NationStates Jolt Archive

I was in an argument about how dangerous religion is and I pointed out the crusades, witch hunts, protestant-catholic wars, and general hate crimes. She said, "Yea well, Atheists killed plenty of people back then too."
:headbang:

Where there even atheists who had a power structure (or at all) during the middle ages?
Where they ever violent?

I was in an argument about how dangerous religion is and I pointed out the crusades, witch hunts, protestant-catholic wars, and general hate crimes. She said, "Yea well, Atheists killed plenty of people back then too."
:headbang:

Where there even atheists who had a power structure (or at all) during the middle ages?
Where they ever violent?

There were atheists. Often the accusation of atheism was brought against people to condemn them as heretics, although in most cases its hard to tell if they were or not.

I don't think there was any large power structure of atheists that committed organized acts of violence like religious groups, however.

Nor have there been any groups in modern times that have killed in the name of atheism. Christians often try to cite atheist dictators and say "atheists did it too", but the big difference is that atheists have killed in the name of political ideals (such as Stalin), whereas Christians have killed in the name of Christianity. You wont find cases of large scale organized violence done with a cry of "for Atheism!" in the same vein as "God have mercy on your soul" or "allahu akbar", if that makes sense.

I was in an argument about how dangerous religion is and I pointed out the crusades, witch hunts, protestant-catholic wars, and general hate crimes. She said, "Yea well, Atheists killed plenty of people back then too."
:headbang:

Where there even atheists who had a power structure (or at all) during the middle ages?
Where they ever violent?
The Mongols, and before them, the Huns.

Well, if you'd like to tally up the religious vs non religious based death count, you'll probably be disappointed with the results, what with Hitler, Stalin and any other tin pot dictator you'd care to mention.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your religion bashing. Spitting on the faith of good people is just so cool.

I was in an argument about how dangerous religion is and I pointed out the crusades, witch hunts, protestant-catholic wars, and general hate crimes. She said, "Yea well, Atheists killed plenty of people back then too."
:headbang:

Where there even atheists who had a power structure (or at all) during the middle ages?
Where they ever violent?

Atheism first emerged in Ancient Greek philosophy. However, the concept of atheism was lost, along with much Greek learning, as the church gained power. Atheism only ever really gained prominence when science began to answer the previously unanswerable questions, such as 'where did we come from?', providing alternatives to 'God did it'.

So while I can't answer authoritatively I'm willing to guess that the number of atheists at that point in history was negligible, although there were probably a few.

On the other hand Atheists have shown themselves to be just as capable of mindless violence and slaughter as our theistic brethren. Humans rarely need a reason to kill one another.

There's a difference between doing it for atheism and doing it for communism/nazism (to include everything).

Much like there's a difference between doing it for christianity and islam. But both are doing it for religion.

The other is not doing it for lack of religion, but for politics.

The Mongols, and before them, the Huns.
The Mongols were Christians. The Huns weren't atheists, but I don't recall their beliefs off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure that the beliefs were derived from Hinduism.

It is surely ridiculous to point at the crusades and witch hunts as proof that religion is inherently destructive. Those things happened many generations before anyone alive today.

The Mongols, and before them, the Huns.
Then again it must be noted that these groups killed not in the name of atheism but for wealth, land and power. Arguably, this was also the goal of the governments of medieval Europe, they just cloaked it in "religion".

Well, if you'd like to tally up the religious vs non religious based death count, you'll probably be disappointed with the results, what with Hitler, Stalin and any other tin pot dictator you'd care to mention.

Hitler believed he was doing God's work, kid.

Hitler believed he was doing God's work, kid.
Course he did, kid.

The Mongols were Christians.

They were?

Are you sure?

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
And the emperor of imperial japan was religious. (He was considered a freaking god.)

The Mongols, and before them, the Huns.

Mongols were predominately Buddhist during the Middle Ages. Ironically enough, a large portion of the Mongol elite during the Middle Ages were in fact Christians. Genghis Khan had a policy of religious openness and tolerance. During the crusades, the Mongols helped Christian crusaders take Baghdad.

Huns followed a religion called Tengri, which was animistic. Sky and earth gods, etc.

Neither group was a predominately atheist group. In fact, I'm not even sure if we know of noted atheists within the Hun and Mongol forces; at least we know of heavy Christian influence within the latter.

