Is Man a Threat? (Rant)

[Demiurge]

They do it because their God wants them to, there wouldn't be any incentive otherwise.

History of circumcision shows that it was an adopted custom, not a religious ritual, though it later became the later. Circumcision was revealed as a sacrifice of "sinful" human enjoyment (in this earthly life), for the sake of holiness in the afterlife. But this was cultural, not a custom that originated in a religious text.

If these people knew that this is the only life they had then they wouldn't strap a bomb to their bodies and blow themselves. Humans are rational, but religion isn't. That's why that when you mix them up, you can make rational people do irrational things.

When religion is used as a tool for controlling or manipulating the faith of others, it is generally used rationally by the mastermind, as he exercises control over others. Religion is only the implement here, not the cause. Human nature is.

You are a poop head.

Jealously, much?

That's the definition of threat as a verb, dear. Google 'threat noun'. I'm sure you'll find a definition to the effect of what I said.

Um, threat is a noun, not a verb. Threaten is a verb.

 

[Caleb]

Um, threat is a noun, not a verb. Threaten is a verb.

Grammar owned.

 

[Viggy]

Um, threat is a noun, not a verb. Threaten is a verb.

Actually, you're right. So you defined 'threaten' earlier, because clearly you were talking about actions.

So I went and looked up the definition for the noun. Threat:

something that is a source of danger

Organized religion has repeatedly presented a danger to people's freedom, people's right to equal treatment and even people's lives. It is a significant threat.

 

[Sovereign]

History of circumcision shows that it was an adopted custom, not a religious ritual, though it later became the later. Circumcision was revealed as a sacrifice of "sinful" human enjoyment (in this earthly life), for the sake of holiness in the afterlife. But this was cultural, not a custom that originated in a religious text.

Proof? I've never heard of this. All I'm reading about is that it was a religious sacrifice.

When religion is used as a tool for controlling or manipulating the faith of others, it is generally used rationally by the mastermind, as he exercises control over others. Religion is only the implement here, not the cause. Human nature is.

Not blowing yourself up is part of Human Nature. In order to actually do this, you have to believe in the irrational AKA; religion. If you accept that there's an after life, then why not accept the fact that you could potentially reach this place faster by killing yourself?

Most religions have this deathwish. They see death as "just the beginning", which is pretty much outright disturbing imo.

Jealously, much?

Jerk.

 

[Caleb]

Organized religion has repeatedly presented a danger to people's freedom, people's right to equal treatment and even people's lives.

So has organized government.

 

[Viggy]

So has organized government.

Indeed. But we'd be even worse off with anarchy, so that is a necessary evil.

 

[Sovereign]

Oh and by the way, there's absolutely no way you could convince someone to blow themselves without any religious argument.

 

[Caleb]

Oh and by the way, there's absolutely no way you could convince someone to blow themselves without any religious argument.

Ridiculous. Any idea can be warped enough to use as justification for some stupid action. Take Japanese nationalism, the concept of Bushido and marry that with Kamikazi pilots.

 

[Demiurge]

Actually, you're right. So you defined 'threaten' earlier, because clearly you were talking about actions.

So I went and looked up the definition for the noun. Threat:

No, I defined threat.

Proof? I've never heard of this. All I'm reading about is that it was a religious sacrifice.

It's believed circumcision began as a social ritual among a small number of tribal peoples in north-east Africa and the Arabian peninsular, and it later became the mark of initiation for two major religions. You're on the infinite gateway that is the internet. Look up the history of circumcision.

Not blowing yourself up is part of Human Nature. In order to actually do this, you have to believe in the irrational AKA; religion. If you accept that there's an after life, then why not accept the fact that you could potentially reach this place faster by killing yourself?

Most religions have this deathwish. They see death as "just the beginning", which is pretty much outright disturbing imo.

That's true, suicide is not what rational beings do, but like Caleb said, Homo Homini lupus. People manipulate each other. It's a fact of life. People being manipulated tend to act less than rational. Of course, suicide is against what most religions teach, which is why suicides (if religiously motivated) only tend to occur in people being manipulated by a leader.

Jerk.

I would have retaliated... Curse you and you're admin status.

...Am I in a religious debate?

 

[Sovereign]

Ridiculous. Any idea can be warped enough to use as justification for some stupid action. Take Japanese nationalism, the concept of Bushido and marry that with Kamikazi pilots.

Practitioners of Bushido believed in the after life.

 

[Demiurge]

Practitioners of Bushido believed in the after life.

The practice of Bushido was to value honor above life. It was not a passage into the afterlife. Bushido is a philosophy in contradistinction to religious belief, as honorable death was its own reward, and the reward of an afterlife wasn't normally considered a possibility.

