Smart Very Smart

And now the rest of the world is hindered by it.

Accomplishments that have benefited man in the past 25 years that came from religions: .....

Accomplishments that have benefited man in the past 25 years that came from science and technology: Hubble, Stem cells, countless medial breakthroughs, computers into many homes, charities like "King Of The Web", Ect.

Religion served its purpose for many years but now it is time for it to not be a deciding factor of governments and the people.

Inb4 red thumbs.

Science and Technology have benefited us since we were us, but Religion is the fallback for society. If anarchy started to rule, one of the first things to happen would be an increase in open religion.

Not to mention religion being the fuel for some of the greatest scientific discoveries ever. That and the vast majority of scientists have been religious. I like to think of religion as the "why" and science as the "how." there's no logical reason they can't go together hand-in-hand

While Science + Religion would be logical it comes down to this.

Science.
Religion.
Pick one.

Society isn't ready yet,

I'm an atheist as well. I agree that religion has played a major part in the building of the world, how ever it has at times hindered progress (Galileo Galilei for instance).
I personally prefer the older polytheistic religions rather than the monotheistic ones.
Overall religion would be fine with me if all religious people were tolerant, but unfortunately the only ones that we can see are the assholes because the tolerant ones are too quite most of the time.
I love all buddhists though, they are awesome.

Yes, but you keep the Vatican - you just sell off all the old relics in the archives, which is where the money is. You can't say it's a "cultural thing" when it's all locked away collecting dust.

Oh yeah, i agree with you there. The archives are pointless

As a bit of a history freak I have to say otherwise.
Still an atheist, but even the archives could contain priceless information.

Not pointless per say, it's just that there is no reason to have them if they keep them locked in a vault

I'm sorry but for any group that claims to want to help people but then has millions of dollars in assets I am skeptical about.

i can deny it. it was not built on the shoulders of religion, but instead on the ability for people to group together under a ruler. this brought power and strength, which brought money and land.
religion was simply a population control, and it was exceptionally effective. dont make them afraid of you, make them afraid of what they cant see and they will do what you say unconditionally.

i dont say that its not a huge part of our history, but we would have developed into what we are today, in a similar form, under any religion.
religion was an answer to the unanswerable, which is why throughout history it was prevalent.

Yeah....prehistoric groups were brought together when they had similar ideas. Religion aided in the formation of the first settlements, thus created our non-nomadic way of life. Along with the ice receding and all that jazz. But religion had a massive part in establishing society and without it, it may have taken much longer to create large groups of people. (BTW, atheist as well)
But on a side note, people dying today > any historic art, buildings, etc.

sell a men a fish and he eats for a day
teach aman how to fish,
and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.

-karl marx (German political Philosopher and revolutionary, 1818-1883)

Karl Marx was a Fat factory owning Capitalist . He is also an idiot that is why his philosophy failed

He was not a Communist he was a philosopher who sat around thinking because he owned many many factories which he used to abuse the worker.

he was one of the first people to support his workers
in his time it was normal to abuse your workers
because of the high unemployed numbers
however he was one of those who wanted to have a good relation ship between
employee and boss
he even armed employee's in France so they could start a revolution in the monarchy

No but being a Factory owning industrialist Leader sure does. Communism is failure Marx is a Failure

He was a factory owning classist who abused his workers for personal profit to live like a fat cat. Bourgeoisie cannot become proletariat they must be killed by violent revolution . You think he was a communist by his own ideological concerns he is the cancer on the world . Fitting the founder of Communism was a cancer on humanity

He wasn't a communist he was Bougenious meaning he cannot be a communist

He practically fucking started Communism, dumbfuck.

No he only thought up the failed idea. Turns out the best guy to ask about how to be fair is a Fat rich Capitalist.

What the fuck. If he thought it up, that means he started it. Sure, he didn't technically carry out any sort of revolution himself, but he inspired many with his idea. Also, true Marxism has never been attempted, therefore, it has not been proven to fail.