The Mongols, and before them, the Huns.

Weren't the Huns and Mongols pagan?

Interesting fact: at first the European nations assumed that the Mongols were Christians because of their attacks on the Muslims.

The Mongols were Christians.
Seriously??? Remember, they came from Mongolia and ruled mainly in China and the Middle East. Not exactly Christian strongholds.

Course he did, kid.
Wow. What an amazing rebuttal. That completely invalidates my argument. Who knew that Hitler was lying about his beliefs in Mein Kampf?

Course he did, kid.

Ehhh.... *walks away*

Interesting fact: at first the European nations assumed that the Mongols were Christians because of their attacks on the Muslims.

And because of their desire for their to be Christians (and therefire potential allies) on the otherside of the Muslim world.

Seriously??? Remember, they came from Mongolia and ruled mainly in China and the Middle East. Not exactly Christian strongholds.
Not exactly atheist stongholds either. Oh wait, anyone from Asia is a commie atheist. Right.

Wow. What an amazing rebuttal. That completely invalidates my argument. Who knew that Hitler was lying about his beliefs in Mein Kampf?
A cookie to the first person in the world who believes that something Hitler says validates his argument.

But I'm afraid we have to take the cookie away again, because that same person thinks an argument is made stronger by putting 'kid' at the end of the sentence.

Hitler believed he was doing God's work, kid.

That is quite debatable.

Hitler certainly used Christianity to stir up anti-semetic feelings and to gain support but it's hard to be sure whether he was actually a Christian or not.

A cookie to the first person in the world who believes that something Hitler says validates his argument.

Right. So when Hitler advocated genocide, he couldn't have been advocating genocide.

Atheism first emerged in Ancient Greek philosophy. However, the concept of atheism was lost, along with much Greek learning, as the church gained power. Atheism only ever really gained prominence when science began to answer the previously unanswerable questions, such as 'where did we come from?', providing alternatives to 'God did it'.

There were hindus doing atheism before that. Greeks were, as far as I know, the first to come up with naturalism, though.

The Mongols were Christians. The Huns weren't atheists, but I don't recall their beliefs off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure that the beliefs were derived from Hinduism.

Hah! Hardly! The Mongols *became* Muslim, but they started out as... Well if it was atheism or some nature religion, I don't know. Not christianity.

As for the Huns, I don't know, but I've heard they were atheists. Of course, my source for that information is Age of Empires 2, so maybe not the most credible source.

A cookie to the first person in the world who believes that something Hitler says validates his argument.

Your attempt to lay the blame for the victims of the holocaust on the door of atheism is just as suspect.

As for the Huns, I don't know, but I've heard they were atheists. Of course, my source for that information is Age of Empires 2, so maybe not the most credible source.
No. It's not.

Your attempt to lay the blame for the victims of the holocaust on the door of atheism is just as suspect.
I didn't. I called it 'non religious', as a simple opposite of 'religious'.

People don't need religion to kill. Atheists like to believe that they do because it makes them feel all smug and superior inside, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single person doing God's work by killing. Lots of people doing other peoples work, but not God's.

Hah! Hardly! The Mongols *became* Muslim, but they started out as... Well if it was atheism or some nature religion, I don't know. Not christianity.

If anything, Mongols (and I think the Hun) were areligious. In that they didn't have a specific belief in anything. In their world view their was no need for it.

They eventually took up Islam because it was felt that creating a state religion would make it easier to consolidate their empire. Needly to say, they still weren't particuarly religious.

I didn't. I called it 'non religious', as a simple opposite of 'religious'.

People don't need religion to kill. Atheists like to believe that they do because it makes them feel all smug and superior inside, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single person doing God's work by killing. Lots of people doing other peoples work, but not God's.
So what is God's work?

Also, LOL GENERALIZATIONS.

Hah! Hardly! The Mongols *became* Muslim, but they started out as... Well if it was atheism or some nature religion, I don't know. Not christianity.

Most of the ruling members of the Mongols were Christians. Chingis was, Kubla was, Timur was, and I think Ogedei was as well.

I didn't. I called it 'non religious', as a simple opposite of 'religious'.

