NationStates

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Religion has succeeded in smearing all humanity as hopelessly evil without it. You have prominent advocates of Christianity blaming atheism for the actions of some of the 20th century's worst mass murderers, as if belief in a God whose supposed edicts aren't really clearly stated would've stopped them.

Meanwhile in the real world, the correlation is clear.

(Image)

(Image)

Whatever "sins" religion is really meant to combat, violence isn't one against which it is particularly effective, leaving one to wonder about the moral priorities of those in charge.

We see signs of it, though, in the Catholic church's opposition to condom use in Africa, spreading AIDS even further. You could argue it's not their fault people failed to adhere to monogamy, right? But continued opposition seems to reflect either willfull ignorance or a prioritization of monogamy over human lives. (Or possibly, on the part of the church hierarchy, "higher Catholic birthrates so that Catholic parents who raise their kids Catholic outbreed everyone else.")

Then there's diseases that aren't known to be transmitted sexually, like Parkinson's or diabetes or cancer. Embryonic stem cell research could've cured them if not for religion holding it back.

Is there any hope of a lawsuit against religion for all the deaths it has caused? Would we be able to get them on slander, reckless endangerment, or both and more?

How broad or sweeping could it be amongst plaintiffs? Would it has to be anyone who currently has an illness ESCR could've cured, or any disease attributable to condom opposition in Africa? Could it be all humanity, since any one of us could end up with something ESCR could've cured?

How broad or sweeping could it be amongst defendants? Would it have to target individuals within individual denominations who made these judgment calls, or could "progressive" Christians be indicted as accomplices in this by legitimizing religion's continued miserable existence in the eyes of popular opinion, to whatever extent popular opinion isn't on the same page as the church?

Don't get me wrong, to me the most beautiful image is abortion patients, LGBTQ activists, stem cell patients, HIV patients, and everyone else who's been screwed over by religion dancing in unison on its ashes. But in the name of pragmatism, would a lawsuit seeking compensation for this be a good way to reimburse those screwed over?

Rojava Free State wrote:Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your full of shit" and abandons the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

Hakons wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your full of shit" and abandons the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

What a profoundly empty, dead world-view to have. Spirituality is an aspect of the human condition. It's never going away, and trying to end it makes a mockery of the word "progress." If anything, posts like this demonstrate what happens when people ignore an entire aspect of humanity and lack spirituality.

Rojava Free State wrote:Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont [sic] want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your [sic] full of shit" and abandons [sic] the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

State of Turelisa wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont [sic] want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your [sic] full of shit" and abandons [sic] the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

Religion isn't the 'opiate of the masses'. Mass entertainment, crass consumerism, sexual intercourse divorced from love, and tobacco and alcohol, the mass-produced members of the class of opioid receptors, are all both symptom and cause of 'the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.'

(The words in italic belong to the rest of Marks' quote in which you introduced your post.)

Religion enables us to have faith, gives us hope, and accords us charity.

State of Turelisa wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont [sic] want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your [sic] full of shit" and abandons [sic] the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

Religion isn't the 'opiate of the masses'. Mass entertainment, crass consumerism, sexual intercourse divorced from love, and tobacco and alcohol, the legal mass-produced members of the class of opioid receptors, are all both symptom and cause of 'the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.'

(The words in italic belong to the rest of Marks' quote in which you introduced your post.)

Religion enables us to have faith, gives us hope, and accords us charity.

Hakons wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your full of shit" and abandons the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

What a profoundly empty, dead world-view to have. Spirituality is an aspect of the human condition. It's never going away, and trying to end it makes a mockery of the word "progress." If anything, posts like this demonstrate what happens when people ignore an entire aspect of humanity and lack spirituality.

State of Turelisa wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont [sic] want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your [sic] full of shit" and abandons [sic] the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

Religion isn't the 'opiate of the masses'. Mass entertainment, crass consumerism, sexual intercourse divorced from love, and tobacco and alcohol, the mass-produced members of the class of opioid receptors, are all both symptom and cause of 'the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.'

(The words in italic belong to the rest of Marks' quote in which you introduced your post.)

Religion enables us to have faith, gives us hope, and accords us charity.

Rojava Free State wrote: People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

Panslav wrote:

What a profoundly empty, dead world-view to have. Spirituality is an aspect of the human condition. It's never going away, and trying to end it makes a mockery of the word "progress." If anything, posts like this demonstrate what happens when people ignore an entire aspect of humanity and lack spirituality.

What's the use for your "spirituality"? I am materialist, and I don't feel like I lack someting compared to more religious people I know. There is no need for spirituality, there is a need for rationality, which, many humans, certainly lack.

Panslav wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

You talk about religion's body count and then use the creation and destruction of human beings to harvest their cells like meat from a cow to say that religion is evil

Um... What? Creation and destruction of humans? I suppose you mean growing fetuses in a lab.

1. It's possible to take stem cells from non-fetuses, though they aren't as useful.

2. They aren't really people yet. At least, I wouldn't consider a 5-day old blob of cells with human DNA, a human.

Hakons wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote: People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

Cekoviu wrote:

Hakons wrote:
The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

Seeing things that other people don't is called hallucinating, you know.

Aureumterra wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Seeing things that other people don't is called hallucinating, you know.

Is this supposed to be a gotcha?

