That was political as well as religious. Who is to say it wouldn't have happened anyway without religion? After all suicide bombing was started by an atheist named Trotsky.
The Trotsky claim in not true. Suicide bombings and suicide attacks are older than Trotsky. Not to mention he did not blow himself up or commit suicide, he was assassinated. Deflecting to Trotsky is just a poorly executed red herring anyhow since the 9-11 attackers were not known to be athiests or marxists. The point I think MIB was trying to make is that the attackers were manipulated into executing thier acts of terrorism via a hybrid of religious and cultural/polotical indoctrination. Mabe the attackers would have been less motivated without the religious factor.
I think it is reasonable to argue that minus religion the attackers may still have had polotical reasons to commit suicide and mass murder. But I think it is unreasonable to use non historic examples to illustrate the point. Whay not just point out that secular and polotical terrorism is not uncommon in the inventory of human atrocaties?
luckychucky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Trotsky claim in not true. Suicide bombings > and suicide attacks are older than Trotsky. Not to > mention he did not blow himself up or commit > suicide, he was assassinated. Deflecting to > Trotsky is just a poorly executed red herring > anyhow since the 9-11 attackers were not known > to be athiests or marxists. The point I think MIB > was trying to make is that the attackers were > manipulated into executing thier acts of terrorism > via a hybrid of religious and cultural/polotical > indoctrination. Mabe the attackers would have been > less motivated without the religious factor. > > I think it is reasonable to argue that minus > religion the attackers may still have had > polotical reasons to commit suicide and mass > murder. But I think it is unreasonable to use non > historic examples to illustrate the point. Whay > not just point out that secular and polotical > terrorism is not uncommon in the inventory of > human atrocaties?
The point is that suicide bombing is not a religious thing. Other people do it too including atheists. I know how Trotsky died, but he sent people on suicide missions. So did Osama bin Laden. I assume you would admit he was a terrorist. So was Trotsky.I have read that he started the idea of Suicide bombing. If he wasn't the first, he certainly popularized it. Terrorists come in all sizes and their motives are at least partly political. The motives of the 9/11 hijakers were a mix. The didn't like Arabs being marginalized by the US, they didn't like our Palestinian policy for starts.Those are political. They may have felt the same way if they hadn't been Muslim. Got it?
Or maybe you would haabe been born in a completely diffrent family. I am starting to think myself that if my family wernt mormons I ether woudnt have been born or wouldnt have had sight problems.
... and preventing the LDS church from being invented. Rather than murder Joseph Smith or anyone else, I figured the best way to prevent him from starting the church would have been to give him a lot of money. If he had been rich, he probably would not have spent so much time seeking for treasure. He also would not have had the incentive to deceive people in order to gain recognition.
Everyone wants to believe in Utopia, but in the end, some of us crave Dystopia because we feel let down. We cannot handle perfection because then someone asks, "What would make this better?"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 01:32AM by Itzpapalotl.
I don't think the world would be atheist. It's hard to be something unless there is an opposite to that thing. The world would just BE. A Christian today doesn't believe in Zeus or Ra. We don't think twice about not believing in those gods. The world wouldn't think twice about not believing in any gods.
I absolutely think that religious hate was at the root of the 9-11 attacks. Sure there is political ideological differences but they are nothing compared to religious differences.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 03:18AM by bingoe4.
There will be fear--and hatred--as long as there is an "other." That is, as long as ego identification, which entails the presumption that one is separate and different from others, continues. The ethnic cleansings, the racial violence, the warring over territories--all these have little or nothing to do with religion (though people may overlay religion as a justification), and in fact occur in various forms among animal groups.
But then, the ego IS the erroneous 'religion' of most people. Their separate "I" IS their God in practice, for nearly every thought and action is done in service to it.
religion as a psychosocial phenomenon ceased to exist--that is, people are born without the capacity for religion--or if religious expression is not allowed.
In the first instance of religion ceasing to exist as a capacity of human beings, that would mean humans would be profoundly different organisms. I don't know if they would be human since religion is a manifestation of innate human tendencies and capacities and has played an important part in our evolution as ultrasocial beings.
The second instance, because the religious impulse seems to hardwired into us--we apparently are not born atheists--that means atheism would have to be actively taught in our families and throughout society to think and behave as atheists. If we were all atheists that would mean a huge indoctrination program, and to me, implies possibly a totalitarian society or at least a society lacking in diversity.
While I am aware that religion is a mixed bag of good and bad, on the good side religious people seem to have better mental health, overall, with less depression and risk of suicide. They experience greater happiness overall and they do more charitable giving, even after factoring for giving to their own church groups.
If everyone were atheists, I see the possibility of increased depression and suicide due to social isolation and a sense of meaninglessness. There would be also be a possible loss of social cohesion and sense of belonging.
However, I could be entirely wrong. People might possibly come up with nonreligious ways of satisfactorily fulfilling the needs religion fills now without the negatives. Since it hasn't been tried on a large scale, I don't know. But I am skeptical. I think we can agree that too often religion is bad, but would we be worse without it?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 12:39PM by robertb.
The world would maybe be a better place. The vast majority appreciate the fact that working in unison is to the benefit of everyone. The principle that "one hand washes the other" would still exist. You don't need to hear that from a pulpit to know that it is true. I do believe in innate kindness and the purest kindness is not tied to religion.
But inevitably, something would still come along to divide us into groups. The need to be special is innate also, and though striving for superiority brings progress and growth, the eventual build up of competition certainly can turn to the negative.
Some one would eventually start beauty pageants for children, and some of us would be horrified by them.
I think that religion is more of a result of human behavior than the cause of it. It's a flag or statement allowing groupthink.
Watching people get excited to the point of violence at sporting events is a example of this effect. Beating up somebody else because your city's team is different than another city's team? (Sporting events sometimes turn into religion on alcohol.)
Of course, this groupthink can also work on the peaceful, benevolent side of things..... which gets back to the point that it's human nature, and not religion.
"The fault dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings."