steeler wrote: 
Like the guys a few years ago at a baseball game rushing out onto the field and attacking an umpire. I think it was a father and son.
Suspended beliefs or beliefs with suspenders. It all goes down the same funnel... 

 hippiechick wrote: 
A certain percentage of the populace seem to want to be told what to think - whether or not they're religious.  Some religious people are certainly obedient and non-questioning, but not all.  The Bible is largely a series of moral stories and parables - open to individual interpretations.  Obviously, completely surrendering to a religion or philosophy does make things easier for a lot of folks by giving them a reason not to think.

 LordBaltimore wrote:  

I disagree with that theory.

The violence associated with sport fandom often erupts impulsively (drinking often has much to do with it).  

That often is not the case with violence associated with religion. And that, really, was/is my point.  A significant chunk of those committing violence in the name of religtion believe it is somehow justified by the tenets of the religiion. Some even believe they are acting per a god's command  A sport fan who gets into a fight at a game usually later admits that he or she lost his or her cool and was letting passion override his or her judgment.     

 LordBaltimore wrote: 
The leaders interpret, the followers follow. There was a study that showed that most atheists know more about religions than the religious followers know.

 oldviolin wrote: 

Then the magnitude is exponentially expanded!

 LordBaltimore wrote:  

It appears you might be supplying a conclusion for my previous statements. 

I would not necessarily disagree with all that you state in this post.

However, as I stated, to compare violence associated with sport fandom with that associated with religion is a non-starter in my view.    

 

 steeler wrote: 
Oh yeah? Let someone buy the Steeler franchise and sneak out of town overnight with it to somewhere, say, (pick the worst place you can think of.) Then get back to me on that one.

 LordBaltimore wrote: 
I think that religion gives people a reason not to think. Someone else tells them what to think, and it can't be questioned, because there it is, written in the Bible.

 LordBaltimore wrote: 

I think he is partly right. Religion ALWAYS corrupts to a certain and lots of times tragic extent on an institutional level, but not on an individual level. Individually religions affect on humans is manifest differently as we are all different and is impossible to quantify.

 LordBaltimore wrote:  
You are correct in stating that sport fandom can lead some to violence against opposing fans.  The magnitude of that, I would say, pales in comparison to violence associated with religion.

The sport team did not call for the violence, and denounced it in strong terms (in case of MLB and Dodgers). 

Compare and contrast.  

 

 

 LordBaltimore wrote: 

I wasn't making the statement as part of any debate about Hitchens or his views.

As for the second part of your post, yes, they often will attempt to do so.  But, as we have seen and continue to see, the grounding of "hatred "in religion is a powerful force.    

 LordBaltimore wrote: 
Using "always" or "never" instantly negates a person's argument, because exceptions exist.

 LordBaltimore wrote: 
I agree, people don't need a reason to hate, because the hatred comes from within themselves, and any external force is just content for their hatred.

 LordBaltimore wrote: 

In some instances, however, religion provides them with a "moral" plane to ground or justify their "hatred."   

 LordBaltimore wrote: 
I am sure that you can find many examples of where religion has had a neutral or positive affect, but religion is not necessary to have the same affects. Religion gives people a reason to hate others who are different.

It's not Hitchens' atheism itself I object to.  It's his childish belief that "religion ruins everything."  In other words, he believed religion alone was not just sufficient to cause destruction, it always ruins and corrupts everything it touches.

That is such a simplistic, moralistic viewpoint, and it completely disregards all the myriad of other factors — social, economic, and political — that affect human history and civilization.  

To his credit, Marx's materialism was closer to the truth.  Places where most of the populace has roofs over their heads and food in their bellies — regardless of whatever religion they believe in — are more likely to be peaceful places.  I'm not saying that's the only factor, and I'm not saying irrational religious belief never causes harm either.  But defining exactly what "religious belief" means is very tricky and can be a very broad definition.  As South Park demonstrated, take away the "formal" religions, and you could still easily have people killing each other over irrational trivialities (like what to call the Science League).  

 And besides, there are many, many counterexamples to Hitchens' conentions.  I visited Ireland on my honeymoon, which for centuries (in the "beyond the Pale areas" and outside the north) was a mostly peaceful, deeply religious, and very civilized place.  It became a haven for austere monks who treasured education and learning, and lived simple lives.  I saw their settlements with their own eyes.  Also, look at the Muslims who preserved the works of Aristotle and mathematics.  Like it or not, some of the greatest thinkers, philosophers, and even scientists were greatly influenced and inspired by religious faith.  Sure they were wrong about some things, but they made important contributions and "moved the ball" of human knowledge forward.  Take away their faith, and they may never have chosen to become academics  in the first place.  In fact the entire notion of academia was greatly inspired by the monastic tradition.  

 winter wrote: 
Egads! I barely got through the first paragraph without throwing up in my mouth a little.Sounds like it was written by a petulant 8 year old who has never left his neighborhood writing of something he knows nothing about.

 Xeric wrote: 
Shit, and I already made a nice load of #9 shot in a paraffin capped . 40 to pop that fucker that moved into my garage when it got cold a couple weeks ago.

 I don't think he'll behave, he's a rat. Soon to be an ex rat. I'm sorry he was born in rodentia, but I'm even more sorry he choose my garage freezer's motor  as the source of winter warmth.

 

 oldviolin wrote:I agree.  At times the bombast was a coverup of sorts.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Richard Prinz has recently posted links to a study which shows that this is not true even for freaking rats.  Rats, in other words, behave—presumably not at the behest of "God,"—morally.  I'm not yet so cynical as to think people can't meet at least that standard.