Let's face it. We ALL know that most atheists are paranoid of religions and that they're in-denial about it. They claim they're the more peaceful people in America when really they're no different from any average radical religious person. They also claim that there has been no crime commited in world history in the name of Atheism. And they're in-denial of that also.
The truth is, there HAVE been crimes commited in the name of Atheism AND Secularism in world history. For example, the former Soviet Union nation was a strong secularist nation that outlawed religion in their country and even burned down churches to support their secularist beliefs. This, of course, also stems from Socialism, which is a form of tyranny like Communism, and Socialism, as we all know, is affiliated with Atheism and Secularism.
Now, what is the atheists false, lame excuse for speaking out against innocent religions? Simple: the First Admendment of the US Constitution, which states that all Americans have Freedom of Speech. While I agree that every American in the US deserves to have Freedom of Speech, it is the liberal atheists that I believe abuse their Free Speech the most in America by constently speaking out against religions. What they don't understand is that this lashing out against religions is what's called a Verbal Crime against all religions. It degrades THEIR Freedom of Speech in America. You know, when you think about it, THAT's a Verbal Crime made in the name of Atheism and Secularism.
The bottom line is, atheists are in no position whatsoever to laminate and/or bash religions in the United States and in the world, NOR are they in any position to point out their faults just because they have the right to Free Speech.
So, I just have One (1) question to ask all atheists who wish to continue to lash out at religions and refuse to stop:
What motivates you all to say and do such degrading, hurtful things to the faithful/spiritual? In other words, what makes you all tick like a clock?
Yes, we know your religion is not degrading or hurtful to others, so obviously we are just self-motivated with nothing better to do.
That's about right. I think you have absolutely nothing to do as you hang out with all your friends = 0. You can't even write a hub.
Do you want to blame me for the inquistion again
What's the religionists false, lame excuse for speaking out against atheists?
You're right, that is a pretty lame reason.
loving your enemies of course
Gee, I have no claim of any enemies
What's that like loving most the world;s people as your enemies because they all do not bow down to JC.
I can only imagine having a very stiff neck from looking over my shoulder
Sad, how you perceive those who disagree as enemies. Doesn't sound like an act of love. Are you sure you've used the correct word in that sentence?
Purpose motivates me to do all that I do and say.
A highly objective, critical and reasoned analysis............yeah.
Your misconception of the term free speech is troubling at best. By definition free speech gives them the right to do everything you just stated. Except laminate, which I don't think is in the constitution.
Im athiest im peaceful an frankily i dont bash religion because its wrong. 1 of my friends is an athiest and hes a pacifist so hes peaceful. Please dont let our retarted athiests make what we stand for. On a nother note athiesm is concidered a religion and this page is bashing it. I have a person in my class who tells me im going to hell and that i should be killed right now, im always bashed for it but i dont bash back, some do but you cant blame us all for it, and hey at least we arent satinist. So please next time you feel like posting somthing offensive to an entire group of people instead of the smaller portion that deserve it, dont.
I also love how you post a bash talking about how bashing is bad
funny. almost everything you said is not only wrong but extremely opinionated.first off, more horrible things have been committed in the name of religion then any other reason. secondly, religion loves to throw itself in every ones face. did you know that many religious people won't even let an atheist into their homes, date one of their children etc. wow, you're so wrong i'm actually shaking my head as i type this.
By bashing Atheist, don't you place yourself down to the same level that you have claimed they stoop to?
Somewhat understand this kind of bias that Christian have that nightwork is talking about. Because I have not given up my soul to JC my (pastor }real brother has shut me out of his life and lost a few jobs from this extreme bias and I am not even atheist.
No, we don't ALL know that. It is your opinion and a generalization of a group of people. I'm glad though that you mention that any radicalism whether religious or not can be (usually is) bad.
The group that shares an opposite opinion than yourself is the group that abuses their freedom of speech the most? Funny how it worked out that way. Again it is a generalization that all atheists bash and speak out against religions. It can be turned right around and said about the religious speaking out against non believers. But what's the point?
Is anyone in the position to bash anyone? It still happens, on all sides. Why not point out faults? I agree that bashing isn't very nice but if someone wishes to point out the faults of something then why not? You don't have to agree. Some people might agree.
So all atheists tick the same way? Or are you really only asking the ones that lash out and refuse to stop? Do you think any word against religion even made rationally and peacefully is lashing?
Being against anything, dose not work, being not for something works, at least for yourself. Being against something mean you are just joining the problem. Being for something works stronger when the other person or group agree.
Mocking them, is light heated enough and most often enough and works some form of communication. If they give me a deceit Insults and it'd true, then I'm learning something. If I give them a deceit insult and they may tell me to go to hell. They may have sinned AGAINIST God which can only make that judgement and they just created their own personal hell. Too many crazy rules that can't be followed anyways.
Same thing that motivates religious people to bash on innocent atheists.
Actually, the "false, lame excuse" you flippantly add to your post as a rhetorical question is the same kind of rhetoric that can be pointed at religious folk. The first amendment applies to every American citizen. Lucky you!
What motivates you to say such degrading, hurtful, ridiculous things to atheists?
I think you should expect that kind of behavior from the anti-religious. Jesus faced that sort of evil. Don't forget that people from his own community brought his destruction. Even before Jesus was born and his birth was prophesied, Herod killed babes and toddlers hoping to get Jesus. It is a part of our history that Christians will face, at the very least, resistance to the faith. They look at Christianity as a rebuke to their way of life. The message is one of love, and they will twist it to something unrecognizable and deformed.
There is no such thing as an innocent religion. One must remember all of the wars and prejudice that religion incites. The cruisades, the Catholic reformations and the wars that have been going on for thousands of years in the middle east. It's kind of the whole "My idea's better than your's" thing. This is not to mention that Parishioners feed on people, that they know don't really know much about anything. It is my opinion, that truly smart people, do not buy into such things as invisible men in the sky, dictating our very existance.
There is no such thing as an innocent religion, it's true, but only because that statement doesn't make sense. It's worded wrongly. A religion can't been innocent because it is not a thinking, feeling thing. Religious people are treated very badly in many parts of the world, usually without just cause.
You talk about the Crusades, the last of which was in the 13th century, you talk about the Reformation, by which I think you mean the Protestant Reformation which happened 494 years ago. I'd like to know what wars have started as a result of a Christian faith since then?
There have been many reformations. But that is beside the point. There is not one religion that isn't soaked in the blood of others.
Japan 1650's... The japanese people killed as many christians as they could and Japan closed it's doors until the late 1800's. Of course if christans hadn't tried to civilize already civilized countries, it wouldn't have happened that way.
The other thing, is that I really don't blame christians as a whole, I was referring to all religions.
Christians waged wars on the native Americans for years, because they were not taking to being "cicilized" by the white man. Christians commited genecide on Native Americans and subjigated an entire race based on manifest destiny.
That's because religions are made up of people. People are animals and they will kill each other like animals. The point of Christianity as a religion, is to make some rules that will lessen man's inclination towards the most debased behavior.
