The hallucination that man has the legitimate right to rule has lead to more deaths than any other religion and all religions combined

Just remember, 2/3 of people will shock you to death if an "authority" figure tells them to do so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanfo...son_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Are you an AnCap? If you are, I have some bad newz

I'm a f*cking human being
It's man's job to discover truth (reality) and align himself with it to create order. Live a delusion and chaos will ensue. Reality=You own yourself. Government directly violates this principle as it must first violate your self-ownership by stealing from you in order to exist.

You're speaking anarchist speak, but being anti-authority necessitates rejecting all forms of institutional authority. Whilst the state is one form of authority, and is indeed unjustified, it is not the only one and not the only one we need to reject. The state, religion, capitalism, are all examples of institutional authorities that prevent the masses from truly being free. ITT though the topic is religion, so there's no need to bring up the state.

Maybe if the U.S. Government hadn't .....oh wait we're talking religion. NVM.

But why are you specifically targeting religion with that logic? Violence and oppression manifest through just about every facet of our lives, the music we listen to, the things we watch on tv, even the language we speak, if someone thinks banning religion solves a problem then would banning everything solve every problem? Thinking that's the solution isn't really taking into account the source of the problem which is nature itself, it's not even just a human thing, it's a life thing and we have to just learn to accept it.

I get your point though, a song hasn't caused someone to fly planes into a building or blow up a stadium, but are these instances really spurred by religion itself and not the conditions these people have found themselves in? They come from a chit part of the world and feel oppressed, aren't their actions more politically based rather than religiously based regardless of what they or anyone else claim? They unite under a religious banner but they aren't exactly bombing churches or trying to kill the pope, their actions are done out of oppression and they target what they feel is the cause of it, what does the world trade center, the pentagon, a stadium, a marathon, underground train stations etc etc really have to do with their religious belief? Yeah we call them radical muslims but to think wiping out religion would some how create peace in that scenario is not taking everything into account, but the finger is continuously pointed towards religion as the cause when it's only what these people who feel oppressed unite under, which is a naive way of looking at things.

Bad thing in the short term, since people will cling to their beliefs harder than most think, but then just "a thing."

I'm on the fence as to whether to berate you or point you in the right direction. Start reading a book. This has been explained hundreds of times. We evolved with these "morals" because it was the best way to survive as a species. We think killing each other is bad because we want to continue to live and not to die out. When OUR life is in danger, then yes, we will kill.

you worship religion whether you know it or not. You think your society is not a religion ? You think the bible governs people's lives and that without the bible people wouldn't be governed by rules and magical answers? This country is not based on God or religion it's based on money and your life is run by bankers lawyers judges and politicians whether you have religious book or not they make up laws and that's your religion based on some mortal's ideas of what should and should not be. Don't you realize that the system is it's own religion

A bad thing.

Religions have been the cause for way too many wars (especially in older times, but also in recent). To "ban" religion is to cause the extremists to do what they do best and start new wars and battles.

You're confusing correlation with causation. There are many reasons why places are Scandinavia are peaceful. The countries there are rich and homogeneous. If they were poor, had a history of being colonized, had an essential natural resource that makes the area a target for much of the rest of the world, and had arbitrary borders which placed competing tribal societies within the same country, it's seriously doubtful that things would be so rosy there.

Morality, like religion, is a social construction, and the two were basically one and the same for much of history. Take away our social conditioning and there is very little reason not to kill a stranger in order to take his food and/or women if you could do so with little danger to yourself. Actually, that is exactly how human beings behaved for much of their existence. It is also why tribal societies in the past and present are usually grouped together along familial ties, whether through blood or marriage. We are less inclined to kill those who are related to us (because selfish genes and all). But killing people from other tribes? Very common occurrence, even among the tribal societies that were discovered in the 20th century, completely invalidating the old romantic belief in the noble savage and how it's society that corrupts us (though many anthropologists and other social scientists cling to this belief to this day).

Anyways, with the development of agriculture, for the first time in human existence, people with no relation to each other came to live in close proximity to each other. In a permanent settlement, you can't have people killing each other for obvious reasons. Society would not be able to function. However, how do you keep people from killing non-relatives, which has basically been the natural impulse for our entire existence? Because God or the gods say that killing your neighbor is wrong. Religion was developed as a tool for stability. Like it or not, religion was one of the founding blocks of civilization. Of course, once you have stability within, it makes it easier to organize force and direct violence to external rivals and enemies.

