Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I have no qualms with Athiests though I am kinda shaken in my belief lately and it is causing me a lot of stress cause I feel the cold of infinity to explain it best.

Essentially it caused me to go through two mid-life crisises in school (Not an exageration...).

Though I am getting a better handle on it and wish to go back to my religion but I am mostly afraid the damage has been done.

The Atheists I don't like are the as described "Militant" Atheists. Though no one probably experienced them they are kinda dead set on two major ideas
1) All religion is evil, anyone who is religious is inherantly close minded and ignorant, and all evils of this world are caused by religion
2) All Religion is to be abolished, ignored, and removed from all media
-Argueing that Religion isn't the rout cause is difficult as it requires intricate knowledge of Geopolitics as well as ancient cultures. For example did you know the Razing of entire cities in the Crusades wasn't because they were purging their evil? It was apperantly a much older practice.

Though they come in degrees and in essence a vocal minority at least here. Most Atheists in my mind are people who just could care less about religion and don't believe in a deity or the possibility of one.

[Muz]

There are more monotheists than polytheists and atheists.  The prior vastly outnumbers the prior, and there have been far too few religion-based holocausts to support that statement.  It is there fore a statistical impossibility for your statement to be false.

I am fairly certain it works out that way even if you take (number of killings by monotheists/number of monotheists) vs. (number of killings by polytheists/number of polytheists)

The ancient Greeks and Romans did a lot of killing. And ancient Egyptians. Also, the medieval Japanese, barbarians, etc, etc. Crusades was nothing.. pick up a proper book on the Crusades. A lot of them died of stupidity. Even if you include the idiot crusaders who killed each other, I'm pretty sure that pagan/polytheist killings outnumber them. Crusades was basically a "let's kill someone all of us don't like instead of each other" thing anyway.

Atheist murderers? Well, there's the Nazis. And the Soviet Union as well as all the communist countries that popped up around the era.

You have disproved your own point

[Neonivek]

The Holocaust was religion based?

The Jews are in an interesting state in that they are a Religion AND a Race but I have a feeling that no matter part it was based on it would have happened.

Personally I think Religion is used more of an excuse then a reason.

A lot of them died of stupidity

One of the reasons the Crusades lasted as long as it did was because of the failure of the "People's Brigade" which was made up mostly of non-soldiers (They were sent early because they were robbing their own allies blind). When they were slaughtered it made a lot of people back home angry.

Though I guess the real reason it lasted so long is that the Crusades were in a sense a success. Afterall the Middle East was supperior to Europe in many ways, I am sure Europe had a technological surge because of it. That and they had supperior treasure. (This was back when they were on top)

[MrWiggles]

Nazi weren't atheistic. Lots of religious, occolutic things. Like the swastika is Indian in origin and used to ward off demons. So they were killing for the nazi party, but the nazi party wasn't atheistic. Its a quasi thing.

The crusades is hard thing to pin down, we only really have records for I think 9 but there suggestions that there may have been as many as 12 to 20.

It was largely religious sanctioned and promoted. With reinterupitation of the dont kill thing to be meaning, dont kill other christians. Anybody who went was offer a keen award, something close to knight hood as well as a spiffy place in heaven.

The church was for it because of the trade routes and the large reason was that not one, but two infidels groups were at and in-control of their holy lands. The treasure brought back, was nifty but secondary. The knowledge they brought back was accidental.

As for a success? Eh. The end goal was to take over the holy land. THey sorta took over Turkey. Cathlothics never really held any lands in the middle for any real period of time.
It was mostly a series of failed military campaigns that never achieved its objective. So by its own standards, the crusades were fucking failure.

What really drove the crusade was the religious backing and religious rewards. It was a good thing to die in the service of your lord in foreign lands. It was a good, but odd thing to return from fighting for your lord in foreign lands.

You really can't find a better documented example and definition of a holly war then the crusades.

[Muz]

Europeans back then were killing each other anyway, it's been generally accepted that the Crusades were an excuse to kill someone else. It's justification more than anything.