As far as us being animals, I agree. But as I said before... There is not one religion on earth today that does not have a violent history. As for us being animals, we are a higher order of primate and in fact are more akin to the great apes than chimpanzees.
On the other hand, religion while not guilty in and of it's self, is a catalist for irrational behavior. So, I can say that while I am not an atheist, I do not support religion in any form. I do however believe there is an intelligence to the universe that at present words ellude.
which innocent religion are you talking about. personally i have never heard of any religion being innocent.
I see the hateful religious bashings of Atheists as something prodded by satan in his attempt to drive a wedge between believers to try and force them away from their beliefs.
Most atheists truly want to believe what they say, and their anger and attacks come from their unrest in their spirit. With their comments they are pushing as hard as they can against the Believers hoping that the Believers will cave thereby affirming the words of the atheist.
They are never satisfied because in their heart of hearts there still exists the doubt as to whether there really is a God. That small doubt nags and nags at them continually.
So let them rant and rave, cry and curse God will show Himself to us all.
I think most atheists have realized that religion is outmoded and has nothing left to offer anyone. Most atheists I've talked to think its cool that others have something to keep them on the straight and narrow. On the other hand, most atheists have also had their fill of religious tension and believe that one should follow their own path, rather than being driven by an invisible man in the sky, that hasn't really done much more than the whims of the church and state.
The above pertains to all religions, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and as many as one can name. As I've said before, their is no religion that is not soaked in blood and that hasn't become some form of blemmish on society as a whole.
That's silly. You group atheists together as if they are all the same. People can be dogmatic, whether they are religious or not. I do not agree to the extent with which ANYONE mocks another based on their beliefs or lack there of, but don't so foolish as to think that Atheists/Agnostics are not "persecuted" by believers (of most faiths).
Christians are just as quick to attack people. You try to be an Agnostic-borderline-Nontheist in Georgia with mostly black Baptist Christians in your family, and then come crying to me.
The reason would because religions are a waste of time, money and thought and intelligent atheists find it frustrating to see people devoting their entire lives to something so obviously false and manipulative.
On top of that are the people who feel righteous and superior because of their religion, which stokes the fire because atheists and agnostics find it hard enough not to make fun of religious beliefs in the first place.
Here is a hub of mine that explains why it doesn't matter whether God exists or not when we have people starving on the streets. When people DIE every day, whilst other people PRAY in church for them. Why don't those people who PRAY actually spend that time DOING something for the poor?
Studies have shown that praying for a starving child is not as effective as feeding him actual food:
http://philanthropy2012.hubpages.com/hu … not_matter
Religions are not innocent. Think of the Inquisition, the Crusades, intolerance, and an attitude that we are the chosen ones and are the owners of the ONE TRUTH. The rest of you are ALL WRONG. That's what turns me off to some religious people.
You seriously need to study history.
Russian Communism was welcomed by the people as a relief from the church's barbarity. It was around long before Stalin forged the USSR and not all religions were banned. Russian Orthodox is still the dominant religion.
Stalin saw religions as intrusive into his control, not because he was an atheist but because he was a egomaniac tyrant. He banned anything that he thought was a threat not just religion but virtually all civil law. He murdered all of the USSR troops who ever met an American at the end of the war. He murdered most of his officers shortly before war broke out. He was just a nut with too much power. He didn't do any of that in the name of atheism.
Hitler, on the other hand was Christian. Among those he murdered were atheist who he disliked and distrusted and constantly compared to communist, who he also murdered.
Atheist don't really care about peoples beliefs in gods or religion. AT least not until the religious try to intrude into our lives with their myths and try to indoctrinate atheist children with their mindless dribble.
Now before you start saying how that is all wrong I will point out that when I was in grammar school religion was pushed in schools and I was singled out and put down by teachers for being "an unholy atheist misfit".
Religions have been attacking atheist for 5,000+ years so excuse me if we have no sympathy for religions trying to rule the country.
The hilarious thing is that most of the lawsuits and such that are always attributed to atheists are filed by religious groups who don't share the same flavor... Let me take this time to thank them for doing so much for us!
But there is a bright side to all of this. Atheism is the fastest growing belief, or non-belief, in the world. While America is one of the last places in the change every other 1st world country has reached a point with over 30% and an equal number of agnostics.
The dominance of religion is falling world wide. We are smiling ;-D
Borsia- Hitler actually was not a Christian. For a time he may have claimed to be. However, the book "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", contains his real views about Christianity, which were not in praise of it at all.
Despite the fact that book has been discredited by historians, that the Christian and Catholic churches were quite embarrassed over having supported Hitler, that his own words written in Mein Kampf describe his faith, that all of his public and private speeches corroborated his faith and that no original documents or recordings have ever been found to support that book which has also been published as "Hitler's Table Talk".
Thanks for pointing that out. I will have to look into that more thoroughly. I guess I just have a personal problem with Hitler being attributed to "Christianity" because I don't see any basis for it in his actions. But I was aware that the Church supported him and that he claimed to be a Christian.
Here we go with the Hitler thing again. We need to differentiate between authentic christianity and instrumental christianity.
Would jesus have agreed with the holocaust? That's authentic
Did a man using relgion commit the holocaust? Thats instrumental.
We need to ask ourselves would a bad person do bad things even if the cloak of religion were not available? The answer to that i think is yes.
We need to remember that there is supported evidence to Hitler being a crazy bird a few items short of a combo meal. Also there are political agendas which i am sure influenced him as well.
One of the problems with catholicism and another wrong doctrine is that no person is born into a denomination. No person is born catholic, presbyterian, pentecostal, etc. Since hitler may have been born roman catholic only makes him a cultural (pardon the expression) christian and not an authentic christian.
If someone from here went out and shot 20 kids at a highschool and reporters found out they adamantly voiced against theism. One reporter might spin the story: religiously tortured individual kills many, and bingo, another smear.
LOL! This should be good.
Would Jesus agree with the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Christians who will say and do anything to defend Him?
Have Christians used dishonesty to defend their faith?
Since your religion considers all men evil and sinful by nature, we can acknowledge and understand why Christians would believe that.
By nature, men have far too many other things to deal with in life that concern more their families welfare and happiness as opposed to sneaking around and thinking up bad things to do. In contrast to your beliefs, men are not evil by nature, they are instead compelled and lead towards doing bad things through ignorance and bad ideologies, like religions.
So, the answer to that more precisely is that there must be some reason for people to do bad things, they don't do them for nothing.
Yet, Hitler supported his faith every bit his insanity would allow. We can further debate the implications of how faith and sanity are shared, but that's another story.
While you and I both know it's ridiculous for a new born or child to comprehend the beliefs of Christianity that they may judge whether or not to accept it, it's certainly another thing to argue whether or not they are born into a denomination like Christianity. Their parents would wholeheartedly disagree with that and so would the church.
That's exactly why we don't believe everything we hear in the media. If I saw a headline with the words "religiously tortured" in it, red flags would go up all over my pea brain.
Just so you know, most non-believers will not support anyone who spreads false information about religions. That same reason why we support your right to speak even though we don't agree with the speech.
