Visa:
you're missing my point- i'm not saying that religion causes all crimes and conflicts, I'm pointing out that there would be fewer conflicts if there were no religion.
I'm not saying that you said religion causes all crimes and conflict, but perhaps it seems to me that you are attributing a disportionately large amount of crimes and conflicts to religion.
I never advocated "getting rid of people who are different"- this is a concept that religious people are more familiar with, because the presence and permeation of one faith threatens the existence of another. As far as I know, only religious people have embarked on crusades to kill people of other religions. I've never heard of an atheist suicide bomber.
Exactly, so doesnt that shows the idea of approaching "100%" similarity a dangerous one? This violent consequence happens not just exclusively to religious conflicts. People kill each other over differences in race, political belief, economic status. Well, in fact there is an infinitely large amount of real and perceived differences which can cause men can go to war. Religion is just the tip of the iceberg of these differences. Since there is no end to the differences, then there will be no end to the conflicts.
Instead, mankind should accept the differences and look past their differences. Well, in general, post 9/11 mainstream religions have begun to do that.Perhaps that makes it even more important for religion to exist in today's society, to lead by example in loving thy neighbours despite the differences.
is that your personal opinion or is that a fact? If its a fact, could you back it up with concrete evidence?
Google or Wiki "The God Delusion"- Richard Dawkins sums it up with brilliant logical arguments and concrete evidence.
According the wiki, he does not in anyway suggest that the society will be better of without religion. Furthermore, his arguments are based on hypotheses which are untestable.
Perhaps if you have the book, you could quote some passages which says that?
But anyway, in order to qualify such statements as fact, you need to be able to quantify all the loss and gain accrued to the society as a result of religion in an OBJECTIVE manner. Because a lot of this loss and gain is subjective, the statement "society will be better of without religion" is at best an opinion.
The political differences are based on territorial disputes, which in turn are built on religious ones. If religious differences never existed, the Holocaust would not have had to take place, Zionism would not have been a reasonable response, Palestinians would not have been displaced from their homes, and there would be no problem.
i think it is too simplistic and to a large extent incorrect to attribute both the holocaust and the middle east problem to religious differences.
The growth of Islamic fundamentalism can traced from the decline of the ottoman empire, hence the weakening of central authority within the middle east, even before there exist any form of foreign encroachment on religion.
Holocaust - religious differences?. so does it mean that if you're an atheist jew or even a jew who believes in the Pagan faith, you'll be safe from persecution?
but well of course there are many other better examples in which religious difference was the trigger, but then again, can you argue that ABSOLUTELY nothing good came out from such conflicts?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
well. going by the same logic, would you agree that while religion is perhaps 'poison' to you, it is indeed 'meat' for many others?
just like the thread "Malaysia tak boleh".
