12 worst ideas religion has unleashed on the world:

[trotsky]

Conflict, cruelty and suffering — not love and peace

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/19/12_worst_ideas_religion_has_unleashed_on_the_world_conflict_cruelty_and_suffering_not_love_and_peace/

Some of humanity’s technological innovations are things we would have been better off without: the medieval rack, the atomic bomb and powdered lead potions come to mind. Religions tend to invent ideas or concepts rather than technologies, but like every other creative human enterprise, they produce some really bad ones along with the good.

I’ve previously highlighted some of humanity’s best moral and spiritual concepts, our shared moral core. Here, by way of contrast, are some of the worst. These twelve dubious concepts promote conflict, cruelty, suffering and death rather than love and peace. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, they belong in the dustbin of history just as soon as we can get them there.

Chosen People –The term “Chosen People” typically refers to the Hebrew Bible and the ugly idea that God has given certain tribes a Promised Land (even though it is already occupied by other people). But in reality many sects endorse some version of this concept. The New Testament identifies Christians as the chosen ones. Calvinists talk about “God’s elect,” believing that they themselves are the special few who were chosen before the beginning of time. Jehovah’s witnesses believe that 144,000 souls will get a special place in the afterlife. In many cultures certain privileged and powerful bloodlines were thought to be descended directly from gods (in contrast to everyone else).

Religious sects are inherently tribal and divisive because they compete by making mutually exclusive truth claims and by promising blessings or afterlife rewards that no competing sect can offer. “Gang symbols” like special haircuts, attire, hand signals and jargon differentiate insiders from outsiders and subtly (or not so subtly) convey to both that insiders are inherently superior.

Some pretty good points in there.

[elehhhhna]

1. women are shit

That's number one

[safeinOhio]

2. From the same author

http://www.wisdomcommons.org/search?searchtype=all&q=wisdoms+commons&x=11&y=9

She also points out some the best ideas too. I am not a believer but do find all of this very interesting and find religion and atheism very interesting to look at from both sides. Not a black and white moral subject.

What has atheism unleashed that is destroying our country and perhaps the world? Here are some hints. Trickle down, privatized commons. Greed vs. altruism in public policy. All brought to us by the worlds most famous atheist, Ayn Rand. We now have a church leader countering that in the Pope.

[trotsky]

3. LOL

"Atheism" isn't responsible for any of those things. What you seem to be saying is that "religion" is about altruism and compassion, and "atheism" is just selfishness. That's bigoted speech.

[safeinOhio]

6. Not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying, or trying to say is both can be forces of good or bad for society. I just got back from Italy and many there fear for the life of the Pope because he is taking on the greed of the rich and powerful. They think he will be poisoned.
I just look for the gray areas, which usually pisses off the extreme on both sides. Religion tends to make things black and white, until I start to ask questions. There are always loop holes.

[trotsky]

14. Atheism really isn't a "force" for anything.

It stands in opposition to the notion that gods exist and that they therefore need to be followed, pleased, or obeyed. The items from religion in the article all come from those notions.

Pretty sure trickle-down and other things you mentioned were championed by good old fashioned Republican Christians.

[safeinOhio]

18. The great thing about your last point is

Those ideas are being used by fundies now and they even gave credit to Rand until pointed out she justified her ideas with her Athiesim now Paul Ryan, Rand Paul,etc are trying their hardest to throw her under the bus, only we have their words and YouTube to hit them with. I've ordered a new book that is out and can't wait to read it, The Gosple Acording to John Galt.
Did you read the article I linked to by the same author you posted about? She points out some the good things religions have unleashed on us. Once again, it's all gray, good and bad.

[trotsky]

19. Of course there are good things.

The question is, are those good things unique to religion? You want to look at gray areas, that's a good one.

From the Wikipedia article on objectivism:

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

Could you point to where objectivism is "justified" by atheism?

[safeinOhio]

30. On the other hand

"Ayn Rand's philosophy of religion represents a powerful critique of those who believe her atheistic philosophy can be reconciled with the prophetic Abrahamic religions. This book clearly demonstrates that one cannot simultaneously love and serve two masters, adhering to the ethical monotheism of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on one hand, and to Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" economic theory on the other. As Byrd points out, Ayn Rand believed rightly that no true follower of hers could ever be a Christian, as Christianity was for her the evil religion of altruism and she advocated the value of greed. (Rudolf J. Siebert, Western Michigan University)"

Wikipedia neglects to point out her own critique of religion, I'm sure that has been edited out by her followers, but it is there for the record. I think her interview was with Dick Cavet where she discussed this as well as some of her writings. She admits her atheism justifies her objectivism.