Check out the Bushido Tenets.

EDIT: Okay, I think this is a religious debate. I'm think I'm going to leave now. I don't like being drawn into these.

 

[Caleb]

As an alternative example, the suicide-assassination of Tsar Alexander II was conducted entirely by nationalists and nihilists.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

I disagree with Sin quite a bit on his points. Religion is a belief if we were to kill everyone on the planet, obviously religion would not care. It can't. It doesn't exist in the sense that human beings exist. It can't effect the world. It's abstract. Not concrete. It's an idea. You can't harm an idea, only forget it.

People do things. In the name of religion. Pushing the blame onto religion is the same thing as blaming god, (read imaginary friend) for the worlds problems. Both are just ideas. But of course, there are the arguments that people blow themselves up, teach retarded bullshit, kill one another. All because of religion. Not in the slightest. It's because of peoples belief in religion that this happens. But again, belief is not an action. Belief can not act. So, who are we left with? Ourselves. We're to blame for our problems, and we're the ones to congratulate when we fix them. In my opinion blaming religion for a problem is just childish. Blame the people who act on religion. The people. That's how you harm an idea, by stopping people who think it's right and pointing out the flaws. Then there might be one less person who has that idea in high regard. And one less the day after that. Until it's just another passage in the billion year history that is earth that will long be forgotten.

 

[Sovereign]

Emperor worship was stressed after Shinto was established as a state religion during the Meiji Restoration. Bushido didn't speculate in the afterlife, but it was all about the importance of dying a honorable death. It was quasi-religious and closely related to Shinto.

And there was no suicide-attacks on the Tsar. The guy threw an explosive, it isn't the same thing as strapping them on you.

Furthermore, most historians sees the Russian terrorist group who committed the attack as a sect.

 

[Enishi]

Is man a threat? Of course. We are a species that was intended to be apes with rocks. However as humans adapted to the environment and evolved, we broke through the natural chain link. As the brain became more complex, we began to question life. Thus, lead to the creation of deities. Now, bodily "mutilation" is a very touchy subject (no pun intended); some practices, although prevelent in religion, have been done outside of religion as a rite of passage into adulthood. Let's take a look at african women who bind their necks with rings; after the girl has grown up, she cannot remove the rings because her neck would snap. Although it would be considdered barbaric, it is seen as a cultural rite. Religion has proven to be both our suffering and saving grace. Yes the crusades, martyrs, and Spanish Inquisition revealed our more unfavorable colors; however, organized religion has also brought an end to human sacrifice and cannabalism.

TL;DR --- Religion can be very influential. It's up to man how dangerous it can become.

 

[Tsar Fire]

Uh, no.

Why would people mutilate their genitalia if it weren't for religion?

Why would people blow themselves up in a crowded market if it weren't for the promise of eternal life?

Why would people insist on teaching stupid shit (CREATIONISM) in school if it weren't for religion?

Religion is obviously at the heart of the problem.

Because it has medical benefits? maybe...

I'm glad we aren't mentioning eugenicists here. Or the Nazi party. Of course not.

None of those scientifically motivated groups seeking the purification of humanity, and its superior evolution. Nope. Wouldn't mention them.

 

[Viggy]

No, I defined threat.

Congratulations. You did give a true definition of the word threat.

However, you still didn't make any sense, because you used the wrong definition for this particular discussion. Tell me how a person/group of people/religion/whatever could ever possibly be "an expression of intent"? They couldn't be, because it doesn't make sense. A person can't be an expression of intent, an expression of intent is something that a person/group DOES. It's an action.

So obviously, the use of the word 'threat' in the title was not referring to a threat in the sense you're blathering about. Look at the third definition from the Wiktionary link you posted:

a person or object that is regarded as a danger;

This is the definition that the thread title is obviously using the word in. I don't have to point out the obvious similarity between this definition, and the definition I posted yesterday. So my earlier point still stands:

We all acknowledge that organized religion has the potential to be harmful.

As organized religion has the potential to be harmful (and quite significantly harmful I might add), it is a danger. And therefore, a threat.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

To be fair, Viggy, that makes every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth a potential threat and therefore dangerous to everyone.

 

[Tsar Fire]

To be fair, Viggy, that makes every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth a potential threat and therefore dangerous to everyone.

F34r T3h Toddlers!

 

[Viggy]

To be fair, Viggy, that makes every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth a potential threat and therefore dangerous to everyone.

Yes. But it's fair to assume that in the thread title, the OP simply left out the word 'significant' before the word 'threat'.

Organized religion is a significant threat, because of the dangers it presents and the harm it has already done. Toddlers are not, because only very rarely do they do harm to anyone.