Whoops. My mistake. My attention is currently being split three ways.

A cookie to the first person in the world who believes that something Hitler says validates his argument.

This is the type of double-standard used when evaluating the 'bad' Christians throughout history.

The fact is, Hitler claimed to be a Christian repeatedly throughout his life. He went to a Catholic school, he was an alter boy, had a Christian wedding, and was buried as a Catholic, never being excommunicated.

Christians always attempt to evaluate Hitler's claims of being a Christian on a subjective basis, i.e. "oh, he wasnt a real Christian." Note that this implies one group's subjective interpretation of Christianity and the Bible (modern Christians) vs the subjective interpretation of Christianity and the Bible of another (Hitler and the Nazis). Aside from subjective, religious interpretation of what a "real Christian" is, there is no reason to say that Hitler wasn't one.

Nor have there been any groups in modern times that have killed in the name of atheism.

The Cultural Revolution would be an example of people being killed in the name of what I would describe as radical secularism. Of course, there are many examples of religous people being persecuted by Communists for propogating the opiate of the people, down to our own day. In any case, if there weren't Atheists back in those days, it would be hard to describe their actions as proof that religons are destructive, or that atheists are less or more likely to advocate killing in the name of their cause. There just haven't been as many atheists as religious people.

So what is God's work?
Who knows? We are not God. I shall reserve judgement on what He thinks until the day I meet him.

Also, LOL GENERALIZATIONS.
Ah, starting an argument with 'kid' and now capital letters attempting to make something out as funny that isn't on any level. Truly the mark of a fabulous debater.

Most of the ruling members of the Mongols were Christians. Chingis was, Kubla was, Timur was, and I think Ogedei was as well.

Do you have any proof for this?

Philosophy, how do you know they aren't doing God's work? You can't say for sure that they aren't, just as I can't say with absolute certainty that there is no God but I can say that people frequently commit horrendous acts based on faith seeing how this is well documented through out history.

This is the type of double-standard used when evaluating the 'bad' Christians throughout history.
And this is the same type of double-standard used by atheists when evaluating the 'bad' non-religious people. Just claim they're not religious/not proper atheists/just plain mad and keep moving the goalposts to suit your fashionable anti-religious moods.

I didn't. I called it 'non religious', as a simple opposite of 'religious'.

People don't need religion to kill. Atheists like to believe that they do because it makes them feel all smug and superior inside, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single person doing God's work by killing. Lots of people doing other peoples work, but not God's.

True, people don't need religion to kill, but it's used as justification for heinous acts all the time. Atheism is rarely used as justification, and therein lies the major difference.

I didn't. I called it 'non religious', as a simple opposite of 'religious'.

People don't need religion to kill. Atheists like to believe that they do because it makes them feel all smug and superior inside, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single person doing God's work by killing. Lots of people doing other peoples work, but not God's.

More subjective interpretation of what "God" wants. Note that this is the exact same methodology used by those who murder, justifying it by the exact same statement - "Lots of people doing other people's works, but not God's "

The fact is, religion is a huge motivator to kill. Its a motivation that atheists lack. And while there are accounts of atheists killing en masse, there are no accounts of massive slaughter [I]in the name of atheism. Thus, atheism alone has not been used as a justification to kill en masse, whereas Jesus, Christianity, etc. has.

True, people don't need religion to kill, but it's used as justification for heinous acts all the time. Atheism is rarely used as justification, and therein lies the major difference.
"Mad man uses religion as excuse to kill."

"Mad man just kills someone."

Oh yes, when you put it like that, religion is obviously evil. Boo, religion! Boo!

Do the sins of my fathers become my sins as well? While we're at it, would you like me to associate everything any atheist has ever done violently with you? Of course not. I've made mistakes, you've made mistakes, and my Catholic ancestors probably made mistakes too. You're now damning the shepherd for a mis-guided flock?

And this is the same type of double-standard used by atheists when evaluating the 'bad' non-religious people. Just claim they're not religious/not proper atheists/just plain mad and keep moving the goalposts to suit your fashionable anti-religious moods.

No one is claiming that the massive slaughter done by atheists is because they are 'not religious', 'not proper atheists', or any such thing. The fact is, they didn't do it because of atheism, whereas Christians have killed because of Christianity. That is the big difference.