In case you noticed, George W. Bush started the War on Terror, calling it a crusade at first, before realizing that the word has a religious term to it.

And the Nazis did need a religion to unite the people into mass murder. Since they had none available, they had to mesh up a bunch of other religions into the Nazi party. It helps to claim that the party is supported by some Supreme Being, and they even funded a lot of archeological digs to find evidence of that.

Conclusion... people have to be united by something as big and world-encompassing as religion to do drastic things. Too bad most of the time it's been to kill someone else or accept some ruler. There have been some good things coming from it, like the golden age of science in the middle east and some monuments, I suppose.

But communists prove that all that bad stuff would still happen if they had no religion.

[Leafsnail]

Wow!! Look at the pot calling the kettle black! You say religious people are ignorant, when you make statements like this. Here's closer to reality!

Please try to substantiate an insult before making it.

Religion: People die and that's scary, so let's tell them they'll live forever in the afterlife IF they do good. Then a lot of people will spend their time volunteering at soup kitchens to feed the homeless, animal shelters to help animals, going on missions to poor foreign countries to help there and just overall making life a little bit better for everyone.

True, that.  The dominant religious political force in America, the Republicans, I hear they do lots of work for the charity and the poor.  I also hear that a religious person is no more likely to donate time or money to charity than a non religious person, but never mind.

Science: Piss off until we fix everything! We're too busy CURING CANCER AND AIDS for the future to worry about you guys now.

And actually helping.  If AIDs were cured, we would actually give millions of people a better life.  Religion on the other hand does no such thing.

Religion and Science can work together! While science does all the busywork in the labs making permanent solutions, religion can bring about temporary solutions.

Temporary solutions like what?  Keeping the science budget down?  It's not like religion lets science get on with what it does - many areas of research are severely inhibited by a useless and archaic system.  Personally, I think that homeless people are far more comforted by a warm meal and a place to sleep than a vague and madeup promise of an afterlife.

Also you apparently think that all religious people go around shooting abortionists<--lollin' at dis.

Nope, I didn't say this.  I said that basically all abortionist shooters are religious, and were motivated by their religion to do this.  Why?  Because religion teaches you that blindly following infallible leaders is a good thing.  Before you come back with that tired cliche of "But scientists do that too!" you'll just have to remember that that's not true.  Every scientific theory is greatly challenged when it comes out, and often for years afterwards.

And looking back I suppose you're "Religious people walk this this, while Science people walk like this" comment was referring specifically to in that meteor situation. In that case.

More like the general philosophy of each.

Religion: Let's all gather 'round and pray for a quick end, and peace in death.

Well, what's praying actually going to do?  Nothing and more nothing.  Everyone ends up dead anyway.

Science: Let's make everyone panic while we try to save the elite! Everyone's fucked but us! Now, how long will it take to dig this hole and get everyone+all the supplies in it? A year? How long until the meteor strikes? 2 days? Haha, holy shit we're fucked. *leans back, snaps open a cold one, and takes a sip*

That is simply not true.  There are bunkers designed to survive nuclear blasts - as long as they're not near the meteor zone they would easily survive.  Meteors actually devastate a fairly small area of earth's surface, so simply moving to the other side of the earth and going to somewhere underground, like a cave or a cellar, may be enough.  Besides, thanks to SCIENCE, we'll have at least 100 years to prepare for a meteor strike.

Didn't they have this as an episode in the Simpsons? The scientists said no one was going to live so they all tried to get into bomb shelters and last it out, and when Flanders' was kicked out, he just went out and calmly faced impending doom, singing Church songs, and everyone made peace with death and walked out with him, and it turned out the meteor didn't even kill them all!

What does this prove other than "The Simpsons is a comedy show where something funny has to happen and all the main characters can't suddenly die in the middle of a series"?

"Scientists: We are curing cancer and aids." which apparently, I should have, as my "opponents" are too dull to extract the meaning of my words, and are blinded by the "flair" and insignificant details I add

You're post implies, very strongly, that actually scientists are just selfish bastards who would never try to do something like that.