The RC church didn't support Hitler. Many priests suffered at the hands of the Nazis, and many priests have been thanked for their efforts to help save Jews. Some members of the Vatican chose to keep silent, which was cowardly, but also easy for us to judge from our comfortable armchairs.
*sigh* here we go again...
So, you've never heard of the Concordant? It was signed between the Catholic Church and Hitler because the CC supported Hitler as it promised their rights would be respected.
Seriously, why do you keep denying reality?
The desire to prevent Catholic places of worship being smashed up, as they are in Palestine and Pakistan and Nigeria today, is NOT the same as supporting wicked dictatorships. The Catholic church should have done more to help the Jews. So should have the French, the British and the Americans. We were all too late in acting and we all turned a blind eye to a certain extent.
Stop trying to avoid the fact that your views about religion and religious people sit uncomfortably well with Hitler's.
I would only advise that you stop trying to avoid facts.
You are not thinking, you are just reacting. If all you choose to see in this life is negativity, you will find plenty of examples. I don't see what you can learn from it though. Your choice of reality is limited.
So, you admit to not knowing what thinking is about?
Nonsense. I only see negativity in the dishonest posts of believers and have found loads of examples here. I am not choosing to see it because you have chosen to write it.
time to change the record. your "dishonesty" line of argument is rubbish. Try having a point to your posts.
Even that's an understatement. Hitler could not control and exploit the Catholic Church, so he sought to eliminate it, first with aggressive persecutions that forced the Church to operate underground, then with trips to the concentration camps.
St. Maximilian Kobe died in a concentration camp. He was arrested for being Catholic.
St. Edith Stein died in a concentration camp. Though she was killed for being of Jewish ancestry, she (with her whole convent) was arrested for being Catholic.
Bl. John Paul II was educated at a seminary in which seminarians had to be hidden in secret cupboards during Nazi raids. Had they been caught, they would have been killed.
Martin Niemoeller was imprisoned just for being disillusioned and outspoken, but even he said "they came for the Catholics" before the Nazis came for him.
Valerie, thank you. From time to time it's nice to see someone who actually reads history.
Really? Just for being a Catholic? Are you sure he didn't get arrested for providing shelter to refugees from Poland, 2000 of them being Jews?
No, Stein was arrested after the Reichskommissar ordered the arrest of all Jewish converts, which means because she was of Jewish ancestry.
Niemoller was arrested for his vehement opposition to the Nazis as was anyone who opposed them.
You have not refuted a single point I made about how the Catholic Church did not support the Nazis- and was targeted for that.
Note that you've got no explanation for why seminarians in occupied Poland could not legally pursue their education or why Martin Niemoeller pointed out that "they came for the Catholics" other than the obvious- Hitler hated Catholics.
Castlepaloma, a lot of politicians, including many who may be atheist in practice if not by overt profession, use the appearance of religious adherence to appeal to the people, most of whom are at least superficially religious, and fool them into supporting them. Hitler did it, and I imagine most politicians still do to some extent or another.
So you think the Russians were pleased with the murder of 20,000,000 of their fellow citizens?
Hitler was driven by hatred. He also said that religion was not compatible with his vision of a perfect society. He rejected the idea of us all being God's children. He rejected the lame and the sick and the infirm and the devoutly religious. He rejected peace, charity and humility. What is it that makes you think Hitler had even the remotest Christian principles?
Mao Zedong said "Religion is poison" and was responsible for the deaths of 70,000,000 chinese people.
"Religions" have not been attacking atheists for 5,000 years. Aside from the fact that it is people, not "religions" who do bad things, the concept of atheism is a pretty new thing in relation to human history.
Please provide citations for your claims about what Hitler said.
Why? Is it news to you that he wasn't a very nice man?
LOL! No, YOUR claims of what he said are news to me.
Well, it's true. I paraphrased what he had said in an interview which can be found on the net.
So why were there Catholic priests and nuns in Auschwitz as well as Jews?
What does that have to do with the fact the Catholic Church supported Hitler and signed and agreement saying so?
Facts don't seem to agree with you.
It proves that Hitler had a problem with religious people.
Well, don't let me spoil the nice ideas you have about Hitler. You obviously want to carry on denying that he was an atheistic, nihilistic follower of the father of eugenics, Nietzsche, who famously said: "God is dead!"
Are you for real ?
Hitler was a preacher of eugenics. You don't see the connection of hitler being religious now ? Today same social-eugenics view keeps staunch Christians from marrying a Muslim or Hindu or any other religious person. Hitler was a racist chap, so are Christians, even today. I don't see atheist lunatic killing people in the name of eugenics or religious blood line.
Why would Hitler kill 20 million Russians, And aimed to stamp out atheists.
The Nazi had stamped on their belt buckles:God is with us:
Germany was a christian nation like, GW. Bush in the USA, which some people called GW little hitler
What are you talking about? What planet is America on? Eugenics has nothing to do with Christianity! It is in direct opposition to Christianity. There is no religious law which says a man and woman can't marry, only cultural wars.
Why am I wasting my time talking with people who are so profoundly ignorant of their heritage that they would throw the only part away which actually has any value.
And as for you New-Worlders lecturing a European on racism, when there are still people alive in America who were born into slavery, who were brought up in a segregationalist society, who witnessed lynching!!! I don't know what to say.
In 1960s it was illegal to have interracial marriage in the USA. The USA is predominate a white race and the only time they attacked another predominate white race country was Germany Because the US wants to own the WORLD. Both have and will continue to fail because people will continue to mix the races, and we will all end up coming out brown.
Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted a "positive Christianity" purged of Judaism and instilled with Nazi philosophy . During the war testimony of some intimates, Hitler was privately hostile towards Christianity. Many Jew were just born a Jew and it was unnecessaryessary to be religiously Jewish to be stamp out by Hitler. Along with stamping out Gays and stamping out atheist.
Or course he ended up thinking he was God and stamped out himself.
That's good for laughs,we're relating nazis with christian social views. Does your christianity allows marriage with non-christians without converting them ?
Really ? no wonder you guys hate other religions and still claim this.
errm, nope. Christians are racist enough to oppose non-christians from getting married with christians. It is still happening in europe and asia. Chew that.
It must be you who is ignorant here and that shows from your posting,you are the person who got no idea about christians involved in eugenics and racism. Heritage? please, don't turn this thread into joke thread.
What america has to do with my post ? I ain't resident of America. So this taunt is totally wasted, try something that really gets me off my point with your christian ignorance. You want me to help you?
I'm arguing in favor of RELIGION here, not Christianity in particular. I think that religious culture is generally a good thing, in all its crazy forms.
I married my non-Catholic husband in a Catholic church. It happens all the time.
And, a small point but, religion is not race. If a religious person disagrees with another religious person it isn't racism, it's a different belief.
I believe that interracial marriage is not only a beautiful thing, it is also healthy for our species. A Christian obligation is to see past the physical so that, (as Pope Benedict says) "heart speaks to heart".
I remember we had to put our hand on the bible and say, I will tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God.
In American history if you accepted naturalistic origins of life, which was called atheists. They threw them in jail, hanged them and burned them at the stake. The word God is not even written in the USA Constitution ever.