I lean toward Ethical Culture as about as close as I can get toward my ideas. I neither accept or reject gods. I think religion, just like homosexual tendencies and are genetical and I just don't have that gene. Both cross time and all cultures, making it likely there is a gene involved. Both are tided to the individual, so I judge them less and accept anyones choice to either religion or sexuality without it being mine. I find many atheist way more moral than many believers and vise a versa. I support anyone that gives the subject enough thought to support the good in both as well as the negative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_movement

[trotsky]

32. Yes, take a good close look at that.

Objectivism is atheistic (it doesn't specifically reference gods), but it isn't derived from atheism. She herself was a atheist and disliked religion, absolutely, but you made claims that you have yet to substantiate.

[chervilant]

24. This disclaimer notwithstanding,

your initial post is easily interpreted as saying 'that "religion" is about altruism and compassion, and "atheism" is just selfishness.' That is how I interpreted your post. Likely, others may do so.

Religious mythologies are grounded in oral traditions, spanning thousands of years. Each time a new "leader" gained power, these mythologies were "adjusted" to suit the new leader's political agenda. Each time an erudite human questioned or derogated these mythologies, "faithful" minions employed "fair" means (and foul) to quash any such "assaults" on the "sacred."

Epicurus' ancient inquiry effectively pinpoints the fallacy of religious mythologies:

Is "god" (insert name of any mythological sky being here) willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent.

Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

So comforting to our credulous forebears, to have a mythology that "explains" the universe, no?

[safeinOhio]

40. I agree with much of your post

but not the first sentence.

First, as I have said, I think there is a religious gene. Second I have also stated that some atheist are more moral than some religious people and vise a versa.

I'm not judging either as whole and only point out the problems with both. I look at religion in more of an anthropologic view. Is it adaptive to the invironment and survival of the culture. Religion is now on the downturn with fewer and fewer people claiming it. Sectarian wars, global weather and many other problems are not being solve by traditional organized religion. On the other hand, some religions and leaders are taking on these problems, Dr William Barker and to some extent Pope Frances among many others. Look into liberal religions and their push for economic and sexual equality and other causes they promote. Humanism, for the most part, doesn't look at gods as being as important as humans, while not rejecting them as a whole.

[kenfrequed]

4. uhm...

Privatizing the commons was a way to make money and push people into factory work. While I am sure there may have been some Atheists in favor of it, what is it essentially about 'not believing in god' that means 'people should not grow their own food collectively?

[edhopper]

8. Atheism has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's ideas.

and most of her followers aren't atheists.

It's like saying look what ideas Baseball has brought because George Will is a Yankees fan.

[safeinOhio]

20. Actually she spoke a great deal about religion

And how her ideas are contrary to it, thus promoting atheism along with Objectivism and using each to justify the other. For her both are very tied together. The Christian Right have dug very hard into scripture to find a few questionable loop holes to justify their own greed to adopt her economics.

[kenfrequed]

34. Ayn Rand didn't invent atheism

Atheism has existed long before Objectivism and most Atheists are NOT objectivists. Oddly, Rands ideas about being selfish have found a nice lovely home snuggled close to prosperity theology Christianity.

Atheism actually has existed in classical, pre-socratic philosophy, and in Indian religions and philosophies written back even longer ago.

[safeinOhio]

41. Never said she did and I agree with

your history of Atheism. However, she made a living off using it to justify her philosophy of greed.

[kenfrequed]

43. Right...

The problem is that you implied that her ideology grew out of Atheism when there is nothing about 'not accepting the proposition of gods' that would naturally lend itself to justifying her ridiculous ideology.

I have found a lovely video from one of the most ascerbic of the so-called "New Atheists," the late and inestimable Christopher Hitchens, where he demolishes Ayn Rand.

[edhopper]

46. And Marx was an atheist as well

so atheism brought us both Communism and Objectivism?

Your use of Objectivism as a bash on atheists is a non starter.

[safeinOhio]

48. Actually I use it as a bash

on Christians.
I think you missed my point. As I said, I'm not a believer.

[gcomeau]

50. WTF?

What has atheism unleashed that is destroying our country and perhaps the world? Here are some hints. Trickle down, privatized commons.

How the hell do you draw a line from atheism to trickle down economics? That is, in case you missed it, an ECONOMIC THEORY. It has zero relation to whether the person promoting it believes in a deity or not.

That's like saying religion gave us the law of gravity because Gallileo happened to be Christian. (Which, unfortunately, I have also seen people stupid enough to actually argue)

[Sobax]

5. The concept of heretics and blasphemy are hardly unique to religion

They appear to be an intrinsic part of all social and political groups, in some form or another.

I think circumcision originated for non-religious reasons too, offering some benefits for people who lived in a desert environment. That's just one of the few historical innaccuracies that stand out to me. Also, context matters. The lack of any effective birth control until relatively recent in human history probably played a greater part in males wanting to "own female fertility". A woman who got pregnant and didn't have a family to support her would be reduced to begging and prostitution. That was the reality of it. It wasn't the case that the men just wanted to spoil all the women's fun.

