We'd Be Better Off Without Religion

Hitler was an atheist! Who said that? Where did you get your information from, huh??? Oh my ...
The great Christian nations got us involved in indigenous genocide against Native Anmericans, they also got us involved in colonialism with all the attendant atrocities and genocide, they also got us involved in WWI and WWII with all the millions of corpses that came with that.

 

Nope Zionist jews got us into both wars, may want to look up hertzl and ben gurion.
The evil HItler was the first to provide people with welfare! Clearly evil!
Hitler was brought up Christian, even went to the monastery.
He was a genius in school and always came in at the top of his classes.
There were over 150,000 jews, many high ranking in his army!
May want to take a peek at what your history teachers just sort of forgot to teach ya

Roosevelt+Stalin+Churchill+Hitler; The greatest story never told!

There is a lot history just happened to forget to tell us

 

You are a spammer and should not be allowed to continue your trolling.

 

There was no reason for anyone to bring up Hitler.
So if there is trolling its all on k9 and you pal.
Stop posting falsehoods, and disinformation, then I wont be compelled to correct you peeps!

Hitler was raised a Christian.

In 1897/98, Adolf Hitler lived in the town of Lambach with his parents and attended the monastery school,
Lambach Abbey - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Lambach_Abbey


Atheists didnt have monasteries until just recently when a couple comedians established the first atheist church

 

the rest of these guys were atheists.

 

hitchens gave us nothing new, SSDD
same ancient arguments regurgitated.
He condemns deity based religion in favor of his antideity based religion offering no basis in 'fact'.
His atheist religion is better than others deity based religions.


Review
Russia’s Journey from Orthodoxy to Atheism, and Back Again
By Gene Zubovich | October 16, 2018


(Getty/Corbis/VCG/Peter Turnley) The view from Red Square at twilight: St. Basil’s Cathedral (right) and Savior’s Tower on the Kremlin walls.

A Sacred Space is Never Empty: A History of Soviet Atheism
By Victoria Smolkin
Princeton University Press, 2018


In Russia, there is a religious revival happening. Orthodox Christianity is thriving after enduring a 70-year period of atheistic Soviet rule. In 1991, just after the collapse of the USSR, about two-thirds of Russians claimed no religious affiliation. Today, 71 percent of Russians identify as Orthodox. One can now see priests giving sermons on television, encounter religious processions in St. Petersburg, and watch citizens lining up for holy water in Moscow. Even Moscow’s Darwin museum features a Christmas tree during the holidays. President Vladimir Putin has encouraged this revival and he has also benefited from it, both at home and abroad. Last year, he explained that Russia’s intervention in the Syrian civil war was designed to protect Christians from the Islamic State. Not only has the Orthodox Church supported this “holy war” but so have some American evangelicals, who are likewise concerned about Christians in the Middle East and praise Putin’s socially conservative policies.

https://religionandpolitics.org/2018/10/16/russias-journey-from-orthodoxy-to-atheism-and-back-again/

So much for hitchensonism.

Looks to me like religion unites people?

Not sure where you get the notion religion divides people?

 

If those guys were atheists............that is less relevant than the fact they were mentally disordered...........and their illnesses........(delsuios) were the basis is for much of the horror they created.

Re: topic title........... Would say that "religion" might be less relevant as time goes by and we know more about ourselves, the universe and the world we live in. But it seems that religion will be a factor for many who follow certain beliefs as opposed to science.........and facts In many ways religious beliefs hold a society back from progressing and changing for the better based on reality and science. and humanitarian principles.

Religion tends to foster an indoctrination........... that is not based on reality.........but a lot of myths .

One does not need religion to be kind, compassionate, understanding, caring , and interested in doing what is best for society and oneself for a quality life. One does not need religion to strive to be the best one can be

One does not need religion to know that being cruel, doing harm or any kind........physical or verbal.......... is counterproductive

 

Of course regions divide peple.......... There have been enough religious wars to verify that.

and don't think I would look to Russia as an example for anything..........

Most religions are not forward thinking..........but stalled in past ideologies.

 

an over simplified definition of religion is your basic value system.

Your 'value' system that cruelty is wrong IS your religion.

Use science to prove love, hate, right, wrong, you cant these things cannot be evaluated by science, that is all under the religion umbrella

 

nikola tesla was the son of a serbian priest and he single handedly kicked off the industrial revolution with his brilliant inventions and predicted the time of our using electricity is his time. (they ignored him because of gas engines), and here we are electric cars as predicted by the priests kid.