Today most people believe man lived 180,000 years ago, not 6014 years ago, would you lock up most of the world because we don't Adam and Eve 4004BC?
This last century Christian have evolve from locking up or killing Jews, gays and atheists.
Jesus was a half Jew and not a Christian and he was killed. Take off the mask of Christianity and pry to Jesus and be Christ like and remember on thing.
The 11Th commandment . Thou shall keep God to thou self
Oh, this is rich. Please check your facts before presuming to lecture Americans about American history. Since slavery was outlawed in 1863 and people have an alarming tendency to die well before reaching 150, I think it's safe to say you're wrong about Americans still alive who were born into slavery.
Atheists were not burned at the stake, unless you suddenly redefine "atheists" to include pagans as well as Christians falsely accused of witchcraft.
Finally, though the Constitution doesn't use the word God, that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are first in the Bill of Rights indicates that our nation doesn't believe anyone should have to keep their religion to themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not downing the US , much of my family members and half my business was from there. It's just the US has been turned much of the 99% into deeply brainwashed economic and social salves, who are falsely inspiried by the 1% rich who control most. of what I once knew as a healthy USA, pryer is not enough , it will take a lot of hard work to be happy again.
t, call them witch hunts whatever you like, I call it murder toward harmless people.Even though slavery is ban in every country, there are more physical salvrey on earth today than any other time in history (mainly in Asia) to the point of a knife or gun.
Atheists do not think about Wiccans, Witches, WitchCraf
I would call firefighter hero not the imperialist military any more.
Why does america have military bases in over 150 or claim on up to 200 countries?
Or Half of the world's military offensive budget and with Russia 90% of the world's nuclear war heads. Maybe to to bully and intimidate small helpless nations or to steal the natural resources like Iragi's oil, or to sell more war. Worst thing about war is it creates worldwide poverty, the greatest killer on earth today and mainly in other non christian religious countries
I am just asking them to adjust a few of their mistakes, that's all.
There are many peculiar movements that give themselves a Christian label. There may be Capitalists that call themselves Communists. The point is that eugenics is about going against natural processes to create some human idea of outward perfection. This is entirely in contrast with the Judeo-Christian theology that our souls are made in the image of God and we are subsequently all spiritual brothers and sisters.
I apologise for my earlier rudeness.
Just because someone gives that label without understanding the true nature of religion doesn't mean you get the excuse of using 'true christian' bias on every movement that comes, if it's driven by religious agenda for a particular religion, that's enough to get it into religious side, rest of the people in the same religion has to bear that burden. It's similar to non-violent atheists bearing the burden of 'militant' atheists and their actions against society.
There is a huge difference between in religious views and views on social financial structure. Atheists can be communists or capitalists or mixed (like most of the countries are into mixed structure these days) and same applies to any person with belief. We don't attribute religious/non-religious inclination with these structures as these are profit driven, not belief driven (unless ofcourse if you're talking about islamic countries where religion and law work on the same table). So I don't know why we're getting into economy and religion point.
The issue with eugenics is that there are two divided religious groups who approached this concept. Thanks to conservative group which was against the process, it was debunked way earlier than expected. The point remains that eugenics was from a religious group.
Apparently you need to take a history refresher, religions have been condemning and persecuting atheism since the advent of a monotheistic religion.
You might want to start with the Old Testament.
It goes back to times before monotheism.
Perhaps you have heard of Socrates? He was executed in 339 BC for corrupting the minds of the young by no believing in the gods.
When you make broad statements in HunPages forums you really need to have the facts you claim.
Hitler included references to God and faith in most of his speeches.
As someone else pointed out he talked about his faith in Mien Kampf and throughout his reign.
However if you go back to the original inference to Hitler in this thread someone listed the worlds evil atheists as being the same as the atrocities committed in the name of religions and they included, incorrectly, Hitler as an atheist, which he wasn't.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and some other atheist did evil things to be sure.
But none of them did those things in the name of atheism any more than Hitler did his evil deeds in the name of religion.
History and current events refute that statement.
Just where in history or recent events have Buddhist something evil?
Excerpt from Buddhist Warfare:
Though traditionally regarded as a peaceful religion, Buddhism has a dark side. On multiple occasions over the past fifteen centuries, Buddhist leaders have sanctioned violence, and even war. The eight essays in this book focus on a variety of Buddhist traditions, from antiquity to the present, and show that Buddhist organizations have used religious images and rhetoric to support military conquest throughout history.
Buddhist soldiers in sixth century China were given the illustrious status of Bodhisattva after killing their adversaries. In seventeenth century Tibet, the Fifth Dalai Lama endorsed a Mongol ruler's killing of his rivals. And in modern-day Thailand, Buddhist soldiers carry out their duties undercover, as fully ordained monks armed with guns.
Buddhist Warfare demonstrates that the discourse on religion and violence, usually applied to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, can no longer exclude Buddhist traditions. The book examines Buddhist military action in Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, and shows that even the most unlikely and allegedly pacifist religious traditions are susceptible to the violent tendencies of man.
Articles on contempory Buddhist violence
http://www.religiondispatches.org/books … _violence/
http://www.compassdirect.org/english/co … _2377.html
Very interesting I knew that Buddhist do fight in armies, but as a matter of patriotism not in the name of religion.
I also knew that they took up arms against the Chinese in Tibet but what they had were a few old outdated arms against the Chinese army.
But your references show that they also fought as aggressors which I had not heard of.
I know from living with them that today, or at least where I was, they taught the principals of power through peace.
So this proves that pretty much all religions are violent.
I consider this another feather in the hat of atheism.
That's all well and good, but if every religion died out, atheism would turn that hat full of feathers into a war bonnet. You two far ends can't seem to understand religion, or lack of it, isn't the source. We are.
If there was no tale of Jesus with a whip to fantasize about, those who have violent desires, yet claim it is right and good because to be that way is following their fantasy, would still have violent desires.
Were there no Mohammed, they'd still be fighting in the Middle East. And on, and on and on.
Atheist will not grow that big because how many people would want go to an angry atheist parade. I would rather go to a gay parade and I,m not even gay
Atheism doesn't have any doctrine or followers. It's not a religion.
I seriously doubt that we would have any parades if all religions stopped tomorrow. We really don't care that much.
Yes evil people would do evil things just as they do today with religions. But looking at China as an example, which is mostly atheist. The violence in the street is far less than countries like Colombia which is 95% Catholic. Much lower than any Muslim country and much less than the US.
This despite a population of 1.3 Billion in an area equal to the US.
Most developed countries are turning atheist. All of Western Europe has a high and growing rate of atheism as does the UK. Even our neighbor Canada has 30% atheist and another 30% agnostic. They have a very low crime rate.
Mexico, on the other hand, is a virtual hell hole with over 90% claiming to be some form of Christian.
90% of gang and cartel members come from devoutly religious homes.
You need to review your statistics and I wouldn't put so much stock in them. The statistics you used for religious versus atheists are not the ones I found on Wikipedia last time I checked. I think, it depends on how you google it as to what statistics you'll find. Because the ones I looked at showed Canada just slightly lower in the percentage of people who claimed religion than the US was and Great Britain was higher.
