A world without religion?

[PvtRyan]

Vegeta

You'll find the majority of the posters in the politics forums are rabid Atheists (as opposed to moderates like myself) and like nothing more than to blame the failings of the world almost exclusively at religions door (generally Christianity), ad infinitum.

No, the problems of the world are exclusively caused by irrationality. And religion just happens to be a part of that irrationality.

 

[Sparta]

No, the problems of the world are exclusively caused by irrationality. And religion just happens to be a part of that irrationality.

I'd say negligence has caused just as much damage as irrationality.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ah, but probably it's irrational negligence!

 

[Kadayi]

Absinthe

You need to calm down, just because I slapped you and the rest of the 'end the tyranny of religion' brigade around the chops a few times in the past doesn't mean I'm out to get you, you know.

You yourself acknowledge that Religion is not something to be dismissed in terms of it's influence upon the development of society. Whether religious teaching in it's present form continues to serve a useful role in the future of mankind is another matter entirely. Until they start teaching social morality in schools as part of the curriculum, religions will still serve a social purpose for some people. People are not born human, it is necessary to teach them to become human. Yes you do find criminals who come from educated, even religious backgrounds, but the vast majority arrive from a world lacking in any form of moral instruction.

 

[Nemesis6]

Absinthe, to believe that the absence of religion would make it all...

No. Don't. Don't quote South Park... I'm sorry:

One: [walks in with a cane] Silence, otters!

Otter 1: It's the Wise One

Otter 2: The Wise One speaks.

The Wise One: This is not the path we should be taking. Will more bloodshed end anything?

Blavius: [floats up to him on a hovering throne] Wise One, our answer to the Great Question is the only one based on good science.

The Wise One: Science, reason, is that really all there is?

Blavius: They are not a logical race, Wise One! They go around chopping down trees for tables, when they have perfectly good tummies to eat on. How logical is that?!

Otter Leader: Yes! [walks up to a painting of Dawkins and Garrison] The great Dawkins said we cannot tolerate those who don't use reason! How reasonable is it to eat off wood instead of your tummy?

The Wise One: Well perhaps the great Dawkins wasn't so wise. Oh, he was intelligent, but, some of the most intelligent otters I've ever known were completely lacking in common sense. Maybe, some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows? Maybe, just believing in God makes God exist.

Otter Soldier: Kill the Wise One!

Otter 3: Kill the Wise One! [the other otters crowd him in and start attacking]

And, of course, the "Great Question" they fight each other for is this: What should Atheists call themselves? United Atheist Alliance, Allied Atheist Alliance, or another third one... Heh.

 

[Absinthe]

Pardon my snippyness, but I find the idea of "rabid atheists" to be inaccurate as well as misleading. It's like calling somebody a rabid gravitationalist, or a rabid anti-alchemist. I admit to being passionate about the subject material, but I am not a fanatic. While there are occasional cries of outlawing theism or such similar nonsense, they come from an extremely tiny minority that quite frankly rarely sees the light of day. Until these sentiments become prominently frequent, I find the term "rabid atheist" to be a red herring.

Allow me to elaborate my position. I find religion to be a force of violence, manipulation, and reversion. The few glimmers of goodness that come from it can be reached from alternative sources with far more validity and efficiency. I am supportive of worldwide secularization in that religious values play no part in operating governments and institutions. I have no interest in holding onto ideas of cultural heritage or multiculturalism. Not when the cost of holding onto antiquities is the continued perversion through faith (and that's exactly what it is).

But only so much can be done through legal recourse, and while an atheist world would be ideal to me, I am quite pragmatic. I do not think that religion or theism should be outlawed or punishable. Nor do I think that they should be necessarily restricted from practicing their faiths or harboring their thoughts. I do not advocate Thought Police not only on principles, but because it would just totally backfire down the road. I condone "social intolerance" to a degree. A social change needs to come from the people, and the sooner we stop granting credence to religious input, the better. When people start flouting around Creationism or Intelligent Design in fields of biological science or physics, we need to deny them validity or (preferably) call them out and subject their opinions to rigorous scrutiny. They're still entitled to hold onto their theories, but we essentially need to stop accepting stupidity out of the fear of treading on toes. The path of tacit acceptance isn't making things any better, and it's the reason we have such bizarre discrepancies in countries like the United States, where the world's most powerful and one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet is heavily populated and even run by people who believe in an immaculate conception.
If this is fanaticism, then consider me guilty. But I'm sure you'll find that I'm quite reasonable. You'll have to forgive my long explanation.