A psychopath. A psychopath did it. Psychopaths do these kinds of things! Holy shit, you just basically replied to my statement with "Hell yes all religious people are murderers and lunatics". fffffffffffffffffffffff I can't even believe that

You're smashing your head against a fallacy.  The fallacy goes "If A,  then B.  B, therefore A".

The Atheists I don't like are the as described "Militant" Atheists. Though no one probably experienced them they are kinda dead set on two major ideas

You aren't describing militant atheists.  Under that logic, a preacher becomes a "Militant Christian" and an Imam automatically becomes a "Militant Islamist".  Violence has to be involved.

Atheist murderers? Well, there's the Nazis. And the Soviet Union as well as all the communist countries that popped up around the era.

The Nazis were not in any way atheist.  Hitler himself contradicted himself repeatedly over his religion, and there were many religious elements of the Nazi's manifesto.

Europeans back then were killing each other anyway, it's been generally accepted that the Crusades were an excuse to kill someone else. It's justification more than anything.

But who other than the Pope has the authority to tell the whole of Europe to attack this group of people?  This dangerous culture of non questioning of authority figures was a major contribution to it.

But communists prove that all that bad stuff would still happen if they had no religion.

But once again, they aren't doing it for their religion.  They were doing it for Stalin mainly, and there was such a personality cult around him that it almost became a religion in itself.  They cracked down on churches because they were against the communist manifesto - communism was basically a religion anyway.  Remember, there is a difference between atheism and areligious.

[Chutney]

Leafsnail: ignorin' 90% of what has been said, since 1995.  Most of I said in that post has already been gone over, and oftentimes the replies held similar content to yours, which I answered. But here we go again, with brand new information. All for you 

All of those ads on TV, the ones with the sad music and the celebrity, talking about how for only 2c a month, you can save an African child's life? Those are mostly funded by Christian organizations. Cluster 13 is ran by a Christian organization, and they actually almost entirely rebuilt my house for free, because we were going to be evicted from it. They do that kind of stuff in my area all the time. Salvation Army is also Christian run. All of these are non-profit organizations dedicated to improving the lives of millions of people.
Sure it's not curing cancer or aids, but it's still helping people, giving them a better life. This is what I was talking about. Religion works in the short-term (building houses for underprivileged people), while science works in the long-term (curing diseases and advancing technology).

Because religion teaches you that blindly following infallible leaders is a good thing.  Before you come back with that tired cliche of "But scientists do that too!"

A)Abrahamic religions teach that. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Wicca, Atheistic Satanism, Germanic paganism, the ancient Greek and Roman religions, the Native American religions, Babylonian religion, Confucianism, etc etc don't teach that blindly following infallible leaders is a good thing.
B) I've never heard the 'tired cliche' that scientists teach you to blindly follow infallible leaders. In fact, most of what scientists talk about is challenging ideas and exploring ideas.

Well, what's praying actually going to do?  Nothing and more nothing.  Everyone ends up dead anyway.

It's going to comfort those who pray, and maybe even some of those who are prayed for, so they can die peacefully.

You're post implies, very strongly, that actually scientists are just selfish bastards who would never try to do something like that.

No, my post implies that scientists are too busy and cranky dealing with the big stuff (cancer and aids) to deal with petty problems such as a homeless person begging for change.

But communists prove that all that bad stuff would still happen if they had no religion.

But once again, they aren't doing it for their religion.

Which is exactly what he meant. There was no religious basis on what they did, therefore "bad stuff would still happen if they had no religion."

They were doing it for Stalin mainly, and there was such a personality cult around him that it almost became a religion in itself.  They cracked down on churches because they were against the communist manifesto - communism was basically a religion anyway.

What do you qualify as a religion, just curious? What's your definition for it?

You're smashing your head against a fallacy.  The fallacy goes "If A,  then B.  B, therefore A".