The crime rates you used for China are gathered by an authoritative government with an agenda. I believe we heard similar praise for the low crime rate in the USSR when the Iron Curtain was down. Now that it is up....well, we all know that wasn't true.
Out of curiosity, how gullible are you? Do you believe everything you read that supports your opinion? I know that sounds rude, but this religious debate is trifling on some levels. At times, it appears we don't understand basic human nature.
The numbers I used were from an article about world religion, I believe it was Scientific America but it was last year, I've always found Wikipedia to be the least accurate source. Not all that long ago I was looking for statistics on kidnapping and they had the UK near the top, above Mexico and Colombia but below the Middle Eastern countries.
The crime rates in China I mentioned came from living in China for 2 years and seeing the news every night, reading the English expiate news as well as talking to countless Chinese. Another predictor is that you see women of every age walking alone late at night.
Watching the Chinese news it is a huge story when a taxi is robbed at knife point or when there is any robbery by brick.
And no I'm not gullible certainly not enough to put much stock in Wikipedia.
Wherever you get your statistics from, you have to accept the fact that the source that collected the data has an agenda. Very little is placed in publication without someone using the data to argue a point.
China is a big country. I doubt the crime is any different than it is in other parts of the world. Women of every age feel comfortable walking around at any time of night where I live; however I doubt any of us would walk alone on some streets in New York city, no matter what time of day it is.
Last time I checked, Chinese news was censored. I personally wouldn't put a lot of stock in that as a credible news source.
My point, although it sounds as if I am knocking the Chinese (which I'm not), is that two years in a country the size and breadth of China doesn't really lead me to believe that you are in a position to make statements on how things are throughout that country. Any more than I could make general statements for the countries I have lived in; where I lived in one city and toured around when I had time.
I lived in Chengdu, capitol of the Sichuan Province pop 14 million and the 8th largest Chinese city. By comparison NY, America's largest city, has only 8.2 million.
You don't see many women, young or old, walking alone at 3am in NY or LA, 4th largest, or even in San Diego, America's 8th largest city, outside of some very small nightlife areas. I saw them in China in impoverished areas. More than that it is in the way people think and behave in places they consider safe or dangerous.
If you don't think US news is censored you are blind. You see what the shadow people want you to see.
The American government and those who run the media control what is in the American news almost as much as the Chinese do. You are fed a constant stream of doctored statistics and news stories every day.
“Last time I checked, Chinese news was censored” Really; when was the last time you were in China?
China censors news that would be seen by the world outside of China, to an extent, but most of the censoring is news of the outside world coming in. They don't really censor local news to a great degree. Things like demonstrations or riots make the evening news along with crime and numerous other negative stories.
I grew up close to LA in areas that are considered to be safe Redondo Beach and Huntington Beach, both considered to be resort towns. Women don’t walk alone there late at night without worries.
I ran businesses in Long Beach for 30+ years and guess what; I carried a gun all of those years.
However, to the point; most evil doers in the world come from religious backgrounds.
To say that the world would somehow erupt in senseless violence if religion ended tomorrow is just plain silly. It wouldn't be any worse or any better than it is today.
S,cuse me . Tony Blair, Bush,Rice and all the other war-mongering murderers are not atheists but murdering scum so what is your point ? As for the curtain being up i.e Soviet Union ! Might that be because the U.S has threatened then with Missiles from Europe ?? Get with it Emile.........
You are excused. Sorry the US stood firmly against communism and Soviet Russia fell. I'm not sure many would agree with you that this is a bone of contention.
I'm not sure I get your point about Blair and Bush. I haven't supported any military action in the Middle East, myself.
Canadians people hold 60% combined agnostic and Atheism viewpoints?,not from my experience.
Too many Canadian christian voted to break our peace tradition and go kill poor people in Afghanistan
Overall from my studies, predominate non religious countries tend to be less warlike and criminal like than predominate religious countries.
Besides how warlike can atheists be at 3% of the world's population. Guns, Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can an over sized atheist mouth, be worst?
People shouldn't be bashed, that I can agree with
The general question that comes to my mind is, are you a person or a religion?
As such folks don't need to take religion bashing personally (assuming it is bashing as opposed to being challenged, both happen on this site)
Agreed. People are people, no matter their belief. People are the cause for the kind and the unkind. An atheist can show love--a religious person can show hatred. An atheist can be cruel--a religious person can be kind.
That is not true. A non-belief in gods does not make people do bad things while a belief in a god can make good people do bad things, as history has shown us in spades.
People are perfectly capable of being decent without religion. They are just as capable of being indecent without it.
But it is typically the exposure of the idea that religion is equated with morality, that lack of religion could induce an equal lack of morality. It is the exposure to this that I think usually causes some atheists to do awful things. Once they find out it was a load of, what do you call it, gobbeldegook, they get pissed off and try to live their lives opposite of all the things they were taught was right.
My concern is limited thinking, out of millions of books and even greater experiences. Just one good book, or not so good book such as the one Bible to be pushed as the be all and end all. One book like the Bible can only add a small faction toward your balanced life. If done along with a healthy desire and attitude for the most people and nature that are not even aware of the bible and do fine enough without it.
Innocent religion is only one and that is called humanity...all other religions are man made which glorifies some thing which no one can see, make hero out of some one calling him messiah or something and condemn others who dont follow same school of thought...worst part is religion which calls itself peaceful can go on war to impose their own way of thinking...
There have been crimes committed by people of all religions, but everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I think we should simply stick to our own beliefs and not "condemn others who don't follow the same school of thought," as you say. Religion isn't the problem. "The problem" is that some cannot accept that others may not have different beliefs, or that they generalize all member of a religion based on what a portion of people of that religion did.
I meant "members" instead of "member" in the last sentence. (Sorry.)
problem is never religion and u r right in that...in end it is how we humans think...religion is human product and even if religion doesnot exist , we still end up thinking my way is best theme quite often...
Give me some of those baby back ribs, baby back ribs...::'';::'''
On 2nd thought,.forgot it, my mother is an atheists and she did'nt eat us three kid
At least the babies aren't getting the Catholic alternative..
"What Motivates Atheists to Bash Innocent Religions?"
Except for certain notable exceptions (hate groups, etc.), I think that most non-religious believers (atheists, agnostics) really don't care that much about religion one way or the other.
I believe that what most non-religious folks become perturbed about, are those religion folks who continually force their beliefs on the non-religion folks. The constant bombardment of proselytizing invariably leads to rebellion by the Proselytizee's.
I would like the American government to adopt the most obscure religion on the planet as their official religion.
Then I would like them to teach its principles at school, on tv, in public places. They could places monuments in front of courtrooms to reinforce the lack of equal justice for non believers.
Then and only then, will they ever see the folly of their ways.
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" Thomas Jefferson
All they have to do is look at those other nations who have some very obscure gods and see how they turned out.
And then be remembered that america is not doing so badly with the God it has.
Thomas jefferson was a 33 degree mason. Masons have a double doctrine message. Masons are involved in the occult.
So am i surprised he said that.
I think a more accurate statement might be: Satanism and occult practices are the most perverted system... but he did not.