There were hindus doing atheism before that. Greeks were, as far as I know, the first to come up with naturalism, though.

Atheistic Hindus? Weird.

How is killing in thename of a political ideal any different than killing in the name of a religious Ideal. The USA trying to violently impose democracy on soveriegn nations is no different than the crusades or missionaries imposing Christianity on the natives of the world.

The Cultural Revolution would be an example of people being killed in the name of what I would describe as radical secularism.

Well I'd say it was due to authoritarian statism. Elements that were held to be dangerous to the integrity of the state were removed for the sake of the state and the party's hegemony, rather then for any philosophical or theological considerations

No one killed in the name of atheism... oh those poor missionaries all over communist China and Russia. What a shame that they never existed.

"Mad man uses religion as excuse to kill."

"Mad man just kills someone."

Oh yes, when you put it like that, religion is obviously evil. Boo, religion! Boo!

I guess every Christian soldier, every inquisitor, and every crusader who has killed in the name of Jesus is a "mad man?" Along with almost every single Pope, up until the 18th century...

Is it more reasonable to say that every person who killed in the name of Christianity did it because they are a mad man, or is it more reasonable to say that every person who killed in the name of Christianity did it because religion is a catalyst and motivator for violence?

whereas Christians have killed because of Christianity. That is the big difference.
Prove the causality. Prove to me that they were killing because of Christianity, and not that they weren't just violent people using it as an excuse.

Oh, wait, you can't? How terrible for you. You might have to actually put aside your atheist-fundamentalist superiority complex and stop following the anti-religion fashion parade, now!

No one killed in the name of atheism... oh those poor missionaries all over communist China and Russia. What a shame that they never existed.

This is where Christians get confused. Missionaries in China and Russia are not killed in the name of atheism. They are killed in the name of communist politics, where being religious is illegal due to the belief that it causes class disorder and imbalance.

You're confusing communist politics with atheism, because the former happens to be atheistic.

Pick up a New Testament some time and show me where religion tells me to kill. I think it'll probably be right past where Jesus said "those who live by the sword, die by the sword".

Prove the causality. Prove to me that they were killing because of Christianity, and not that they weren't just violent people using it as an excuse.

Oh, wait, you can't? How terrible for you. You might have to actually put aside your atheist-fundamentalist superiority complex and stop following the anti-religion fashion parade, now!

In a court of law, it could be proven. Its called a confession.

If you are unwilling to take the word of people who say "I am a Christian, and I'm killing for Jesus" then there is no amount of proof that could convince you. However, in law, that constitutes beyond a reasonable doubt. Its enough for me, and the entire academic world.

This is why you wont find a single shred of serious scholarship that denies that Hitler was a Christian, or that crusaders killed due to religious motivation.

Pick up a New Testament some time and show me where religion tells me to kill. I think it'll probably be right past where Jesus said "those who live by the sword, die by the sword".

Here's a good one from that old peace loving Jesus fella:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke, 19:27)

In a court of law, it could be proven. Its called a confession.

If you are unwilling to take the word of people who say "I am a Christian, and I'm killing for Jesus" then there is no amount of proof that could convince you. However, in law, that constitutes beyond a reasonable doubt. Its enough for me, and the entire academic world.

This is why you wont find a single shred of serious scholarship that denies that Hitler was a Christian, or that crusaders killed due to religious motivation.
Oh, how nice it must be for you to have the answers worked out so!

Every person who has ever shouted 'I believe in God' while riding into battle is obvious proof of the evilness of religion. Of course, anyone who kills and claims they did it for any other reason is all soft and cuddly. After all, it's only when people claim to be working for God that they can do any harm!

This is why you wont find a single shred of serious scholarship that denies ... or that crusaders killed due to religious motivation.

Well you will. But nevermind

"Mad man uses religion as excuse to kill."

"Mad man just kills someone."

Oh yes, when you put it like that, religion is obviously evil. Boo, religion! Boo!

Never said religion was evil, never said killing under any justification was any less evil, and for the love of God that is a horrible analogy. Let me rephrase:

What separates (does not make it any better or worse, just separates) religion and atheism is that religion has been used as justification for conflict, genocide, and social discrimination, while atheism has not.

