http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

I think this is the point where you should really read this out.

Evolution isn't "the right way to go". It's simply an aspect of the natural world which has nothing to do with morality and how we as humans should behave. It is a blind natural process that doesn't know any purpose, direction or values. Evolution doesn't care whether we like it or whether we believe in it. Understanding the reality of evolution doesn't mean that one has to approve of the way it works. Personally, I think that evolution is a cold, brutal, terrifying process and I'm glad that we were able to stop natural selection for humans, for the most part. Nevertheless, evolution is simply a feature of reality without which we wouldn't be here and I have to accept that.

Religion has nothing to do with civilization. Take away religion, and society will be the better for it, unless there is a substantive number of psychopaths like you who only avoid raping and murdering because you are "God fearing".

I wouldn't say that. It's actually the opposite it seems, since every civilization has developed some kind of religion.

I also read a study (don't no where anymore, I'm sorry) that said that religion is beneficial for people, letting them live longer. I guess that's the least you can get when believing there's someone out there, (maybe) watching over you.

I myself am an agnostic and I do think that religion was used (if not made?) to manipulate people, but whatever happened, I cannot (or don't want) to say with certainty that there isn't anything like a God, be it an entity, presence, whatever.

And I'd also prefer if people on both sides of the spectrum wouldn't be so blinded to opinions from the other side (and so hateful, sometimes).

I read an interesting book awhile back. Wish I could remember the name of it but my memory kinda sucks. The book wasn't about rape or anything. It was about WWII and there was an interesting story about a Russian solider who, during the invasion of Berlin, towards the end of the war, found a German woman hiding out in the rubble of a bombed out building and she was shaking and very frightened of him as he approached her. When she saw him she got up to attack him at he's got close. He then easily over-powered her and started to kiss her and then he took her to the ground and raped her. When he was finished he left her there and came back after being gone for a short while. The woman was weak and scared when he returned and she didn't resist the Russian soldier a second time. But this time he didn't rape her. He had found some medical supplies and nursed her back to health and gave her some chocolates he had found. He even brought her a single red rose he'd found in a bombed out flower shop in the city. They couldn't understand each other that well. Then some more Russian soldiers came in and tried to rape the woman. The Russian soldier killed them all and fled the city with the woman. After the war they ended up getting married and had children together.

My point - War is as close to our roots as a primitive savage species as it gets. It shows what would happen if an apocalypse were to ever happen. Men would rape women and then protect them from other men. Women would look for the most alpha male with the protective abilities as she could to protect her from being savagely raped, offering herself to one man for his protection instead. I'm sure the Russian solider was against rape most of his life. But after many years of living in constant fear and longing for female companionship and desperate for sexual release I'm sure he lost control of his mortality and gave into the beast within himself. I don't believe males want to rape. I believe certain social and economical and even political obstructions and failures can cause a male to lose his self-control and act out savagely. This is no way condones rape but explains how and why it can happen. I don't believe the feminist rhetoric that rape is about power. Maybe in some cases but not all. It's too complex an issue to blame it all on one reason. But it most certainly is in the genes of all species on this planet, including our own.

And what does that have to do with Religion? Or do you believe that only the "godless commies" ever rape people? But then why did the Russian soldier suddenly become a good guy? Did he discover God shortly after raping the woman? Or are you just saying the woman became his possession and he was only protecting her for that reason?

Basically, what does that story have to do with anything in this topic?

That would be utterly personal.

Deeply religious person may recover from hard times because he/she will perhaps have support from community, has the possibility to think stuff like "its God's plan" or whatever and sort of accept whatever comes etc..

But really, its nothing magical. The person does not live longer because God gives him or her superhuman powers - rather the person gets support from extended social network and may have various guidelines to rely on.

However, one might have these same supports from hobby, work community, neighbours and so on.

But yes, i do agree that religions may have beneficial effect on people in this sense - but ofcourse there are many flipsides as well. Then again, religions are, or atleast should be rather personal matters in the first place, so everyone should use their own heads and hearts instead of following any group or say-so person to find out if they are any good or not.

I hope you're not trying to justify it?

I go to nap, wake up to some of thorn's most ignorant ramblings.

please elaborate.

I have to wonder about some of you atheists myself. I certainly don't believe a true Christian goes around raping and murdering anyone. But an atheist wolf dressed in Christian sheep wool might. How can you have morality without religion? Where does your morality come from? And furthermore how come your morality is so much like mine? We both agree that rape and murder is wrong. But how can that be? I choose not to rape because it's sin and I've got enough self-control to not give into that sin. I do lust however but not so much that's I'd be willing to rape and hurt a woman over it. I prefer it when the woman consents as that makes me feel loved and desired in return. I can't say I'd get any thrill out of raping a woman. Then again, I've never tried it and don't plan on it. If the world were to suddenly fall apart and become completely chaotic I don't know what I'd do or be capable of? I'd still have my religious morals at first but I'm sure brutality of such a savage environment can take a toll on anyone's views in life and force them to change. The old military saying is, "Adapt, improvise, and overcome".

Ever watch "The Walking Dead"? I think that show does a good job of showing how people can change radically in their views on certain issues and before long people learn real quick that it's kill or be killed. Rape or be raped. Eat or starve. Shelter or freeze. Is that the type of world I want? Hell no. I'm comfy with modern day living and all the willing women in short skirts that WANT sex for cheap. I do admit feminism HAS given men some nice benefits.

No, athiest posing as christians wouldn't, we don't need to do anything more to make your religion look foolish and you owe us an apology.

Dude, it is a scientific theory that explains why rape exists, not a moral compass. It also explains many other behaviours, like love or racism, that does not mean an atheist or the catholic church (who accepts evolution now) is into rape, racism or love.

But if the bible is your moral compass, and not the golden rule, shouldn't you be into rape, murdering whole tribes and killing your brother if some magic being tells you to?

You should also make a distinction between "society" and "religion" (not to mention "civilisation" because that word means nothing). Desocialised contexts are brutal. All societies regulate behaviours through norms and values. These norms and values, as well as the whole collective representations of the world that are shared in that sociaty, are generally communicated and reaffirmed through (amongst other things) myths and cautionary tales. These enduring-yet-evolving tales and myths form a mythology. When they are solidified by rituals, by social functions dedicated to them and upheld by some individuals, you can talk of a religion (though it's a very blurry and reductive term, improperly used to name many different systems). It's just one way of collectively expressing, teaching, and displaying, local norms and values.

But you can't reduce societies to it, especially as societies have other normative systems (secular education, law, cautionary tales that don't involve any "belief" in them having actually taken place, etc). Religion is not central. You can have societies without religion, that keep their cohesion through other types of discourses and rituals. The point is :

When society breaks down, yeah, you can expect a dangerous mess. But religion is not society. It is a distinct element. All social rules of behaviour are not religious in nature, sometimes none are. If you discuss behaviours outside of society, it is a whole other subject.