Lol @ slapping labels on it, I don't identify as anything. Labels thwart the message. I'm speaking from reality/truth. I've evolved past the idea of being an anarchist. I'm just a man trying to restore order by aligning myself with reality. I don't wish to play one's delusional game of control.

I'm not anti-authority. The only true authority=Truth (law of gravity for example, self-ownership principle, etc) I'm against mere humans who claim to have authority over my life decisions. The state IS a religion. State worship is very well alive. When people flea from your standard religions (Christianity, Judaism, etc) they begin to worship the state.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
The state is seen as superhuman because it has rights that mere mortals, like you and I, don't have. Watch the video for further detail on how the belief of government=religion.

I wasn't claiming that there is a causal relationship between not being religious, and safety. I was refuting the claim that "without religion, people would just start behaving like savages". This is empirically false. The world has been getting progressively less religious over the centuries and people have not been becoming more savage, the opposite is in fact true.

Lol at thinking a book of spells is what is keeping humans from butchering each other

It would be a better world. Still fcked up because everyone develops opinions about how everyone should live and act but it would be slightly better than it is now.

Living in England, I honestly don't think I would notice. Must be 20 years since I spoke to an openly religious person.

You mean a world where bad religious people no longer have religion as an excuse? No killing / abuse in the name of? Oh boyo what a grand time it would be to be alive.

My point is that people in developed countries are less likely to be violent because of the higher standard of living, not necessarily because they're more secular. Look at any poor, inner-city community in the U.S. and the rate of violence is obviously much higher than in better-off areas. If anything, the church and organized religion act as stabilizing forces in inner-city black communities.

Would people in the developed world start becoming savages without religion? No, because we have laws, socialization, etc that keeps us from doing so. And besides, there's really no practical reason for us to be very violent. We have easy access to food and even sex. But if all the institutions that keep society together deteriorate for whatever reason? The situation would be different. You argue that the Middle East is violent because of religion. I would argue that the people there need the religion due to the political and socioeconomic situation there. The situation there would likely be even more chaotic there without the somewhat (I say somewhat due to sectarianism) uniting force of Islam. But like I said, with greater stability they can also concentrate better on external enemies, which in their case would be us. Bad news for us, really.

laws prevent us from doing bad things?
Laws are irrelevant to good people, same with bad people


+1 higher standard of living=less crime

God created everything including man; within every human is a conscious - it is innate; hence why most people know right from wrong to a certain degree and feel guilt even at a young age.

However, not everyone is equal - some people are more likely to do evil deeds and others are more likely to do good deeds. Some people have a morally superior conscious and others a more wicked conscious.

Religion is essential becomes it gives a person a moral compass that grounds them within the life they lead. It prevents them from making rash decisions when **** hits the fan. It allows them to stay away from things that lure yet harm them [like alcohol, smoking, drugs, gambling, etc.]. It allows them to focus on what matters in life, being a morally rich and just person and not chasing trivial pursuits which will only bring them regret. It makes them humble. It makes them honest. It makes them chaste. All foundations to building a strong society on a social level.

Don't confuse a persons flaws and blame it on the religion; rather look at what the religion teaches.

I mean re-reading it a few times still makes me believe you are a dentist, nothing really makes sense. Just like the Quran your post is up for interpretation. If you agree with what I said move on - if not, elaborate.

'Your post suggests that if you took away religion, the same amount of violence would be occurring through other justifications.
This statement implicitly suggests that you are critiquing the claim that a religious free world would indeed be violent
So people would still be beheading infidels, blowing up stadiums, and flying planes into buildings through other justifications, because according to you religion isn't the main root cause of these acts of violence, instead it is "human nature". The problem is we both know that you don't actually believe this, and if a Muslim exploded in a US city tomorrow you'd certainly be blaming the religion itself.
See above
Without religion there would still be violence, but a significant type of violence would be greatly reduced. So there would be less violence than there is today. Logic 101 this addendum suggests you are mocking the logic previously aforementioned as deduced by your previous critique"

Edit: dentistry