For example, religion as a justification emerges in recent history in the conflict in Ireland between Protestants and Catholics, the terrorist acts in Isreal, Iraq, Madrid, and New York on 9/11, and in the recent spate of homosexual marriage bans across the U.S.

Atheism, on the other hand, has not been used as a justification for anything like this at all. It has not been used as a persuasive tool to commit acts of violence or discrimination. As Tropical Sands put it, the point is that nothing like what is listed above is done in the name of atheism, thus separating it from religion as a justification. Get it?

hey dude have you seen the movie ' Da Vinci code' ? its good everyone should see it except for those stupid 'god cant do bad' freaks well in that movie there is this albino guy who has noone his entire life and is found by this bishop dude and he is of the priori of scion (which is based on an actual like religion thingey) and tell this guy to kiil these people because they knew a secret. Well what does this have to do wiht anything you ask me? well all movies have to be based on something right if not then they are just like cartoons aND back in the day of A.D. people always beleived that they heard god and were killing for him well hun they werent they were just schizophrenic!!! but in am athiest....:headbang:

Pick up a New Testament some time and show me where religion tells me to kill. I think it'll probably be right past where Jesus said "those who live by the sword, die by the sword".

I refer you to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html) where he led by example:

Chapter 3

(1) The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Jesus. Taking a branch from a willow tree, he dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered. (2) When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit."

(3) And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house. (4) The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this."

Chapter 4

(1) Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey." (2) Immediately, he fell down and died.

(3) Then, some of the people who had seen what had happened said, "Where has this child come from so that his every word is a completed deed?"

(4) And going to Joseph, the parents of the one who had died found fault with him. They said, "Because you have such a child, you are not allowed to live with us in the village, or at least teach him to bless and not curse. For our children are dead!"

Chapter 5

(1) And taking his child aside, he warned him, saying, "Why are you doing these things? These people are suffering and they hate us and cause trouble for us."

(2) Then, Jesus said, "I know that the words I speak are not mine. Nevertheless, I will be silent for your sake, but these people will bear their punishment." And immediately his accusers became blind.

(3) When they saw what he had done, they were extremely afraid and did not know what to do. And they talked about him, saying, "Every word he speaks, good or evil, is an event and becomes a miracle."

(4) When Joseph saw that Jesus had done this, however, he was outraged and took his ear and pulled it extremely hard. (5) Then, the child became angry and said to him, "It is enough for you to seek and not find, but too much for you to act so unwisely. (6) Do you not know that I am not yours? Do not trouble me."

Probably the funniest of the Gospels. :p

Oh, how nice it must be for you to have the answers worked out so!

Every person who has ever shouted 'I believe in God' while riding into battle is obvious proof of the evilness of religion. Of course, anyone who kills and claims they did it for any other reason is all soft and cuddly. After all, it's only when people claim to be working for God that they can do any harm!

1. I never stated I had the answers worked out so. This is a form of the strawman fallacy.
2. I never stated that religion was evil, nor did anyone on this thread so far. You're use of hyperboile is a fallacy, as well. The fact that it attacks a non-existant point makes it a strawman, again.
3. No one excused killing in any form, or called them "soft and cuddly." Another strawman, and hyperboilic speech.

Perhaps when you can stop being illogical, and write a response that isn't filled with fallacies, we'll have a better discussion.

To begin, it isn't people riding into battle saying "I believe in God." It is people who are motivated to kill, and admit being motivated to kill, by their specific religious belief. We aren't talking about Christians who happen to kill, but Christians who kill because of Christianity. History records many instances of such, instances of mass slaughter.

It would seem that the problem is that you reject history in leiu of your desire to engage in apologetics. Its unhistorical, and unscholarly, to claim that Christianity alone hasn't inspired massive violence.

its good everyone should see it except for those stupid 'god cant do bad' freaks

What about us stupid "Dan Brown can't do thrillers" freaks?

well in that movie there is this albino guy who has noone his entire life and is found by this bishop dude and he is of the priori of scion

No he's not.

(which is based on an actual like religion thingey)

No its not.

well all movies have to be based on something right if not then they are just like cartoons aND back in the day of A.D. people always beleived that they heard god and were killing for him well hun they werent they were just schizophrenic!!! but in am athiest....:headbang:

And I'm damned if I can make head or tail of this.