And on a side note, I dislike it when people call into question the practicality of topics such as this. It should be obvious that forums like this one are not vessels of practical development. It's a place where people congregate around topics of interest. It's entertainment. Might as well ask what the practicality of any topic or sub-forum on this website is. That said, do not underestimate the exchange of ideas. Asking what a world without religion would be like is quite worthwhile IMO. And I believe it's a fundamental question that needs to be asked to form any comprehensive and thought-out opinion on religion.

Now... for the topic. Yes, there are many areas of the world lacking moral instruction (I'm granting this for now, as I don't feel like venturing into nature/nurture territory), but your suggestion of religion to fill the void is one I not only find insufficient, but even contradictory.
It is quite clear that we have moral standards independent of those taught through religion. It is the only way of explaining religious moderation. I believe that any educational effort requires a secular, humanist approach. Morality needs to be thought of as concerning human suffering. Not as inscrutable dictations. Both the humanist and the religious approaches may achieve the same basic effect: One will not rape and murder people. But the reasons behind this "rule" could not be more different, and I think I know which one you believe to be the better choice.
Another problem with religious moral instruction that its humanist counterpart suffers much less from, is that of dogma. For every good moral lesson from a holy text, there is always one that we today would consider deplorable. So while Johnny Bible may not kill people as a rule, he may grant exception to that of homosexuals. A more rational person may dump the laws he knows are worthless. But if we treat religion as the base of our morality, we don't have any way of discerning which ones are worth keeping or dropping. You're just arbitrarily picking morals.
And given religion's track record, I very much doubt that it is in a position to lead such instruction. No man in his right mind is going to consider the actions we commonly see in the Middle East as moral. The Crusades may have been years and years ago, but the Catholic Church has had its hand in many events since then, including helping Nazis escape justice, dipping its hand into the Rwandan crisis, and covering up for sexually abusive priests. This is ignoring the total absence of substantiative material propping up such an effort.

And Nemesis, I find it quite telling that the biggest complaint that can be lodged against atheists by Stone and Parker is "atheists can be assholes". I personally found it hilarious. But I don't know what you're getting at. "An absence of religion would make it all..." what? Don't think that I believe a removal of religion would make everything okey-dokey in the world. I made that clear in my first post.

 

[Vegeta897]

Nobody has answered my question... What is the point in discussing this?

The only answer I've received has sprung into another debate.

So I'd guess this thread is ultimately worthless.

And so is politics.

Later chaps.

 

[Absinthe]

Then don't come in. :thumbs:

Seriously, I don't understand why some of you people do this shit. Don't enter forums if you don't find their subject material relevant to yourself. Or just don't go on forums in general if you're so against the idea of benign discourse.

 

[Shift]

Pardon my snippyness, but I find the idea of "rabid atheists" to be inaccurate as well as misleading. It's like calling somebody a rabid gravitationalist, or a rabid anti-alchemist. I admit to being passionate about the subject material, but I am not a fanatic. While there are occasional cries of outlawing theism or such similar nonsense, they come from an extremely tiny minority that quite frankly rarely sees the light of day. Until these sentiments become prominently frequent, I find the term "rabid atheist" to be a red herring.

Allow me to elaborate my position. I find religion to be a force of violence, manipulation, and reversion. The few glimmers of goodness that come from it can be reached from alternative sources with far more validity and efficiency. I am supportive of worldwide secularization in that religious values play no part in operating governments and institutions. I have no interest in holding onto ideas of cultural heritage or multiculturalism. Not when the cost of holding onto antiquities is the continued perversion through faith (and that's exactly what it is).

But only so much can be done through legal recourse, and while an atheist world would be ideal to me, I am quite pragmatic. I do not think that religion or theism should be outlawed or punishable. Nor do I think that they should be necessarily restricted from practicing their faiths or harboring their thoughts. I do not advocate Thought Police not only on principles, but because it would just totally backfire down the road. I condone "social intolerance" to a degree. A social change needs to come from the people, and the sooner we stop granting credence to religious input, the better. When people start flouting around Creationism or Intelligent Design in fields of biological science or physics, we need to deny them validity or (preferably) call them out and subject their opinions to rigorous scrutiny. They're still entitled to hold onto their theories, but we essentially need to stop accepting stupidity out of the fear of treading on toes. The path of tacit acceptance isn't making things any better, and it's the reason we have such bizarre discrepancies in countries like the United States, where the world's most powerful and one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet is heavily populated and even run by people who believe in an immaculate conception.
If this is fanaticism, then consider me guilty. But I'm sure you'll find that I'm quite reasonable. You'll have to forgive my long explanation.