That is a fallacy you have proven yourself ignorant to history my friend . the march of the USSR to spread glorious Marxism across Europe is the testament of the Failure of Marxism . he was a fat member of the Bourgenoise the same people communists hate for being successful . He abused his workers for capital wealth and sat in a tower of ivory while he starved the people he enslaved.

Don't worry everyone grows out of their commie phase you rebel against the system then you join it

First, the USSR was far from true Marxism. Second, I'm an anarcho-reformist, believing in reform from democratic-socialism to anarchy, as we need government less and less. Government is power, and power corrupts the most honest and well-meaning of us all.

no you are a whiney communism using any terminology of anarcho-XXX proves your an insolent child . The USSR was the embodiment of Marxist Idealogical concerns . They fell against superior Capitalist society

And you're a capitalist pig who advocates class division. The USSR was a tweaked Marxism, not true Marxism. Look up your shit before you say it.

Yes it s the natural order of things to align ourselves into groups and classes anything else is childish nonsense. The USSR was marxist stop trying you well it wasn't real Marxism my family came from USSR we know this is failure

(It appears I can't reply to your other reply) Well, apparently, you don't know shit about it. Marxism, is not the same fucking thing, as Stalinism/Leninism. If you want to say it is, give me fucking proof.

You didn't even try to dispute anything. You're saying the same shit, over, and over, and over again. Stalinism (The USSR) is a totalitarian state, under a facade of communism/marxism, while really, it is far from it.

Yeah you know I lived under the Rule of Marxism what the fuck would i know about it . You American bourgeoisie probably know more then i do on my own country of origin

of course that is the solution but too many bleeding hearts cry at the sight of a dead child . Africa is under an artificial boom of populace due to free US-EU-UN AID

I love you.

Are you fucking kidding me? Isn't that fucking religion built on "give money to the poor" and "treat others as you would have them treat you"? I don't think that having your own fucking country filled to the brim with priceless art is the way to go. I think the way to not be hipporcritical about it is if you fucking practice what you preach.

THIS

Share the wealth? No. It's not up to you to decide what everyone does with money.

Are you fucking kidding? You just contradicted yourself in the last two comments. "Yea it's really easy to spend every one else's money isn't it?" "But oh no don't ask the public to pay some taxes."

that was my question too

and who the fuck would buy it?

A crazy Roman Catholic!

We don't think "Gee, if the vatican gave away all their money they could help everyone" it's more like, "Hmmm, the catholic church sure does like to ask for money at mass, well i'm sure it's going to help missionaries and stuff in third world countries... oh, it's spent on art?"

Actually some research show, that all the money in the vatican couldnt feed people for over a month

well that's a month in witch those people could eat, or perhaps they could send all the money to one country instead of all of them, perhaps even send all of it evenly spread throughout africa. this would provide a large amount of money for all, much of it could be spent on agricultural equipment, or water pumps.

it doesn't have to feed the whole world, the vatican is redundant in modern times, it remains only to remind us of (the good parts of-) its history, even if it only fed the worlds poor for a month it would still do more good than it currently does.

Except the Catholic church is the largest Aid orginzation on the planet offering medical and education benefits to the poeple of the Third world including food aid . Also you don't understand economics. It is understandable a child like yourself thinks more money = more purchasing power but simply they would have a day or two where they could buy food then prices extrapolate sending food prices sky high . A loaf of bread for 500$ an egg for 2000$ .

The way to fix Africa is to end all AID . This seems like a harsh idea but without the deluge of foreign food supplements the farmer can sell at a resolvable price and hire more workers who will spend their money in the community rising it up .


Wait this is Funny junk

HURR XTAINS ARE EVIL FAGITS

The Vatican is not that rich . 90% of the money pulses back into the churches or aid programmes. Also if you give everyone 1000$ the bread maker will simply charge 700$ a loaf of bread. You knowledge of Economics is tripe as well is your knowledge of the workings of the word

you're assuming they spend it on food, what's to stop them spending it on clothes, mosquito nets, agricultural equipment etc, if the bread maker charges $700 then the dollar loses its value, the dollar loses its value and they've made no more money, should they wish to do that that's their problem.

all that aside what's to stop the liquidator of the vatican simply using the money to buy food and then distributing it directly to poor countries?

it's nice to use your brain for yourself now and then.