Well I'd say it was due to authoritarian statism. Elements that were held to be dangerous to the integrity of the state were removed for the sake of the state and the party's hegemony, rather then for any philosophical or theological considerations

Part of the problem is to define what exactly killing in the name of Atheism means. Atheism is a singular, philosophical construct. It is not equivalent to religion at all, which has multiple constructs associated with it.

As to whether religion itself causes people to do bad things that wouldn't be done otherwise, I would say that it's a wash. I think a believer's innate morality is accentuated by his belief in absolute morality. However, the ability to subvert his inate morality is also accentuated, if he identifies a threat to his ideology. The impact of religion on a person is so profound that I think it would be dangerous to assume that we would be better off if religion were done away with.

-snip-
Why should I waste my breath making arguments? You have decided that you, and you alone knows the truth and faith is an evil curse.

One day you will wake up and realise that billions of honest, loving, caring and peaceful religious people are fed up with atheists with no concept or understanding of faith dismissing their beliefs in a believe that such behaviour makes them look 'cool'.

I offer no arguments, because you will not hear them. You can believe what you do until the end of time. You'll just risk losing the help and support of a lot of decent people because of some bizarre concept that they are somehow 'evil' because of what some Pope or another said 500 years ago.

I refer you to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html) where he led by example:


It's been a long time since I've been to church but I didn't realise that the GoT was recognised as canon.

As to whether religion itself causes people to do bad things that wouldn't be done otherwise, I would say that it's a wash. I think a believer's innate morality is accentuated by his belief in absolute morality. However, the ability to subvert his inate morality is also accentuated, if he identifies a threat to his ideology. The impact of religion on a person is so profound that I think it would be dangerous to assume that we would be better off if religion were done away with.

Just out of curiousity, what makes you think that people have an inate morality rather than a learned morality?

If people aren't born with some pre-defined ethics, then they learn their ethics from the world around them. If they live in a religious community where it is taught that killing infidels is ethically acceptable and desirable, that is the only set of morality they will have. They wont have a morality that develops distinctly and independely from the religion they choose, because it will be derived from that religion itself.

Just out of curiousity, what makes you think that people have an inate morality rather than a learned morality?

If people aren't born with some pre-defined ethics, then they learn their ethics from the world around them. If they live in a religious community where it is taught that killing infidels is ethically acceptable and desirable, that is the only set of morality they will have. They wont have a morality that develops distinctly and independely from the religion they choose, because it will be derived from that religion itself.

'Innate' is a bad word. But I disagree with you. If a person's religion were someone's only morality, they would never reject their religion (or switch religions) later in life, because their entire construct is built on that ideology. But of course we build it on other things. For example, we know killing is wrong and learn that at an early age, especially if we are personally affected by the death at an early age. Our attachment and our intellect are in many respects built independent of religion to a greater or lesser degree. But I would argue that a person who believes a religion with a strong ethical code will accentuate his morality in the eyes of others, to the extent that his ethical code mirrors the society he lives in, or the society that is observing his actions.

'Innate' is a bad word. But I disagree with you. If a person's religion were someone's only morality, they would never reject their religion (or switch religions) later in life, because their entire construct is built on that ideology. But of course we build it on other things. For example, we know killing is wrong and learn that at an early age, especially if we are personally affected by the death at an early age. Our attachment and our intellect are in many respects built independent of religion to a greater or lesser degree.

I didn't mean to imply that religion was the only source of people's morality, I don't believe that it is.

I was trying to say that we learn our ethics, rather than being born with them. And because religion is a large factor in life, especially in communities that are highly religious (such as in the Middle East), it profoundly effects your ethics. I also think it is a lot easier for people to switch religions than to switch these ethical systems they learn via religion, because most religions contain the same ethical system. Thus, it would be easier to switch to a different system that contains the same ethics than to reject your entire system of ethics for something totally new. The latter would have been along the lines of Nietzsche's abyss, or Sartre's forlorness, while the former still gives you the same to cling to.

Why should I waste my breath making arguments?You could hold your breath while you type You have decided that you, and you alone knows the truth and faith is an evil curse.
Where has anyone said that?