And on a side note, I dislike it when people call into question the practicality of topics such as this. It should be obvious that forums like this one are not vessels of practical development. It's a place where people congregate around topics of interest. It's entertainment. Might as well ask what the practicality of any topic or sub-forum on this website is. That said, do not underestimate the exchange of ideas. Asking what a world without religion would be like is quite worthwhile IMO. And I believe it's a fundamental question that needs to be asked to form any comprehensive and thought-out opinion on religion.

Now... for the topic. Yes, there are many areas of the world lacking moral instruction (I'm granting this for now, as I don't feel like venturing into nature/nurture territory), but your suggestion of religion to fill the void is one I not only find insufficient, but even contradictory.
It is quite clear that we have moral standards independent of those taught through religion. It is the only way of explaining religious moderation. I believe that any educational effort requires a secular, humanist approach. Morality needs to be thought of as concerning human suffering. Not as inscrutable dictations. Both the humanist and the religious approaches may achieve the same basic effect: One will not rape and murder people. But the reasons behind this "rule" could not be more different, and I think I know which one you believe to be the better choice.
Another problem with religious moral instruction that its humanist counterpart suffers much less from, is that of dogma. For every good moral lesson from a holy text, there is always one that we today would consider deplorable. So while Johnny Bible may not kill people as a rule, he may grant exception to that of homosexuals. A more rational person may dump the laws he knows are worthless. But if we treat religion as the base of our morality, we don't have any way of discerning which ones are worth keeping or dropping. You're just arbitrarily picking morals.
And given religion's track record, I very much doubt that it is in a position to lead such instruction. No man in his right mind is going to consider the actions we commonly see in the Middle East as moral. The Crusades may have been years and years ago, but the Catholic Church has had its hand in many events since then, including helping Nazis escape justice, dipping its hand into the Rwandan crisis, and covering up for sexually abusive priests. This is ignoring the total absence of substantiative material propping up such an effort.

And Nemesis, I find it quite telling that the biggest complaint that can be lodged against atheists by Stone and Parker is "atheists can be assholes". I personally found it hilarious. But I don't know what you're getting at. "An absence of religion would make it all..." what? Don't think that I believe a removal of religion would make everything okey-dokey in the world. I made that clear in my first post.

I agree in areas, nicely worded argument.

 

[Shift]

Then don't come in. :thumbs:

Seriously, I don't understand why some of you people do this shit. Don't enter forums if you don't find their subject material relevant to yourself. Or just don't go on forums in general if you're so against the idea of benign discourse.

Exactly, you talk about the pointlessness of this topic and politics in general, but its even more pointless to enter a topic not to dwell in its discussion but to merely state your disatisfaction with it lol.

 

[PvtRyan]

Will you have my babies Absinthe? You can eat them if you want, I'm fine with that.

 

[Absinthe]

...Is there any other way of handling a baby?

 

[Shift]

Sell em?

 

[Kadayi]

but your suggestion of religion to fill the void is one I not only find insufficient, but even contradictory.
It is quite clear that we have moral standards independent of those taught through religion. It is the only way of explaining religious moderation. I believe that any educational effort requires a secular, humanist approach. Morality needs to be thought of as concerning human suffering. Not as inscrutable dictations. Both the humanist and the religious approaches may achieve the same basic effect: One will not rape and murder people. But the reasons behind this "rule" could not be more different, and I think I know which one you believe to be the better choice.

You need to loose that bad habit of telling me what I'm thinking (a certain super moderator all of 21 years old suffered from that problem IIRC), I don't remotely purport to know your mental machinations in my posts, or attempt to second guess you, or even waste my time doing so.