Foxanist Revolutionary State wrote:Good luck with suing Buddhism and/or Taoism for "violence"

Foxanist Revolutionary State wrote:Good luck with suing Buddhism and/or Taoism for "violence"

Hakons wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote: People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

Panslav wrote:
What's the use for your "spirituality"? I am materialist, and I don't feel like I lack someting compared to more religious people I know. There is no need for spirituality, there is a need for rationality, which, many humans, certainly lack.

You lack the entire metaphysical side of life if you are purely a materialist. There is much more to life than the material and the observable. If you truly believe that there's no need for metaphysical introspection, and no need to find metaphysical truth, that's alarming in my eyes. What is rationality without philosophy? Without the metaphysical "why," the rational "what" is a useless prick of knowledge in a brain that is a handful of decades away from dying.

Hakons wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote: People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

Panslav wrote:
What's the use for your "spirituality"? I am materialist, and I don't feel like I lack someting compared to more religious people I know. There is no need for spirituality, there is a need for rationality, which, many humans, certainly lack.

You lack the entire metaphysical side of life if you are purely a materialist. There is much more to life than the material and the observable. If you truly believe that there's no need for metaphysical introspection, and no need to find metaphysical truth, that's alarming in my eyes. What is rationality without philosophy? Without the metaphysical "why," the rational "what" is a useless prick of knowledge in a brain that is a handful of decades away from dying.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Religion has succeeded in smearing all humanity as hopelessly evil without it. You have prominent advocates of Christianity blaming atheism for the actions of some of the 20th century's worst mass murderers, as if belief in a God whose supposed edicts aren't really clearly stated would've stopped them.

Meanwhile in the real world, the correlation is clear.

(Image)

(Image)

Whatever "sins" religion is really meant to combat, violence isn't one against which it is particularly effective, leaving one to wonder about the moral priorities of those in charge.

We see signs of it, though, in the Catholic church's opposition to condom use in Africa, spreading AIDS even further. You could argue it's not their fault people failed to adhere to monogamy, right? But continued opposition seems to reflect either willfull ignorance or a prioritization of monogamy over human lives. (Or possibly, on the part of the church hierarchy, "higher Catholic birthrates so that Catholic parents who raise their kids Catholic outbreed everyone else.")

Then there's diseases that aren't known to be transmitted sexually, like Parkinson's or diabetes or cancer. Embryonic stem cell research could've cured them if not for religion holding it back.

Is there any hope of a lawsuit against religion for all the deaths it has caused? Would we be able to get them on slander, reckless endangerment, or both and more?

How broad or sweeping could it be amongst plaintiffs? Would it has to be anyone who currently has an illness ESCR could've cured, or any disease attributable to condom opposition in Africa? Could it be all humanity, since any one of us could end up with something ESCR could've cured?

How broad or sweeping could it be amongst defendants? Would it have to target individuals within individual denominations who made these judgment calls, or could "progressive" Christians be indicted as accomplices in this by legitimizing religion's continued miserable existence in the eyes of popular opinion, to whatever extent popular opinion isn't on the same page as the church?

Don't get me wrong, to me the most beautiful image is abortion patients, LGBTQ activists, stem cell patients, HIV patients, and everyone else who's been screwed over by religion dancing in unison on its ashes. But in the name of pragmatism, would a lawsuit seeking compensation for this be a good way to reimburse those screwed over?

Foxanist Revolutionary State wrote:Good luck with suing Buddhism and/or Taoism for "violence"

Stellar Colonies wrote:This reminds me of a short story by an author named Ben Bova that involves someone named Sam Gunn suing the Pope.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Crockerland wrote:Abortion is used to facilitate a systematic genocide of Intersex people, who are LGBT.

Intersex birth defects are extreme, but mostly external, malformations that can be easily corrected by infant surgery, and perhaps even in-utero surgery. The fact that people would kill their child for having malformed half-genitals when it could easily be fixed is stunning. That is yet another testimony to the horrors of abortion.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:This reminds me of a short story by an author named Ben Bova that involves someone named Sam Gunn suing the Pope.

Suing the Pope for things the Catholic Church has done -- like, oh, systematically covering up child rape by its agents -- is at least possible, if difficult. Oh, he's a head of state? Gosh, isn't that what the International Criminal Court is for?

Crockerland wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
Intersex birth defects are extreme, but mostly external, malformations that can be easily corrected by infant surgery, and perhaps even in-utero surgery. The fact that people would kill their child for having malformed half-genitals when it could easily be fixed is stunning. That is yet another testimony to the horrors of abortion.

Perhaps we should sue abortion?

Actually, come to think of it, there are abortion survivors, plenty of adults who survived saline abortions back in the 1970s. I wonder if any of them have tried to sue the clinic that attempted to kill them? For example, Gianna Jessen has a disability from the attempt on her life, that seems like grounds to sue to me. The only case I could find was of a father suing an abortion clinic that killed his unborn child against his will.

Crockerland wrote:The Vatican is not party to or signatory of the Rome Statue, so the ICC has no jurisdiction over it or its head of state.

Crockerland wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
Intersex birth defects are extreme, but mostly external, malformations that can be easily corrected by infant surgery, and perhaps even in-utero surgery. The fact that people would kill their child for having malformed half-genitals when it could easily be fixed is stunning. That is yet another testimony to the horrors of abortion.

Perhaps we should sue abortion?

Actually, come to think of it, there are abortion survivors, plenty of adults who survived saline abortions back in the 1970s. I wonder if any of them have tried to sue the clinic that attempted to kill them? For example, Gianna Jessen has a disability from the attempt on her life, that seems like grounds to sue to me. The only case I could find was of a father suing an abortion clinic that killed his unborn child against his will.