We would have pretty much everything you listed except the churches if religion hadn't existed.
...By sheer logic...the examples I cited would never have existed.
I'd like to see you find any possible intelligent way in which to argue that The Last Supper, or Kyrie Eleison would have come about without Christianity.
(You can't)
I remember there being a greek guy, but anyway, at that time pretty much everyone were religious which means it would be very hard to not have a religious guy discover it. It was AFTER they discovered these things people started to question religion...
"Science proves God's cleverness"
War breeds only progress in weapons, not stuff normal people use.
Nuclear power, the internet, plastic, radar, dynamite, synthetic rubber, margarine, the list goes on, and on, and on.
If it wasn't set up by the government themselves then it was Osama bin Laden and those guys. And they were martyrs (*cough*religion*cough*).
You should look at the whole history behind Osama Bin Ladin. As well as the Afghanistan wars when Communism was still around that spawned his ideals.
I don't know about the train bombings, but London would have existed and it wouldn't be smaller in any way. Just less churches and more buildings people can live in.
Religion is what gave birth to the British culture. Heck, I'll go so far back as to cite the celtic druidic faiths as a part of that birth.
In essence: Religion is what inspired mankind to build buildings, not just huts.
As a Christian I see a few people who feel that life is hopeless because God doesn't seem to care about them, or even exist because of temporal circumstances. In this time, they are often suicidal, rage-filled, in general irrational.
I can certainly apply this to the new breed of purely animalistic humans, whom are intelligent enough to know that they are conscious, but brutish enough to believe their only purpose is to further the species. If they can't contribute to that (finding inferiorities within themselves which EVERYONE does), and having no hope of otherwise. They commit suicide most oftenly: Japanese culture can be cited here for references to 'honourable suicide', which has applications here.
And even then, Eugenics takes its toll here. Morality being 'nothing' in this society.
Still, the Catholic Church are the ones who do it the most, and it says a lot when the Vatican got their own DEPARTMENT for such things. A WHOLE DEPARTMENT.
Most? Not by a long shot...Media Attention != Absolute truth statistics.
The United State's government has a department for the same thing by the way...Its called the SVU, I guess that means the United States molests children? (no)
Why would they kill themselves? It makes no sense whatsoever.
"No purpose, No hope"
Reality, and Life shows ample example enough of people who commit suicide because of those two ideas alone.
Oh, so it's religions fault that people are greedy and people start wars to get richer?
Greed is a human endeavour: They'd just commit greed through trade, and bartering.
The coinage example is to show that Religion creates convenience. I don't think any of us would be fond of taking a goat, and two turnips to the store for a pack of gum, when we can take a coin instead.
It isn't Baskin Robin's fault after making delicious icecream, if two kids kill each other over a cone rocky road. Free-will.
The Church didn't tax people first... >_>
Ancient Empires and their Governments did.
Rome was very efficient with taxing people...even while they were persecuting Christians.
Egypt had a taxation system via labour. Where during the months where the nile was not flooded, they would work in what would be today public works projects.
China had a tax system using rice, so did Japan.
Politics, not Religion, is the source of Taxation.
No one else tried, that's why it was Hitler. And it was his anti-Semitic view which drove him.
You aren't at all aware of the Nuremberg trials are you?
The S.S, the Gestapo?
The holocaust still wouldn't have happened.
Oh yes it would have. Hitler's issue wasn't about religion, it was Eugenics, he killed all kinds of homosexuals, mentally disabled, handicapped, slavs, etc, and he was leaning towards a superior genetic race all with secular humanistic leanings, mixed with twisted occult mysticism: Which isn't Religion, by the way...
"He would have just found another scapegoat", is my point.
PS: Don't even try to pass me off as an enemy, especially to the Jewish people, it will serve you to no avail, and I will merely pass you on to someone who will deal with you unkindly.
No it wouldn't. The churches are the ones who started it and they still continue to deny gay people from being leaders in the church. Only now do we allow gay marriage and not thanks to religion. The church has been against this all the time.
You have very poor knowledge of Homosexual history. Marriage is a religious creation by the way. And for good reason do churches refuse to let homosexuals be their leaders, and for good reason we are against homosexual behaviour.
Point being: Without religion, genetics would be the purpose of a human's life...homosexuals would be greatly disappointed at their fate in the cruel eugenic world that awaits them there.
I don't think it was religion which started this. It was the USA.
It wasn't the USA either...
I'll remind everyone that England had slavery as well, and so did the rest of Europe, of which in England a man named William Wilberforce (a Christian), helped, and if not brought about, the fall of Slavery in England.
Or without the USA, either one. And just like the one a bit further above, it sounds like you don't care about those people who died and that it doesn't help if LESS people die.
Your logic is flawed.
Nope, those were to spread Christianity.
Nope; political, financial, imperialism. George Bush didn't go into Iraq to spread Democracy you know...
The witch burning was started by religion. Read a history book please.
You'd be surprised at what the actual history of the witch burnings...considering I did read a history book, and not a Wiccan propaganda piece.
Actually, the Pope himself started this.
Yeah...and I'm technically protestant. Fascinating!
The Pope was the one who said sex was a sin
God however, says we should enjoy it with our wives...and it actually implies 'daily'.
and that women were inferior and all that. Before Christianity women were WORSHIPPED by men as GODDESSES.
One of the reasons Christianity spread so quickly amongst WOMEN in the ancient world, is because it actually taught social equality, in a world where women were not given much credit.
And it was believed that you could only contact god through them.
correcting your statement to be accurate said:
And it was believed you could contact the gods through them
You know absolutely nothing about the role of women in the pagan worship do you? >_>
The vast majority of women in religious service for the temples where prostitutes, also a financial venture.
There are still religious groups who worship women. I'll quote myself "Hieros Gamos anyone?".
Yay? I have yet to see myself, or my Christian brethren degrading a women to servitude, and quite the opposite. Since God tells us plainly and quite frankly that women are not to be used, being beautiful creations of his.
PS: I like how Christianity is against pornography, and prostitution. Yet most secular groups say pornography is perfectly alright, and the only reason prostitution isn't looked fondly on is because of disease liability. However, they have absolutely no problem with multiple sex partners, which is just prostitution without the paycheck, where as Christians are against degrading women to being sex objects.
He wasn't an atheist. He was a FUCKED UP religious guy. An atheist isn't "muslim for show", and he wasn't anywhere near atheism anyway.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_husseinsadam.htm
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein only turned to religion near the end of his reign when he desperately needed anything that would bolster support. Conservative critics in the West have tended to focus on this, ignoring the fact that he was only using religion for political purposes - something we see in the West as well. Lumping Saddam Hussein with other Islamist leaders and movements is also likely to be inaccurate because Hussein himself was a frequent target of Islamist criticism for being too secular and not enforcing Islamic religious laws.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090815041749AAzK5mE
During his life time (not counting the few meager months nearing his death): He was a secular, socialist, atheist, just like his communist spawning pool-mates.
The war might have happened, but MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE DIED. There would still be deaths, but there would be LESS, AND THAT'S WHAT MATTERS FFS.
I'd argue that more people would have died, considering how many people didn't go because of religious reasons.
Again, you don't care if LESS people die.
I'll quote a possible conversation between you and some random guy:
"Some guy: If Bush had never been born then countless more people would have lived!
Elenai: As if the Great Leap Forward in China didn't kill people."
You are failing to realise the whole purpose in citing the communist regime's various genocides. "Atheism isn't innocent; and for as much as "Religion" has ever killed anyone, by the same logic of 'ideals kill', Atheism is a blood stained murderer."