In no way do I recommend religion instruction for people, if they wish to undertake it that is their choice, I'm not going to dissuade them either. I'm merely prepared to recognise that for some people it serves a role at a codex for moral guidance for social living. Good secular parenting and upbringing can deliver the same result in a person, but the absence of either of these things never results in a positive. For a person to function effectively within a society they have to conform to it's standards of acceptable behaviour. Moral instruction is required, that people understand and acknowledge the world beyond themselves and their own selfish desires. If your taking away one source of such instruction then you have to find another mechanism to deliver it. I'm all for state driven moral instruction of children during their formative years, a 100 years of that you'd probably find that the various Churches would shrivel up and die on their own accord.

Kadayi

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't think his assumption was entirely unreasonable.

Don't expect constructive debate here, people only know how to knock things down, not build them up.

Here you seem to me to be suggesting that that secular/rational/logical/critical thought - the method Absinthe's criticism of religion stems from - is not sufficient to 'build things up', and that such thought cannot itself be productive.

This would in turn suggest that the real solution lies outside the bounds of the rational.

Pardon me, but I don't think it's a stretch to construe this as a "suggestion of religion to fill the void". It's certainly how I interpreted it upon reading it for the first time.

On the contrary the tools of a rational mind can be productive and can 'build things up' because the criticism of religion is directly linked to the awareness of a 'better way', a better basis for morality.


EDIT: I can't speak for him, but perhaps Absinthe, not being a great fan of theism and finding its repugnance self-evident, may also view attacking those who attack religion as tacit support for irrational thought.

 

[Kadayi]

Here you seem to me to be suggesting that that secular/rational/logical/critical thought - the method Absinthe's criticism of religion stems from - is not sufficient to 'build things up', and that such thought cannot itself be productive.

Not at all. The topic under debate is a world without religion. My viewpoint and one that Absinthe expresses as well is that you cannot dismiss the impact that religion has had so far in shaping the destiny of Mankind, they are deeply intertwined. There is no void that religion fills, the void exists only in it's absence. When there is enough secular moral instruction available in society to fill that potential void then I'm all for the dismantling of the churches, but as I said, 100 years of moral instruction to school children from a formative age and you'd probably have a functional society that wouldn't seek the succour of religion anyhow.

On the contrary the tools of a rational mind can be productive and can 'build things up' because the criticism of religion is directly linked to the awareness of a 'better way', a better basis for morality.

You're assuming all atheists are rational, in my experience that isn't always the case, and certainly not on these boards.

 

[Absinthe]

Bingo.

From this day henceforth, all babies I receive shall be donated to Sulkdodds.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Fair enough, and I agree that religion's part in history is undeniable.

Hmm. Nemesis' claim that the world would look identical is ridiculous on that very basic level.

EDIT: Excellent! I need the extra nourishment.

EDIT2: So are we considering a parallel universe that developed without religion, or a future without religion? In both cases I'd say that to envision such a thing is simultaneously to envision a world in which any general, in-built tendency for irrational thought is absent. So I don't agree when people say that something would replace religion and be just as mad. It's possible that a world without religion necessarily contains a humanity without the capacity for religion.

EDIT3: At the very least it's provided some interesting things to talk about; I'm glad William Blake existed.

 

[Gray Fox]

Irrational thought is everywhere, from religion, to fanboyism, to politics. But out of all those religion nourishes it the most. It provides the greatest cover for those believes.
So while abolishing religion would simply mean peoples irrational ideas and thoughts would take refuge somewhere else, nothing else could provide such a rich breeding ground for those ideas to flourish as religion does. And thus combating them would be a lot easier.

 

[Kadayi]

EDIT2: So are we considering a parallel universe that developed without religion, or a future without religion? In both cases I'd say that to envision such a thing is simultaneously to envision a world in which any general, in-built tendency for irrational thought is absent. So I don't agree when people say that something would replace religion and be just as mad. It's possible that a world without religion necessarily contains a humanity without the capacity for religion.

I believe the idea was a world without religion from the beginning. Which given the all pervasiveness of religious belief throughout mankinds' existence both historically and geographically from it's most primitive stages through to it's most sophisticated is pretty much inconcievable. Without Order you just have Chaos. I wouldn't say we'd still be bashing each others brains out using stone axes, but I very much doubt we'd be typing on the internet and marvelling at TF2 videos.

Irrational thought is everywhere, from religion, to fanboyism, to politics. But out of all those religion nourishes it the most. It provides the greatest cover for those believes.
So while abolishing religion would simply mean peoples irrational ideas and thoughts would take refuge somewhere else, nothing else could provide such a rich breeding ground for those ideas to flourish as religion does. And thus combating them would be a lot easier.