[edhopper]

7. And people still follow those laws today

even though they are no longer iron age goat herders because....?

I'll give you a clue, it's religion.

[enki23]

10. And in order to stop her from being reduced to begging and prostitution, they'd stone her to death.

It's for women's good that they have to be held to high sexual standards upon pain of painful death.

I can tell just-so stories too. The *real* story follows.

You see, back in ancient desert environments, women who had sex outside of social sanction or legitimate rape had higher rates of ectopic pregnancies due to all the endemic dehydration. Traditional wisdom taught them that ectopic pregnancies tended to attract lions, who would sometimes kill the poor woman before she died. Because of this, the women were often shunned, and were reduced to a marginal existence on the outskirts of their society. They were often reduced to begging, or prostitution, or other horrors. Because everyone feared lions, you see. So, out of mercy, it was decreed by the patriarch of one tribe that they were to be mercifully euthanized by burying them up to their waist in the ground while crowds of jeering people threw rocks at them until they died. This caught on due to its obvious effectiveness in deterring the lions. And legitimized by a very real need to teach women a lesson that would ultimately help all women have fewer ectopic pregnancies and avoid being eaten by lions. Except for the dead ones, who were eaten by hyenas.

[Sobax]

13. You seem quite defensive

About me pointing out a self-evident biological truth and historical fact.

Stoning to death was the punishment for adultery, not getting pregnant per se. And you can bet that a lot of these jeering people throwing rocks were women too. Nobody hates a female adulteress more than other females who feel threatened by them.

[safeinOhio]

21. Always fun to point out what

Jesus said when the crowd called out to have the prostitute stoned. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thus ending capital punishment
😅

[Sobax]

22. That's something I forgot to mention

Christians have never had a history of stoning people to death for adultery, so I don't understand all the anger directed at them by atheists. It was only ever done by a relatively small group of people. It was never really that much of a widespread practice to begin with.

[trotsky]

27. Geez, totally.

I mean, what's a few murders between friends? Seriously.

[Sobax]

28. I'm sure religious people who never practiced stoning adulterers

Would appreciate not being broadbrushed along with the minority who did. That would be like blaming atheists for the Khmer Rouge.

[trotsky]

33. Oh I'm sorry, who here has blamed *all* religious people for those who stoned people?

Could you please point out that particular statement on this thread? Thanks much!

[Sobax]

35. It's in the title - 12 worst ideas religion unleashed on the world

It wasn't religion, it was one particular religion.

[trotsky]

38. Hmm, that's strange. I don't see "people" in there at all.

Just "religion," which is an idea. Not people. Was there somewhere else that backs up the claim you are arguing against, or have you simply invented a straw man?

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. Considering the evo psych nonsense they were spewing earlier...

...my money's on "simply invented a straw man".

[Sobax]

15. And as far as desert environments go

If sand gets under the foreskin, it can cause irritation and inflammation, which is one of the original reasons why circumcision was carried out. I don't agree with circumcision personally, but that's why they did it. Don't shoot the messenger. The Egyptians used to do it before the Hebrews. The Hebrews also used it to reduce physical sensation in that area.

[ieoeja]

17. I always figured the prohibition on eating ham came about that way.

Unaware of trichinosis...

Priest: "We have noticed that people eating pig products tend to die at a younger age. So we think you should stop eating pigs."

Man: "I live almost exclusively on pigs. And I'm the oldest person in the village!"

Priest: "We did say 'tend'. There will be exceptions."

Crowd: "What? Anyone understand that?"

Priest: "They are dirty. They roll around in their own shit."

Woman: "So does my brother!"

Crowd: {laughter}

Priest: {sigh} "Because God said stop eating ham!"

Crowd: "Ooohh. We'd better sell all of our pigs to the heathen!"

[safeinOhio]

23. I understand that it was

An adaptive strategy for the desert environment. Pigs would root up the little tillable land they had and turn it into desert too. They did cook their meat back then.

[chervilant]

25. What is your source for the "origin" of circumcision?

In "The Evil Eye," Edward Gifford identified circumcision as a symbolic version of the sacrifice of virility to a deity:

"Originally an imitation of menstruation, performed at puberty on boys who were dressed up as girls for the occasion, circumcision came to be regarded as a sacrifice pleasing to a male deity, when it was viewed as a substitute for castration."

I think it is an "historical inaccuracy" to underestimate how pervasive and influential has been religion throughout the millennia preceding the invention of the printing press--indeed, right through to the present day, with numerous versions of the 'holy bible.'

The rest of your post is inaccurate (and sexist, but aren't we all tarred with the same patriarchal brush?). There are a great many books covering this topic--google is your friend.