No. I'm not. Here's how it went down. You said:

And then, when you look at, for instance, the shooting of abortion doctors, you remember that ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant.

Which considering the context of this entire thread, the meaning becomes "religious people shoot abortion doctors". (the 'ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant' comment really strikes it dead here, as you believe all religious people are ignorant making the inferred meaning have more merit and evidence). From this, you can gather you believe that all religious people shoot abortion doctors, because you didn't say anything to the contrary, or specifying that fanatic/militant religious people do it. No, you just left it at 'ignorant people kill abortion doctors, and by ignorant people I mean religious people ZING!"
And then somebody replied to my statement, "if it wasn't the religious people, then who was it?". The only way to interpret this given the context of the thread, and the statement they were replying to is, "hell yes, all religious people are murderers".

and i think I am done with this post, but I might've missed a few important notes. Oh well.

[Neonivek]

the meaning becomes "religious people shoot abortion doctors".

The problem with these statements is mostly because it shows an equivocation between morality and religion.

There are Pro-life Athiests out there.

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail: ignorin' 90% of what has been said, since 1995.

You seriously expect me to quote 2 pages of discussion?

Sure it's not curing cancer or aids, but it's still helping people, giving them a better life. This is what I was talking about. Religion works in the short-term (building houses for underprivileged people), while science works in the long-term (curing diseases and advancing technology).

But someone who is Christian is no more likely to donate to charity than a non Christian (or indeed an atheist).  So claiming such acts are works of religion is simply not true.

A)Abrahamic religions teach that. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Wicca, Atheistic Satanism, Germanic paganism, the ancient Greek and Roman religions, the Native American religions, Babylonian religion, Confucianism, etc etc don't teach that blindly following infallible leaders is a good thing.

True, that.  That's the reason why far fewer wars have been fought over them.

B) I've never heard the 'tired cliche' that scientists teach you to blindly follow infallible leaders. In fact, most of what scientists talk about is challenging ideas and exploring ideas.

Sorry, almost everyone comes back with that one, and to your credit, you haven't.

It's going to comfort those who pray, and maybe even some of those who are prayed for, so they can die peacefully.

Perhaps the ignorant are comforted by the lies we can tell them.  But is this really a solution?  Religious people do not tend to die more peacefully than non religious people, and religion simply cannot override the survival instinct.  There will still be absolutely massive panic with religion.

No, my post implies that scientists are too busy and cranky dealing with the big stuff (cancer and aids) to deal with petty problems such as a homeless person begging for change.

But then why should they?  It's not their job.  That's akin to asking why teachers aren't out there rescuing people from fires.  They tend to help indirectly - some scientists work on engineering projects which do benefit homeless people by providing them with fresh water.  Some work on the infrastructure to get the food to people.  Some work on providing said people with affordable communications technologies.  Social scientists work on ways to avoid isolation and poverty in areas.  Climate scientists work on ways to prevent freak weather events from creating homeless people.  Geologists work on stopping events such as earthquakes and volcanoes from causing heavy damage to homes and creating more homeless.  And so on.

What do you qualify as a religion, just curious? What's your definition for it?

An organization where there are unquestioned, dogmatic truths that are never questioned.  There is a hierachy, and those above you are not ever questioned or brought to bear over things.  There are usually figures who are higher up than you, and some people who are simply beyond question.  This would probably put some things into religion, but any hierachy system like this is just as dangerous.  Note that having a god certainly isn't a requirement - Buddhists don't, strictly speaking, believe in a deity.

Which considering the context of this entire thread, the meaning becomes "religious people shoot abortion doctors". (the 'ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant' comment really strikes it dead here, as you believe all religious people are ignorant making the inferred meaning have more merit and evidence). From this, you can gather you believe that all religious people shoot abortion doctors, because you didn't say anything to the contrary, or specifying that fanatic/militant religious people do it. No, you just left it at 'ignorant people kill abortion doctors, and by ignorant people I mean religious people ZING!"