Russia is proof that religion binds!

The problem you are complaining about is that religion takes a position on an issue and you simply dont like the position that diety worshipers take.

You want the world to take/accept your positions. Atheists believe they are superior to theists.

 

Nope........... what I state is just my opinion............nothing more , nothing less. A personal philosophy is just that.....PERSONAL...............and not to be imposed on anyone else. by any group. Could care less what folks believe in.....as that is their business. Yes.......region does bind........as in fosters group think......a kind of mob mentality.

But if that is what folks choose.........fine........ but it is not for everyone .......Some of us prefer to be analytical, , questioning, and independent thinkers.

Religious beliefs and customs make for great academic and philosophical discussions..........

 

No...... human feelings , motives, the issue of ethics is not religion.........it is human psychology & behavior

Religion is a belief in some ultra invisible entity called God.and all that goes with spirituality.

The word religion can be used in other ways.........and usually deals with a person philosophy about something........eg: Painting is his "religion"

 

Religion fosters tribalism. Tribalism binds the ingroup and creates animosity and division against the outgroup. Religion is only one way to do this, but probably the easiest and most powerful way.

 

Yes. And a single belief or lack of one is not a religion. Theism and atheism are not religions, but religions are either theist (ie, Christianity) or atheist (ie, Buddhism).

 

I never said anything but they are nuts

 

Sort of like the region known as 'israel' doesnt have the same group think as 'iran'.

No folks that choose Christianity is not fine with atheists by any stretch of the imagination.

Just look at some of the derogatory things atheists have said about them!

There are some very complex religions, mine is one of them, its nonetheless a religion.

Nothing is a religion until you act upon it.

Yes, painting is an action and its a bit of a stretch but Im sure there are people intelligent enough to use painting to create a religion.

Lets see, beliefs foster religion, people that have the same beliefs foster groups, groups hang together, these groups that hang together foster tribalism.

Hmm sounds like it works exactly like the principle of gravity where mass attracts mass to form a larger mass. Not a real difficult concept.

Foolishness, atheism defines a group of beliefs, unless we are back to the brain dead being atheists which of course is irrational as proven several times over in my thread.

 

Science has become the the new religion. I trust science. I don't trust scientists, and will hold any claim they make to scrutiny. Scientists are human and are subject to the very same biases, beliefs, fears, stresses, and needs as the average person. If every scientist were like Spock on Star Trek, then I'd certainly take them more seriously.

Scientists have been instrumental in delaying and even crushing the truth (in mainstream circles) regarding all aspects of the paranormal, ESP & progressive consciousness research, UFO's/aliens & ancient aliens/ancient technologies, human origins, the nature of Reality, natural/alternative/non-toxic & ancient medicines/therapies, virus & germ theory pseudoscience, vaccine toxicity & pseudoscience, medical drugs & conventional medical treatments pseudoscience & deaths, the health risks of electric fields & wireless radiation, and even some of the more reliable conspiracy research (eg, 9/11, moon landing, JFK/other notable assassinations, Roswell incident, etc.).

This isn't a denouncement of the practical/technological achievements of engineers, physicists, chemists & mathematicians. It's only when they venture beyond the scope of their practical training & knowledge, with the pretense that their academic credentials & reputation alone justifies the validity of their personal biases, beliefs, claims, and opinions."

With that said, a good illustration of the unreliability of our sacred cows has been voiced by the very people who oversaw them. For example --- medical journals:

***
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD

***
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

“Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness,” writes Horton.


“This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more,” comments Arjun Walia on Collective Evolution. “It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t ‘peer-reviewed’ and doesn’t appear in a ‘credible’ medical journal, but as we can see, ‘peer-reviewed’ doesn’t really mean much anymore.”
- Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet

***
“Most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense”. - Dr. Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ (1991 and 2004)

***
Why Most Published Research Findings are False, by Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Absolutely.

 

A religion is not a set of values. It may INCLUDE one but a religion requires an object of vénération.

 

What it is, is a denouncement of the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses or the scientific method. Many on your list have not born any fruit and are discarded despite some emotional attachments. Science is man's curiosity to know and understand the real world and man's version of what that reality is filtered through human eyes which may not always be 20/20, but usually there is eventual self correction through the scientific method.
Your complaints sound Hitchensian.

 

No, I'm merely exposing the tendency of scientists to allow personal biases, academic indoctrination, peer pressure, and self-preservation (of career/pocketbook/reputation) to influence their judgment of subject matter they have no education/background or training in. Because of their status, reputation, credentials, and authoritative standing, this results in an institutionalized suppression of subject matter that lies beyond the confines of the restrictive scientific method.