In all seriousness, I think you'll find the vast majority of murderers, robbers, rapists and paedophiles aren't remotely religious in nature. So it hardly seems logical to purport that religion is the biggest bogey man going. There is clearly something else at work (or not as the case may be).

 

[Solaris]

In all seriousness, I think you'll find the vast majority of murderers, robbers, rapists and paedophiles aren't remotely religious in nature. So it hardly seems logical to purport that religion is the biggest bogey man going. There is clearly something else at work (or not as the case may be).

9/11. Crusades, Catholic Priests abusing kiddies et al

 

[Sulkdodds]

To be fair none of those are purely religious.

 

[Solaris]

To be fair none of those are purely religious.

I'd say 911 was and the crusades. There were non-religious motives, but the hijackers on 911 did so because of their crazy religion and same for crusaders.

 

[Kadayi]

I'd say 911 was and the crusades. There were non-religious motives, but the hijackers on 911 did so because of their crazy religion and same for crusaders.

Stalin killed more people in 20 years than died during the entire period of the crusades, because he was a tyrant. As for 911, 3000 people sounds like a lot, but on average at least 3000 people die every couple of months in the USA as a result of violent crime. No crazy preachers or no guns...I'd have to say no guns seems like the better choice if your all about the numbers.

 

[Solaris]

Stalin killed more people in 20 years than died during the entire period of the crusades, because he was a tyrant. As for 911, 3000 people sounds like a lot, but on average at least 3000 people die every couple of months in the USA as a result of violent crime. No crazy preachers or no guns...I'd have to say no guns seems like the better choice if your all about the numbers.

Yes, but there is a key difference here. Stalins motivation for killing people was not his atheist beliefs.

You just do not get people killing other people motivated by atheism. You do on the other hand get a shit load of people killing becuase of religious conviction.

 

[Kadayi]

Yes, but there is a key difference here. Stalins motivation for killing people was not his atheist beliefs.

You just do not get people killing other people motivated by atheism. You do on the other hand get a shit load of people killing because of religious conviction.

A 'shitload' LOL. I'm sorry but I've already demonstrated that when it comes to the numbers other forces weigh in far heavier in terms of total deaths than religious conviction in the world. In fact I brought the numbers to bear a few pages back in this very same thread, nothing changed between the posting on page 5 and the posting on page 7. The casualty rate for the crusades didn't get any higher, and no more people died in the WTC. Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Hitler and all the numerous other dictators the world has known still murdered millions more people than religious division has ever caused. I'm not entirely sure why your trying to argue otherwise. It's a complete myth that religion is the biggest killer of men.

Please feel free to argue against religions (that they are outdated, racist or socially redundant etc, etc.), but do so in an honest fashion, don't attempt to promote falsehoods that simply don't stand up to scrutiny. You undermine your position if you arguments are based on false claims.

 

[Shift]

ROFL, the deaths that Stalin caused alone completely outnumbers the deaths caused by religion.

 

[kirovman]

A 'shitload' LOL. I'm sorry but I've already demonstrated that when it comes to the numbers other forces weigh in far heavier in terms of total deaths than religious conviction in the world. In fact I brought the numbers to bear a few pages back in this very same thread, nothing changed between the posting on page 5 and the posting on page 7. The casualty rate for the crusades didn't get any higher, and no more people died in the WTC. Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Hitler and all the numerous other dictators the world has known still murdered millions more people than religious division has ever caused. I'm not entirely sure why your trying to argue otherwise. It's a complete myth that religion is the biggest killer of men.

Please feel free to argue against religions (that they are outdated, racist or socially redundant etc, etc.), but do so in an honest fashion, don't attempt to promote falsehoods that simply don't stand up to scrutiny. You undermine your position if you arguments are based on false claims.

Religion does account for a substantial number of deaths though, don't think it's fair to argue that religion is not a large cause of death because it didn't kill as many as Stalin or whatever.

You seem to be comparing deaths caused by religion to deaths not caused by religion to justify why religion isn't such a bad thing.

Also I'd like to point out the deaths caused by religion whenever a scientific advance that has the ability or potential to save lives is blocked by religious beliefs.

A recent example is stem cell research in the US.

My main personal gripe with religion is the fact that they hold onto beliefs that fall into the domain of Bad Science.