You missed the mark on what I was explaining... Again.
I'm getting tired of teaching you the truth but here.
Jefferson was a Deist and didn't believe in a divine Jesus.
He published his own bible where he removed Jesus divinity and miracles from the new testament which was handed out to congress for years.
He was good friends with Thomas Paine.
Maybe you should read up on things besides the bible so I don't have to keep correcting you.
Probably the same motivation experienced by religious people who post spurious rhetorical questions just to stir up trouble.
People are different, some people like religion some don't. Many people find it pointless and others find it to be the only reason to live.
What do I mean by this?
Everyone is a different, just because certain atheists speak out about it, doesn't mean that it is all atheists. Just like the religious people that jam it down the atheists throats.
I personally don't associate myself with any groups and certainly let people believe what they want, because ultimately, to me, happiness is the most important thing.
The question to be asking is "Why are the atheist preaching?" What is their point to argue the non-existence of someone? At least when a Christian wants to tell you about Jesus, he believes he is helping you. He believes that your eternal soul will be saved. I don't understand what the motivation is to argue about it.
When do atheists preach?
Do they have an anti church where you live?
The only times I ever hear about atheists are when they try to stop religion from interfering with government.
Sounds like you're doing a little preaching now.
Nah. Just sounds like you don't know the definition of preaching.
Someone should ask Santa for a dictionary
Not for nothing there friend but Richard Dawkins is on a religion genocidal spree! He bounces from pulpit to pulpit, or arena to arena, preaching the good news of science
Wow, how dishonest is that? "Religion genocidal spree" "Preaching the good news of science"
Terrible evils sweeping the world in order to upset and curb the evangelical believer from spreading the Word. It just doesn't get any funnier than that.
Dishonest? Why not listen to an interview with him. He freely admits exactly what I just said, that he is on a mission to kill religion.
How is it dishonest to say that Richard Dawkins is an evangelical atheist? He is spreading his ideology with as much vigor as evangelical Christians. Even the Washington Post's website had one author that characterized Dawkins, Hitchens, et al as "Evangelical Atheists." The Washington Post is not a bastion of evangelical Christianity by any stretch. Just google Washington Post and Evangelical Atheists and it should pop right up.
Usually, someone who is evangelical is a Christian trying to convert others. Dawkins is neither. He is an evolutionary biologist who is an atheist that writes books and gives seminars on why believing in myths and superstitions is harmful to societies and mankind. He also is lobbying to stop child abuse.
Yes, it was written by Reza Aslan, a Muslim who has degrees in religion and writes books about Islam.
Oh yes, we can rely on his opinions of atheists.
And we are just supposed to accept the opinions that atheists have of religious people?
Should only atheists study and write about religion? They are the only ones who are unbiased on the subject, right?
If we use your criteria here, then Richard Dawkins should just quit talking about religion. We can't trust his opinion because he studies myths and superstitions and writes books about evolution.
The Christian is not helping or saving anyone. They are merely doing what they're told to do in order to get a seat beside Jesus in the afterlife. Their efforts are totally selfish and disrespectful to everyone they evangelize.
And, it this evangelizing that has caused more wars and bloodshed throughout history than any other religion.
At least one thing believers are consistent at is their penchant to take cheap shots during their long periods of dormant cognition.
Cheap shots? Christians are selfish, disrespectful, dishonest and ignorant according to you.
You should learn the art of making an argument flow. This is just bickering.
Maybe to a high degree, yes, to say totally, no, it dose not flow.
It is evidence based on what they say and write.
That's not easy to do with selfish, disrespectful, dishonest and ignorant Christians.
You read nastiness into ordinary discourse. It's a shame you're so mistrusting of people. I would like to say that you are by no means as rude as some people I've come across here, but I think you have more to say than you would like to reveal.
How can you trust those who are blatantly dishonest?
Forgive them, for they do not know, what they do.
JC is not the problem , it's the greedy, and over controlling leaders and their wrong translations who are the greatest BSers of all time
Trust issues? You're right, every time in history there has been a person who says "down with all religion" they invariably have a homocidal mania.
More gobbledegook you have just made up. More dishonesty.
Must be far too many wolves in sheep clothing,
Why would many atheists wear religious wolf clothing?
Religion isn't helping anyone by trying to dictate their reality. Religion needs to mind its on business. If it did this well, no Atheist would come off as "preaching".
Well, being in the previous group, i quite know what drove me to attack and bash at religions, it is the annoyance and frustrations that there are still religions despite of being in this age of information.
Generally I think Bashing is cruel, unnecessary, jabbering personal attacks with names calling. That's why they have rules on this forum. I do challenge atheist and Christians of being one sided and extreme, yet, not interested in downing these groups, just want to get a closer understanding.
I dwell within the Art circles for 12 hours a day. To dwell if God exist or to claim there is only one way to God, seem to be a very limit way of thinking and there must be a better or new way of thinking to serve mankind,nature and to be your own man/woman.
Challenging both sides would not make me popular here. I have my own set of problem to solve with Artist Poor-Bashing . Artist are the poorest paid group in Canada. I no longer just work for the rich and seek to help the poor, mainly most of us. The poorest of poor and artist get blamed or stereotyped or mainly get ignored. We get blamed or falsely accused of being drunk, stoned and having large families and not looking for work.
So how would it serve mankind for Atheists and Christians to bash each other out, I give a you better than 50/50 chance you'll knock yourselves out.
If Christian thinks their working for the best boss ever, claiming to be soul walking their way to the“path of God and God's plan (Yahweh). Yet, when you see how USA lives double morals, then I ask myself, did GOD give his plans to the greedy bullies. Because when any over ego sub ancient spiritual group claims to own all spiritually (which is 99% unknown) then claims to be all and end all. Bashing starts to fly off the handle like GW Bush. Many Christians seem to feel they are superior in some way and if anyone do not feel they agree with Yahweh , they may get little crusade against non-Christians from time to time.
We were all born sinners, nobody has a chance, we are all screwed.
That's why the whole place will be burnt down in 2012
I think that a lot of athiests get bashed by the religious and that it is the other way around a lot of the time.
I am not an athiest but a person who questions the traditional religous path. I too was brought up as a religous boy. I grew up going to church and learning the word. I did attend many different sects of religion through this period. My parents changed churches as we moved.
Different ways of preaching "the word of god" became a way of life. This is because of all of the many translations which have come from history. It is not each churches fault, they just each see things a little differently. I do wonder which form of belief holds the true meaning though.
I am not sure an athiest does anything any different then most who believe in religions. They each use what they have learned to form a valid opinion. One uses more science and one uses more faith.
What I do know is more wars have been fought because of religous beliefs then over what athiests may believe or not.
It's interesting that most people blame religion for war and oppression. The officially atheist Soviet Union did a good job of being very peaceful, didn't it? Most people in Central and Eastern Europe really liked being under such an open society that officially opposed all organized religion. Wars happen because of people. All people are flawed, and to some degree self-absorbed. Self-worship is a more common religion that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or anything else. If following Jesus makes me less than truly smart, so be it. However, I am far from being a warmonger, so my religion does not make me more prone to pick anything other than an intellectual fight.
Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims and their lack of evidence. From less than 3% atheist population in the world today,.show me where to you find these militant atheists and or militant evolutionists phyically killing people?.
Sure Soviet Russia, is guilty of mass murderer for decades yet to compare to the angers of religion, Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, and terrorist attacks for thousand of years. Which makes the atheist percentage of murdering people compares to Religion much much smaller.
If you don't care about being smart, at the very least, try to be honest.
Honest? People suck at times. No belief required for that. We are inhumane at times. No one ponders the question of god when they are showing a disregard for the sanctity of life.
Ego, selfishness, greed. It's the antithesis to all that is good in us. No religion preaches these things openly (with the exception of prosperity Christian sects)
Why in the world does the debate continue as to who has killed more? Religion is a tool. Without it we, as a species, would continue to conduct ourselves atrociously when it suited our fancy. Those in power would find a way to herd the masses into supporting their cause because many have no problem turning a blind eye to injustice for others if there is personal gain involved.
I know you know this.
Really? Was not the entire basis of monotheistic religions founded on ego, selfishness and greed? Are these not the characteristics indoctrinated into children and fostered their whole lives? Do we not observe day in and day out those qualities being sanctioned into threads and posts here by those who embrace those religions?
I retire to bedlam.
LOL! Sure, that would be valid if we tossed sociocultural evolution, reason, rationale and logic into the bin adding a massive heaping of reality.
I know it's pure bunkum. And, while I would agree those in power will attempt to find those ways to "herd the masses into supporting their cause" they will only succeed in their ventures as long as the masses continue to remain ignorant sheep.
I don't think so, but that is simply my perception. I consider religion dangerous because it is too easy to steer that course; but that isn't the only course a person can take when they believe in God. I think you know that.
Some? Religion is the cause of those characteristics, for sure. The majority of those who lay claim to Christianity in this country? No. I think the things that have influenced them the most are outside of the bounds of religion.
You've got me on that one.
Really? I'm afraid those who profess religion and those who don't come from the same stock. I'm not going to waste my fingers on a rebuttal because history and current events does that more eloquently than I could.
The course taken is usually the one that was brainwashed into them, the same one already mentioned.
That is certainly not what we observe as most of them will tell us that their faith is the most important thing in their lives, well above family and friends. All outside influences are filtered through their faith.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Same stock?
Same stock. We are all human ATM. Ignoring the root cause of the conflict serves us no purpose.
True, but some are brainwashed while others are not, and that can make all the difference.
Sadly, those who are brainwashed don't know it (and they are not all religious). And one doesn't have to be brainwashed to draw the wrong conclusion. Bias and emotion born of fear tainting facts misinterpreted is as dangerous as any brainwashing, imo.
Who's not being honest ? I've given you a reference for the estimate in the number of those killed in the USSR. World History textbooks will tell you that Hitler was very much enamored of social Darwinian survival of the fittest and racial science. Since Jews, Slavs, etc. were inferior, they deserved to be put out of their misery in his worldview. This is general knowledge, unless someone chooses to deny the overwhelming evidence.
While Russia may have had many Orthodox Christians before the Revolution (Stalin himself attended seminary to become a priest), those in charge of the USSR were not in any sense of the word Christian.
I have seen documentaries on Hitler's occultic proclivities, so his "Catholicism" was not exactly orthodox. Check out Deitrich Bonhoffer. Hitler didn't think much of his Christianity. Being baptized in a church does not make one a Christian any more than being in a living room makes one a couch. Hitler's religion was basically one he made up for political purposes, not one that claims any special revelation.
If you go on a per capita basis, this is not necessarily the case. Soviet Russia was one of the first officially atheist states. Therefore, if the estimate I just read from a website from the U of Hawaii is correct, Stalinist Russia killed about 43 million. If you add in the entire Soviet era, the number rises to 61 million. What was their population? The per capita percentage would be way higher than those killed in the name of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. The bloodiest wars ever fought were the World Wars of the twentieth century. Neither was ostensibly fought for religious purposes. Leaders may have appealed to religious sentiment after the fact. I'm not saying that his all people who followed Darwinian conclusions would do the same thing, but Hitler imbibed quite heavily into the whole "survival of the fittest" idea, which led to his attempt at the wholesale slaughter of Jews, gypsies, and Slavs. That's not really religion, but evolutionary. The German "religion" was one that was made up at the time to justify their activities. Most Christians, for example, tended to be pacifistic until Constantine.
Bottom line: Religions don't kill people. People kill people (although I will concede that some religions condone killing the other).
Russia was mainly Christian until the turn of the early 19th century
Hitler was a roman Catholic
Pope Pius XII's nuncio to Germany had meeting throughout World War II, with Hitler and Joachim von Ribbentrop.
Hitlers aim was to stamp out gays, Jews and atheist
You 're wrong. Go and read your history again.
What part is wrong (is it my spelling again)?
The Nazis killed 20 million Russians and 6 million Jews, which holocaust was worse.Yes Hitler was mad, yet do think Hitler would kill his fellow atheist?
Even Nazi parade today have guys some walking around wearing a bishops dress in white, now that is Xmass I bet they are prying for a white Christmas.
I was teaching in Moscow Russia my form of art and built a few history museum displays in different parts of the world, so I have studied history books
Hitler was baptized a Catholic, he talks about God in Mein Kampf regularly. Hitler was a member of the Catholic Church until his death. Where do you see Hitler in photos with atheists, you do see him in dozens photos by Catholic Churches and with other top members of the Catholic Church
To be a Catholic you must believe in the Catholic Church. It isn't about membership like some blood sect. Hitler was baptised Catholic by his parents but later fundamentally disagreed with the premise of Christianity which he only utilised to manipulate the Christian masses. I have great aunts and uncles in Germany who were forced to join the Hitler youth and had to go to Mass in secret for fear of getting into big trouble. They were only children.
Among the earlier atrocities of the Nazis were the murdering of the elderly and the infirm, the handicapped and disabled, which was to go against the centuries old tradition among Christians to take care of the disadvantaged and the vulnerable. From the outset, Hitler wanted to remove the Christianity from Germany.
Christianity was NOT the inspiration behind Nazism.
Stalin was resonsible for the 20,000,000 Russians not Hitler.
And if you are teaching your pupils that Nazism was in anyway affiliated with Christianity, then you are doing a very bad thing and poisoning the minds of a future generation.
Adolf Hitler did nothing to promote or encourage Germany's godless, atheists. You are telling me when Germany Nazi and Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin turn around and killed his own fellow atheist for Hitler, where dose it say that in the history books?
I was to train the top selected Russian sculptors from every and all of part of Soviet Union, and they told me about the many stories where the Nazis invaded and killed their forefather. I only tolerate war stories, good new is in the world today per ca-pita there are less wars than in any other time in history
Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
Nazi Germany's soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us"). "Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God.
and freethinkers but he spoke and acted regularly to promote and defend traditional Christian beliefs, values, and political policies.
