Organized religion has turned my heart away from organized religion. I will take my chances at the Pearly Gates because I have it covered. It is about LOVE AND TOLERANCE.
It is not about fighting.
hey my 2nd msg YAY
i dont agree with what ur pinning on religion, most the “atrocities” your talking about werent done by religious people because if you actually read about there religion you would find that its not ok to just kill people well in most anyway, those people just want to find something to justify what there doing, religioin itself is a nice concept but humanity isnt able to follow the “right” things to do, thus if there is a god why the hell did he make us
FMSC
There is no war between the various religions. Religion is not important enough for people to fight about and if it did become important collectively, it would reveal the foolishness of the fighting.
People in general have no interest in the essence of religion but instead an interest in prestige. Now prestige almost by definition requires fighting for otherwise the power it suggests is not respected or feared whichever the case may be.
So the call of prestige necessitates changing the essence of religion into something else to further the desire for prestige. After all, what could be more prestigious then having God on your side?
All religion is theoretically is an orgnization of people dedicated with the help of one another to actualize the essence of the teaching. Struggling with self deception is better with the help of group efforts. This is a church in the real sense. Unless someone is like a SimoneWeil type, most individual efforts will just end up in harmless la la land or change into their opposite.
But the struggle with self deception valued by religion isn’t really wanted. What is wanted is how to get the most out of self deception which creates prestige. So the experts then band together to change the religion to suit this purpose. Naturally the clash of those with prestige must result in what is assumed to be religious conflict but is in reality only clashes of differing manifestations of prestigious self deception.
You talk bull.
Well guess what? They do it anyway.
No, they live in fear, thinking that if they don’t do what their imaginary God tells them they’ll be punished.
No it isn’t, hence why this very topic exists.
So how do you explain charity and kindness then?
Lets see hear radical muslim leaders calling for suicide bombers to kill the “infidels”, former popes calling crusades to retake the holy land, and what was it, a 20,000 person mass suicide from the aztecs. I guess what I’m trying to say is, religion is known for atrocities, eh?
Yes, but then who would you have to look down your nose upon? I suspect things would get awfully boring then. 
Joe Doe
They, but not you. You at least, could do your part and join whatever religion is in the majority in your area. The fewer dissenters there are, the small the conflicts will be. There is another thread nearby devoted to exploring which religion is in the majority, if you aren’t sure which to sign up for.
They could pretend. Sure, they might be unhappy, but as long as they didn’t start any wars or coups over it, we’d achieve balance.
Well, the atrocities all occur when people disagree about religious ideas, and those in power do something about it. That's the very problem we're trying to solve- if everybody was the same religious persuasion (including atheism, to be generous), obviously this couldn't occur. If there are no benefits to religion, there are certainly no benefits to [i]atheism[/i], and the goal here is unity. So what is it you're disagreeing with? That religion is a good thing? I [i]know [/i]you disagree with that, the point here is for you to overcome your disagreements in the interest of selflessness, give up who you are, and become a Christian (even if you hate Christianity) to further the goal of world peace.
I still don't see a good reason not to do this coming from you.
Bessy
If it wasn't for people willing to fight at some point in history, you would have never heard of Jesus, the Tao, the Golden Rule, or any of that stuff. I agree with you that religious teachings aren't about fighting. But we're humans, living in a world full of other humans and, well, you know how we get sometimes.
Because God is sadistic, ha ha! … Or, so others keep telling me.
It’s easy to be loving and tolerant with those who agree with you, but what about the guy with the bomb strapped to his waist? Will you tolerate him and invite him in for a cup of tea?
I see no evidence that those who promote “love and tolerance” as their religion, are any more loving or tolerant than those they claim are unloving and intolerant. It’s just another means of defining your preferred belief system and theological friends. Those on the outside of the group remain unloved and untolerated if they don’t accept the views of those on the inside. Just like every other religious group and “organized religion”.
Hi Ned
You’re one of the very few around here that seem aware of this. All this preaching means very little. I’ll post an old Armenian classic tale, a favorite of mine, that suggests we are as we are and all the platitudes won’t change it since we are unaware of what we are now.
Religious zealots… another thread, another day. All religions have their crazy people. I speak to the mainstream. I would invite most people in most religions for a cup of tea. Yes, I WOULD, Ned! I am having quiche tomorrow… wanna come by?
Sara 