He won't be making any money if all his stock goes out the window and he only makes a net profit of a tiny amount. The fact is flooding money into the system dosen't work on the populace. Doing it to a company works better. Everything strikes up if you add extra funds simple economic studies my friend .

The Vatican city profits itself goes to Aid and preserving the ancient treasures that would have been lost . And changing it from 100 Million with 1000$ to 1 man with 1000 million dollars doesn't change and will flood the markets of the food source.

To fix the problem you must not feed them fish but teach them to . Also if you attempt to rob the Vatican can we also take Jerusalem, London, Paris , Berlin , Moscow and Mecca to feed them

did you ignore the second sentence? it doesn't have to be distributed directly as money, and as i missed this earlier, yes, the vatican is THAT rich, they may well spend a huge amount on aid, but they make double the GDP of most third world countries combined, what's left does not simply vanish, it still remains that their net value is more than any other organization on earth, even after outgoings to various aid organizations.

You do releieze that money is used by the 1.5 Billion practitioners of the Catholic Faith.The Church takes in under a Billion $ annually . you can consult peter's Pence on that matter. The Catholic church is pulling hard for the world. Third world nations are poor and there will always be poor . The church even liquidated after destroying the massive cultural importance of the Vatican will not solve the problems

You do releieze that money is used by the 1.5 Billion practitioners of the Catholic Faith.The Church takes in under a Billion $ annually . you can consult peter's Pence on that matter. The Catholic church is pulling hard for the world. Third world nations are poor and there will always be poor . The church even liquidated after destroying the massive cultural importance of the Vatican will not solve the problems

no, but it may well help more than it is now, the relics and artifacts they keep "safe" within their vaults are almost invaluable, if you take into account their worth then the vatican is worth more than most 1st world countries.

liquidation of said assets would, i agree, create such a ripple in the worlds monetary stocks that it may well be detrimental, however selling the items off one-by-one may well prove a better strategy.

of-course the church would never go for that.

You will have to Fight all the Catholic orders if you seek to rob them of their history to sell to some greedy collector. They display the largest collection of artifacts on earth and the library of the Vatican holds the most complete collection of documents referring to European history and inventions in the entirety of the world.

Yes have no idea why people would be against you coming in and robbing them for your 'greater good' Russia in 1920s had a similar policy if you remember . Ended with priceless art and buildings being blown up for the greater good .

i said nothing about theft, i was suggesting that perhaps the vatican could use some of their own money, instead of 'relying' on donations as they do, i have no issue with the church, what people chose to believe is their own problem, but there are only so many relics of historical and cultural value, much of what they have they simply retain for the sake of having it. there's no reason not to sell such items.

Because instead of placing objects for the public to view or having a library for scholars to study from you would want it to be handed to some private billionaire and vanish from everyones sight . 95% of the stuff in the Vatican from the buildings to the fresco are unbelievably valuable . Go sack Mecca or something if you are hurting for cash less history there. The church isn't somehow just generating money we aren't secretly ruling the world.

many of the items i am talking about are never removed from the vatican's vaults. for the exact reason i said, they have no historical or cultural relevance to the church.

do you have any idea how fragile a 3000 year old Etruscan scroll is

well, they managed to move it in the last 500 years, so they can move it again.
the old "its too fragile to move" line is only used when people suggest removing things from their vaults, not putting them in.

No the change to the aviangone papacy left 90% of the treasures inside of Rome

got me there, still, there's plenty of items that aren't perishable, that they could quite easily move.

i suggest me agree to disagree, as there are now a shit-load of purple lines and its quater past 2.

"do with me what you will"

They also spread the idea that condoms are bad in places where sexual diseases are killing people

I dunno about other charities, or even if it's The Salvation Army that did this, but I know that one charity out there, my guess being The Salvation Army, threatened to withdraw all support for the homeless in a certain area if homosexual marriage was legalised. This isn't me bashing on them at all, they do good things, I'm just a little worried that their religious affiliations may cause problems.

they still touch little boys.