 

[Solaris]

A 'shitload' LOL. I'm sorry but I've already demonstrated that when it comes to the numbers other forces weigh in far heavier in terms of total deaths than religious conviction in the world. In fact I brought the numbers to bear a few pages back in this very same thread, nothing changed between the posting on page 5 and the posting on page 7. The casualty rate for the crusades didn't get any higher, and no more people died in the WTC. Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Hitler and all the numerous other dictators the world has known still murdered millions more people than religious division has ever caused. I'm not entirely sure why your trying to argue otherwise. It's a complete myth that religion is the biggest killer of men.

Please feel free to argue against religions (that they are outdated, racist or socially redundant etc, etc.), but do so in an honest fashion, don't attempt to promote falsehoods that simply don't stand up to scrutiny. You undermine your position if you arguments are based on false claims.

I have never argued that religion is the biggest killer of men. I'm just saying religion has caused alot of deaths for retarded reasons. To quote an analogy from Sam Harris it's like people a thousand years on killing each other over different interpretations of windows XP. It is that ****ing retarded.

 

[Shift]

I always thought the crusades etc were just cover ups for expansion.

 

[Polaris]

ROFL, the deaths that Stalin caused alone completely outnumbers the deaths caused by religion.

Why you still mentoin Stalin? His horrible actions was result of communistic ideology and his rogue personality, not because he was an atheist (btw Stalin was raised in devout orthodox church family).

 

[Cole]

A 'shitload' LOL. I'm sorry but I've already demonstrated that when it comes to the numbers other forces weigh in far heavier in terms of total deaths than religious conviction in the world.

So just because some thing weigh heavier than religion in deaths, that means we religion isn't a bad thing? Religion still has caused tons of hate throughout history and present day. It has caused tons of deaths. Yes it has united people, but you can do so in different ways other than religion and be just as effective.

. Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Hitler and all the numerous other dictators the world has known still murdered millions more people than religious division has ever caused.

Hitler didn't use religion to motivate the biggest war in the world.......... yeah....

 

[Shift]

No, you're right he didn't, he started it because he felt the world was dominated by the USA which he felt was controlled from the inside by corrupt jews, and to eradicate inferior races. Mainly, because he was insane.

 

[Absinthe]

Don't be so quick to assume he didn't fall back on Christian backing for his actions. Hitler made quite a few speeches referring to Christianity and even identified himself as a Christian.

Of course, he seemed to have a love/hate relationship with the church, so knows what his real religious beliefs were.

 

[Shift]

No it was purely hatred for the church, he saw them as a threat to his power because of the massive influence of power that it had over the people, but its because of the huge percentage of christians in Germany, that he couldn't close the churches. But yeah, he did see himself as a christian, he felt he felt that his eradication of jews is the eradication of the race that killed jesus, in insane way.

 

[PvtRyan]

I always thought the crusades etc were just cover ups for expansion.

I'm sure they were, but does that mean religion is not to blame? If Christianity was only used as a tool for political gain, is the tool blame free? Now I don't blame Christianity itself, I blame religion: the idea that unquestionable faith in a divine being who's on your side is a good thing. Religion is a tool of manipulation of the people, it's a dangerous tool. It's more like an assault rifle than a hammer to be honest. It's a divisive force, that creates "we's" and "thems" where there are none. I doubt the crusades are to blame on some sort of law in Christianity that tells you to invade other countries, but it was certainly what made it possible.

 

[delusional]

I'm sure they were, but does that mean religion is not to blame? If Christianity was only used as a tool for political gain, is the tool blame free?

So if i stab you with a pencil are you going to put the pencil in prison?

 

[Absinthe]

So if i stab you with a pencil are you going to put the pencil in prison?

A pencil is benign until it gets into the wrong hands. Religion is intrinsically ****ed up on so many levels.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Isn't it also possible to argue that the Stalinist and Nazi regimes relied in a sense on political religion, on things reminiscent or characteristic of religion? As in blind devotion to essentially unsupported ideals?

 

[Absinthe]

Isn't it also possible to argue that the Stalinist and Nazi regimes relied in a sense on political religion, on things reminiscent or characteristic of religion? As in blind devotion to essentially unsupported ideals?

It's really not stretching it too much. Both essentially cultivated religions around themselves with the cults of personality. They displayed and depicted themselves as heroes of ridiculous power, and Hitler certainly did enjoy ascribing a good degree of divinity to his final solution.