One day you will wake up and realise that billions of honest, loving, caring and peaceful religious people are fed up with atheists with no concept or understanding of faith dismissing their beliefs in a believe that such behaviour makes them look 'cool'.
No, I think the vast majority of us are well aware of that.

I offer no arguments, because you will not hear them.I could tell you why this is stupid, but you won't listen. You can believe what you do until the end of time. You'll just risk losing the help and support of a lot of decent peopleYes, decent people that won't help or support someone because of their ideas about religion. What great people they are :rolleyes: because of some bizarre concept that they are somehow 'evil' because of what some Pope or another said 500 years ago.
Weren't you reading the posts that explained this? Nobody is saying that religion is evil because some religious people are evil. Pay attention.

The first humans were atheists until they evolved enough to make the conclusion that a tree created the universe.

Paganism is not atheism, nor is it satanism. Religion undermines the importance of life on earth, i.e. if you die in a war for God, you'll just go to the afterlife. Religion is used by many political leaders as a form of united against a common enemy. For example, Constantine against Pagans (early 300s), Pope Urban II against Muslims (Crusades), Hitler against the Jews (WWII), and on a lesser scale, G.W. Bush against terrorists/Muslims (War on Terror). Atheists are just as subject to being violent/peaceful, only with out religion as a driving force.

The first humans were atheists until they evolved enough to make the conclusion that a tree created the universe.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A tree.

The Mongols were Christians. The Huns weren't atheists, but I don't recall their beliefs off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure that the beliefs were derived from Hinduism.

The Mongol nobility (Khan & co) tended to follow Tibetan Buddhism from about 1260 (AD) to about 1400. Thereafter, shamanistic beliefs took over. In 1577, Altan Khan accepted Buddhism as the main belief system. Christianity does not appear to have been a major religion in Mongolia. For more information, try this website; http://www.innermongolia.org/english/tibetan_buddhism.htm

The Mongols were Mormon. The Huns were Baptists.

The Mongols were Mormon. The Huns were Baptists.

And the Goths were scientologists with afascination with black clothes.:p

"Where there even atheists during the crusades?"

If there were, you can be damned sure they didn't tell anyone else! Heh!

If there were, you can be damned sure they didn't tell anyone else! Heh!

The last time it was safe to be an open atheist was about 1200 years before the Crusades...the ancient Greeks and Romans were cool with it, but after that it was all downhill for religious freedom until the 16th century.

Well, if you'd like to tally up the religious vs non religious based death count, you'll probably be disappointed with the results, what with Hitler, Stalin and any other tin pot dictator you'd care to mention.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your religion bashing. Spitting on the faith of good people is just so cool.

Oh, bullshit. Don't say stupid things. Hitler, Stalin, and all their ilk killed for twisted political ideals. Crusaders killed for Christianity. Name me one great killing done in the name of atheism. One.

Hitler believed he was doing God's work, kid.
They also had a very strong interest in the Occult and beliefs in the ancient Germanic gods, which formed their basis of eugenics and hatred of Jews.
This is a decent docu:
The Occult history of the Third Reich (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228660/)
I initially thought it would be a tabloid style crapola fest but it's actually pretty good and well-researched.

I think it's unfair to argue that religion encourages violence. Most people today have religious beliefs, and the vast majority are non-violent, and their religious beliefs probably do help them make moral decisions. Unfortunately (sorry, all you dogmatics out there) all religions are very open to interpretation, and if you want to justify violence with religion, you can. The same goes for other ideologies and philosophies though.
I think the problem lies with organized religion. It's fine to organize a religion so that it becomes accessable to those that are interested in it. However, organized religions have traditionally taken on far wider-reaching roles, seeking to control many (or all) aspects of the lives of adherents to their faith. When given free reign, they've shown a tendency to enforce these rules even with those not following their faith. In my opinion, religion has no part to play outside the spiritual life of the individual. If a religion can positively infuence its members, these members will automatically generate a better world by virtue of their positive values and outlooks. There's no need to make political pushes, and in fact this inevitably produces resentment against that faith. Don't allow religions to have the tools that are available to governments (massive financial powress, military forces, the power to introduce/enforce religious doctrine) and then let people believe what they want to believe.