[Sobax]

26. I believe it was inscribed on the walls of the temples and pyramids

What is inaccurate and sexist about pointing out the fact that there was no effective birth control until relatively recently, and therefore the breadwinners of a family would naturally want to prevent their daughters and sisters, etc, getting pregnant? Remember there were no food stamps, no child support, no public housing like there is today, so the male relatives of a woman would be responsible for housing, feeding and clothing any illegitimate children. It's not unreasonable that they'd want to avoid this. It's just how it was, it wasn't a patriarchal conspiracy to stop women having fun. Don't shoot the messenger.

[chervilant]

29. Your primary mistake is holding forth your opinions

as sacrosanct, without the benefit of any defensible sources. Furthermore, you are basing your interpretation of historical events on your contemporary perspective, a common fallacy among those not trained in the social sciences.

Regardless of your high opinion of the information you seek to disseminate, you are not "the messenger," and you are wrong.

[Sobax]

31. At least tell me how I'm wrong

What specific point are you denying? That there was no effective birth control? No child support? That the responsiblity to provide for the child would fall on a woman's family instead, and if they refused that responsibility, her only other options were the charity of whatever religious institution she belonged to, or begging and prostitution?

In any case, I don't need to "interpret" any historical events when the people who lived during those times have already done it for me. It's in the historical literature, straight from their own mouths. You seem to be the one trying to reinterpret history to fit your own fantasy.

[chervilant]

36. So, you're a historian?

An accredited historian? Perhaps, an accredited social scientist? You continue to post what can only be interpreted as opinions, and have yet to cite the sources from which you've gleaned your 'facts,' yet you accuse me of "reinterpreting" history?

I could walk over to my personal library and pull an armful of texts that refute your 'facts' and that would be but a fraction of what you can find via Google. However, it seems clear from your posts that you have a personal investment in your glib interpretation of the history of circumcision--and sexual politics in the Middle East--so I decline your adjuration that I tell you "how" you are wrong.

[Sobax]

39. Not an accredited historian

And I don't need to be. I dare say I know more about history than a lot of them since it's something I have a great interest in. I don't take social science seriously as a subject, and I don't respect the opinions or authority of social scientists. But maybe instead of attacking me, you could tell me where I'm wrong. That there was no effective birth control is a historical fact, is it not? That there was no child support is also a historical fact, is it not? Does anybody really need to cite a source for that?

Please do walk over to your personal library, and save me the effort of having to do YOUR homework on Google.

[safeinOhio]

42. Here is a source

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/biblical-birth-control-surprisingly-contraception-friendly-old-testament

[Sobax]

44. I'm not sure Elissa Strauss would meet Chervilant's own high standards

She's not an accredited historian.

What exactly is this supposed to prove though? Wine, myrrh and cinnamon don't fit any definition of reliable contraceptives.

[chervilant]

51. hmm...

I dare say I know more about history than a lot of them since it's something I have a great interest in. I don't take social science seriously as a subject, and I don't respect the opinions or authority of social scientists.

That sounds like anti-intellectualism, Sob...on a democratic forum, no less. Are you not aware that anti-intellectualism is the milieu of rigid, conservative authoritarians who are most likely to self-identify as Republicans?

I think you are best left to your insupportable world view, given your statements herein above. Those of us who know better will simply add you to our IL, as have I.

[struggle4progress]

45. Herodotus, Book II, discussing the practices of the Egyptians:

... Concerning Egypt itself I shall extend my remarks to a great length ... They practise circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, considering it better to be cleanly than comely ...

[heaven05]

9. not to mention

the racial division(s) christianity has fostered, in this country especially. Long, despicable, hypocritical history of that fact, also.

[Dont call me Shirley]

11. And #13...if I believe in x then my past-present-future sins are forgiven, so I can do whatever I

want with no responsibility or consequence.

This creates an untouchable irresponsible arrogance of massive destructive proportions.

[gregcrawford]

12. I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said...

... "Religion is the greatest fomentor of hatred and intolerance in the history of humanity." Or words to that effect.

And it was me who said, "I'm not prejudiced; I despise all religions equally."

Someone on DU has this Voltaire quote as a signature line: "Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Good one. Certainly applies to religions claiming that an omnipotent old curmudgeon in the sky with anger management issues controls everything that everyone does 24/7. I mean, please...

[chervilant]

37. Indeed!!!

An "omnipotent old curmudgeon"! I hope you know I intend to use that. lol

[gregcrawford]

49. Feel free!

[Yorktown]

16. The three worst are violence of the in-group), totalitarianism and sexism.

• The in-group is boss (chosen/saved people)
• and have a right over dissenters (apostasy, blasphemy)
• Cherry on top, sexual repression: mysoginy, sexism, anti-gay, adultery, FSM, child brides,...