Modern science excels at engineering/technology & trauma medicine because this is where the scientific method works best. Outside of this field, however, scientists are as clueless about the nature of Reality & consciousness as the average person. Still, there are plenty of scientists who are quietly applying their training & astuteness for detail in an attempt to study fields of interest that cannot easily be put into a scientific box.

You should also be aware that there are other means of acquiring knowledge that do not require the laborious scientific method or even the application of logic. As an example, Prof. Wade Davis, an anthropologist, during his visitations with various indigenous Amazonian tribes, inquired as to methods used by its members in acquiring their essential medicines. The reply he received was unexpected:

There is a great example in the talk below of an amazonian shaman who makes a powerful psychoactive preparation of Ayahuasca, from a vine. Tryptamines are the active component and are similar to tryptophan (our famous amino acid/ end product inhibition example). They act as neurotransmitters and include serotonin, which regulated mood. It is broken down by enzymes bound to the plasma membrane of cells in the digestive tract called monoamine oxidase (MAO), so can’t be taken orally. The amazing thing is the shaman uses a preparation from another plant that inhibits this enzyme, so that the potion can be ingested and is effective. This is amazing knowledge, gleaned from a totally alternative scientific method to the one we are used to, and demonstrates an advanced naturalistic intelligence.


When he asked how they knew this and were able to combine these two extracts from the thousands available, they answered “The plants talk to us.” [SOURCE]

You may also watch Wade Davis in this brilliant TED talk video where he talks about this and other abilities these indigenous people have. [VIDEO LINK]

You may also be interested in George Washington Carver, an intriguing man who communicated telepathically with plants and used this ability to develop hundreds of chemical compounds (many from the peanut plant).

Not sure what you mean by "fruit". If you mean they lack scientific credence & evidence, you're wrong. Not to mention, many progressive scientists have been actively studying every item on the list.

As long as the scientific method is used where it works, there's no problem. But where it fails to provide the necessary data for phenomenon that cannot be denied (but is scientifically unexplained), other methods should be employed so that the progression of knowledge is not held back. Right now, mainstream science is holding us back because most people in the world view authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.

 

On the upward path towards enlightenment, the aggregate consciousness in man passes through stages.

As the aggregate consciousness advances over millennia, stages fall away like dead leaves from a tree, but they are necessary at their various junctures, just as a cocoon is necessary for a caterpillar to become a butterfly.

You can't really look at it from a level of polemics, like Hitchens does, in my view.

What Hitchens attempts to do, and it is admirable, is try to persuade those teetering one way or the other to consider his viewpoint and reach a meeting of mind with him that religion is not really needed, that promises of 'eternal life after death' is magical thinking, and that religion, overall, amounts to nothing more than 'opium for the masses' ( quoting Karl Marx, and I think he was correct on that point ). So, in essence, Hitchen's serves man for those who are at that stage for the next level of advancement in consciousness and just need a nudge, he is that nudge. Hitchens is the quintessential gadfly on the horse's ass of society. A veritable Socrates, he is.

 

For the most part. Religion are just brainwashing.
But some do offer good secular values.

 

It sounds more like you are disappointed in science not pursuing fringe claims that may have subjective evidence but no objective evidence. Subjective evidence may be good to instigate an investigation but if there is no objective evidence there is no collection of data through observation and experiment, It is beyond science....like religion. There may be some things that science thinks is a crock of schitt but it may turn out we do not currently have the means to gather objective evidence like the presence of bacteria before microscopes. Science eventually self corrects. In the 19th Century, science looked into ectoplasm and faeries. We have better tools now and there still isn't ectoplasm or faery evidence and I suspect that will happen to some of the items on your list.

As to "the plants talk to us", the indigenous person could be speaking in metaphor, or how his statement was interpreted into English or how he communicates his vast knowledge of plants. He is probably the recipient of hundreds or maybe thousands of years of horticulture knowledge and how they interact with each other, good plants, bad plants, what their personalities are like, which make medicine....There is no reason to think they possess some unknown superhuman powers, which brings me to the George Washington Carver statement.

 

"wed-be-better-off-without-religion"

Nope, religion gives us objective moral grounding. Atheism gives us nothing but ever-changing ethics eventually leading to nihilism.

 

Definitely true. Secular morality is better, and there's plenty to fight over without bringing competing imaginary friends into the mix.