They also had a very strong interest in the Occult and beliefs in the ancient Germanic gods, which formed their basis of eugenics and hatred of Jews.
This is a decent docu:
The Occult history of the Third Reich (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228660/)
I initially thought it would be a tabloid style crapola fest but it's actually pretty good and well-researched.

I actually watched this set on The History Channel, and it was essentially tabloid style crapola. It seems like 10 years ago, everything on Discovery and THC was gold, and now they run shows like "Conspiracy", "The Real Divinci Code", and that new series about crab fishermen.

The conclusions drawn from that documentary was based mostly on errneous conclusions. Ancient Germanic rites were used to promote Germanic nationalism, not because they believed in these Germanic deities. A lot of what is written off as 'the occult' is in fact rooted in nationalism, not religious belief. The religious belief of the Nazi regime was strictly Christian, going so far as to mandate that Nazi Youth carry Bibles with them to education and create buckles for the troops with "God with us" stamped on them.

The Nazis did rely on superstition and the 'occult', such as checking horoscopes, but this tended to be individualistic in practice, as well as minimal and spurious. We can find the same thing in the governments of every country; look into all of the 'occult' practices of the US during the cold war, like the use of psychics, remote viewing, horoscopes, etc.

It should also be pointed out that types of mysticism, or occultism, practiced by the Nazis were the ones in vogue among Germans during that time, and ones generally viewed by the Christian populace as being compatable with Christianity, such as Blavatsky's theosophy, rather than full religions where they went and worshipped different deities to the rejection of Jesus. Yes, many Christians will claim that mysticism, or occultism, and Christianity are not compatable, and thats a whole other issue. The "Nazi occultists" and the German trendies who thought it was in vogue believed it was, and continued to be adherents of Christianity while engaging in a belief in occultism and the paranormal. Thus, the "they weren't Christians, but occultists" claim is often a result of a misunderstanding, a false dichotomy. Many were Christians who practiced 'occult sciences', mysticism, and held beliefs in the paranormal.

But again, they were few and far between, and to claim that occultism influenced the Nazis in any significant way like the documentary claimed is a stretch.

Originally Posted by Gartref
The Mongols were Mormon. The Huns were Baptists.
And the Goths were scientologists with afascination with black clothes.:p
Thanks for the laugh, guys, because I was just commencing to be driven spare by these uninformed loons.

OK, for the record:

The Mongols started out as animists, took up Buddhism, and then took up Christianity, and then took up Islam -- in that order, because that's the order the religions came in and the Mongols were in a position to try them all as they became available. FYI, Mongolians are still ALL of those religions, including animist.

The Huns were animists, then they took up Christianity as they settled in Christian Europe and dealt with Christian Rome. I don't know if the Huns still exist as a distinct ethnic or tribal group.

Animism is a polytheistic religion. It is NOT atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in god -- any god -- the concept of a conscious godhead -- they don't believe in it. Polytheists, and animists in particular, worship so many gods they might be considered the opposite of atheists.

Have we got that sorted out now?

Well, if you'd like to tally up the religious vs non religious based death count, you'll probably be disappointed with the results, what with Hitler, Stalin and any other tin pot dictator you'd care to mention.
Hitler = catholic
Stalin = russian orthodox
Communism = deification of the state

But hey, don't let reality get in your way of hating non-believers.

Why should I waste my breath making arguments? You have decided that you, and you alone knows the truth and faith is an evil curse.
It is.


One day you will wake up and realise that billions of honest, loving, caring and peaceful religious people are fed up with atheists with no concept or understanding of faith dismissing their beliefs in a believe that such behaviour makes them look 'cool'.
And one day you'll wake up and realize that atheists are fed up with morons like you who think that atheists are out to get them.

Get over yourself.

No one killed in the name of atheism
Quite true. It's not possible to kill in the name of atheism.

People don't need religion to kill. Atheists like to believe that they do because it makes them feel all smug and superior inside, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single person doing God's work by killing. Lots of people doing other peoples work, but not God's.
Hi, my name is No True Scotsman Fallacy, and you're on the verge of using me.

It's not possible to kill in the name of atheism.

I could do it. But I am totally kick-ass.

It's been a long time since I've been to church but I didn't realise that the GoT was recognised as canon.

*shifty eyes*

Maybe it is... maybe it isn't...

*leaves hurriedly*