Well, no.  You (or whoever I was quoting at the time) were/ was pointing out that, for some people, being ignorant is a happy state.  I pointed out that some people in this state can do bad or extremely stupid things, as well as generally mess things up.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ALL DO IT.  They don't have to all do it to make it bad for society in geneal.

I guess I just assumed that anyone would take the context and realise that "Ignorant" meant fanatics, due to the obvious fact that not all religious people shoot abortion doctors.

[Neonivek]

claiming such acts are works of religion is simply not true

It is this weird scenario where people believe altruism and morality are somehow religion or at least exclusive to religion.

I am a bit freeked out that I havn't been quoted yet... I guess I havn't said anything really to object to.

[Sergius]

Atheist murderers? Well, there's the Nazis.

WRONG! Hitler was in fact a Christian, and he used as argument to hate the Jews the following reasons:
1) he considered them genetically Inferior
2) they took the jobs/ran the banks/controlled the economy instead of "true Germans" or whatever
3) they "killed Jesus"

Saying that Hitler is an atheist is one of the biggest anti-atheist strawmen and one of the most commonly abused.

[Chutney]

But someone who is Christian is no more likely to donate to charity than a non Christian (or indeed an atheist).  So claiming such acts are works of religion is simply not true.

I didn't say that they were. I was pointing out that there are massive numbers of Christian organizations who are entirely devoted to helping people and donating. I wasn't saying that Christians are more moral or likely to help, I said that there are numerous Christian organizations that actively donate and help out those that are down (even those that have helped me out, and I'm Jewish ). I have not heard of an atheist organization devoted to helping as much as these organizations are.

making something clear: I have NEVER said that religion == more moral/better person. I KNOW that morals come from the person themselves, and are evolved by their environment.

True, that.  That's the reason why far fewer wars have been fought over them.

Actually almost every Greek, Roman,(scratch that these were over imperialism) Norse, and Aztec war was fought because of their religions. And those specific groups had quite a few wars. More than Christianity could ever hope for. And each of those religions had a pantheon of deities (many whose aspect was War, and that god wanted as much glory and bloodshed as possible). Aztecs waged wars to sacrifice to their gods, Vikings fought so they could go to Valhalla (and didn't really have much other reasoning, besides war is great!)

An organization where there are unquestioned, dogmatic truths that are never questioned.  There is a hierachy, and those above you are not ever questioned or brought to bear over things.  There are usually figures who are higher up than you, and some people who are simply beyond question.  This would probably put some things into religion, but any hierachy system like this is just as dangerous.  Note that having a god certainly isn't a requirement - Buddhists don't, strictly speaking, believe in a deity.

That would make pretty much every form of government a religion. Monarchism, Democracianity, Republicism, Beauracracianity, Fascism(alright Fascism is very nearly a religion, I'll admit), and more! Sorry I wasn't a little more clever with the new names, the only way I could think of to make them sound like the name of a religion are adding "ism" and "ianity" to the end
I guess religion is pretty hard to define without really including EVERYTHING... argh
Curious fact: Democracianity is apparently a real thing (spellchecker doesn't underline it), but googling it brings up 0 results. What a mystery.

[Neonivek]

Actually almost every Greek, Roman,(scratch that these were over imperialism) Norse, and Aztec war was fought because of their religions

You really need to seperate "Reason" from "Excuse"

The Norse at several points became incapable of supporting themselves without war so it was a matter of survival.

those specific groups had quite a few wars

The Norse are if my memory serves are multiple groups.

Saying that Hitler is an atheist is one of the biggest anti-atheist strawmen and one of the most commonly abused

Yeah lets just throw it out here and say that Hitler himself is the biggest strawman and one of the most commonly abused.

[Rilder]

Can I have some sources on Greeks fighting over religion?

I'm a bit scratchy on the early days of Greece but Greece tended to be fighting themselves and the Barbaroi then other religions.  Especially after Alexander, If I remember right a lot of the Diadochi had sort of intermingled Pantheons.

[Neonivek]

Can I have some sources on Greeks fighting over religion?

He is doing this by stretching the definition.