In the end Hitler thought he was the ultimate God and stamp himself out
No, you really do need to find out more about Stalin. Extraordinary though is might seem, Stalin was responsible for killing his own people. Heard of the Gulag? Same as Mao and Pol pot killed their own people.
But Hitler killed his own people too. The Jews from Germany were German. He slaughtered his own people, first disguising himself as a Christian to get into power, and then, bit by bit exposing how truly wicked and godless he was.
So, that's why he began exterminating the Jews?
Such a jealous God, they did not like the game Running with the Jews
Some Christian think God's name is Jealous, because he is a jealous God and wants to own everything. I tried to teach others not to be jealous because it's low energy, I'm sure someone will tell me I'm over ruled by God's regardless of Yahweh many faults.
Running with the Jews is like running with the Bulls, just a silly part in a movie called Borate. Jews try to grab your money with these giant hands.
That comes from this:
Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
I won't waste time on the OP because it's tripe. But just to address some of the other canards being raised here:
The fact that the USSR or Maoist China was officially "atheist" is irrelevant. Sweden has a state Lutheran church. Is Sweden a population of devout Lutherans? No, it is a heavily secular population shot through with atheism and humanism.
Yes, Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin were atheist. They also all had dark hair. Perhaps it is dark hair that makes people kill millions? They also all did not speak English. Perhaps it is lack of speaking English that made them kill millions? They were also all men. Perhaps being a man makes you kill millions?
Or we could look at the main driving force of their lives: VIOLENT REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNISM. Duh.
Moreover, among the most peaceful and stable populations on earth today, they are mostly atheist and secular.
Secondly, you cannot compare the violence of the 20th century to the violence of the middle ages and say "these 20th century dictators killed more people, therefore they were more dangerous." They had far more advanced weaponry and the tools of the modern state at their disposal.
Imagine what the Crusaders could have done with machine guns. Imagine what the Inquisitors could have done with gas chambers.
Overall, history is very clear that as religion has declined in the world, violence and instability has declined. Where religion is high, violence is high. Where religion is low, violence is low.
"Religion" and "innocence" hardly seem to go in the same sentence.
The point is, that though Stalin, Mao whatever, didn't commit atrocities "in the name of atheism" (whatever that means), they definitely did what they did with a determined hatred for religion and a desire to stamp it out.
The Chinese have killed 1,000 Tibetans so far, since Mao Zedong gave them the go-ahead with the words "religion is poison".
What you imagine the Crusaders "might" have done today is an irrelevant matter of flimsy conjecture.
You say the driving force is "violent revolutionary communism". I say, the driving force is a lack of Christianity. A deadened spirituality. The God of self as apposed to the God of Love.
The God of love that destroyed Sodom and Gamora? The God of love that smote the Philistines? Which God of love are you talking about?
That would show that you have no idea what Communism is about.
Communism isn't about a lack of Christianity or any other religion.
In fact, Communism deals with all matters of society and is thrust upon it's people regardless of their religious affiliation, whether they are Christians, Muslims, Jews or atheists. All have to tow the party line.
Stalin and co. had a hatred for a lot of things, Lizzie. They hated religion. They hated capitalism. They hated America. They hated kings. They hated anyone who disagreed with them. They hated the bourgeoisie. They hated proletariats that were not willing to kill for communism like they were. They hated compromise.
To single out hatred of religion as particularly unique or of utmost relevance to them is to ignore the depth of what they were all about.
Maoists killed Tibetans because they hated Tibetan religion, yes. They also killed Tibetans (and continue to oppress them) because of the purely ethnic centuries-old hatred of the Han Chinese toward the Tibetans, irrespective of religion.
"What you imagine the Crusaders "might" have done today is an irrelevant matter of flimsy conjecture."
Way to ignore my argument. If you are honest, you know this point makes sense. Here's an analogy: who's richer, China or Luxembourg? Well, on the surface, China has a gargantuan economy relative to Luxembourg. So Chinese are richer, right? Wrong. When you look a little closer, look at the wealth per person, we see that the average Chinese person is actually far poorer than the average Luxemburger. We must adjust the surface statistics for other very relevant factors.
In the same way, we must adjust the number killed for the very relevant factor of the weaponry used to kill. It is obviously far easier to kill large numbers of people with a machine gun than with a sword.
I say, the driving force is a lack of Christianity. A deadened spirituality."
This can be proven wrong on logical grounds. But ignoring that for the moment, let's look at the real world: what do we see? We see that as western civilization has become less religious over the centuries, it has become more peaceful, prosperous and stable. We see that among countries today, the most religious (Iran, Afghanistan, Nigeria, etc) tend to be among the most violent, while the least religious (Sweden, Japan, Germany, Netherlands, etc) tend to be the most peaceful and wealthy.
Facts are facts, Lizzie. Lack of Christianity, if anything, leads to more peace and prosperity, not less. I have written a number of hubs on this topic.
Sweden, Germany and Netherlands are secular states inhabited by Christians. I agree that government and religion are best kept separate. They are a good example of this being the case.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria etc. a) tie up government and religion and b) are not Christian.
Incidentally, Luxembourg is one of the most peaceful and financially successful countries in the world and has always been Catholic.
What makes America great is the freedom of its people combined with its Christianity. In my view.
Japan is an enigma to the rest of the world because they seem to be the exception to every rule.
The west has only become less spiritual in the last 60 or 70 years really and in that time it has had the two worst wars EVER. This year alone, with its violence and looting, has shown us in the west how pointless the idea of existence has become to the godless future generation.
Those are the facts that worry me.
Do I really need to provide the battery of stats indicating the secularism of the people of western Europe, especially northern Europe?
What on earth makes you think a society (Germany) for whom public nudity is something of a national hobby is a Christian culture? Because their ancestors happened to be so? Because one of their main political parties happens to be named "Christian Democrats"? LOL!
With pornography, prostitution, blasphemy, premarital sex, divorce, abortion, etc. How are these Christian peoples?
Have you not heard of the decline of church attendance across the west? You yourself just lamented the godlessness of the west--and yet you say these western cultures are Christian? Which is it?
You are wrong. Nigeria has a huge Christian population (and they are known for enjoying killing and being killed by their Muslim neighbors). Christian populations across Africa and India demonstrate a proclivity toward violence and backwardness. The secularized "Christians" in the west (such as they are) are more peaceful.
Luxembourg is nominally Catholic. Do I really need to clarify the difference between someone calling themselves "Christian" and actually believing or living that life?
The west has been declining in religiosity since the Renaissance. And it has become progressively more peaceful and free. This is EVEN with the world wars, EVEN with the genocides of the 20th cent. The stats show that today the west is at its most peaceful in ages.
seculartist10, you don't need to clarify. Since I live and am from northern Europe I am more than aware of its situation.
Germany is a Christian country with secular laws. Yes, because of its heritage, no, not because of its penchant for nudity or its keen interest in organisation. That is not to say they are good Christians, or even particularly believing Christians. Britain is the same. The loudest noise you hear will be from the self-proclaimed humanists, so you could be forgiven for thinking they dominate.
What is clear to me about Christianity, is that it survives very well along side secular society, even deeply immoral society. As (I agree with you) we can see throughout Europe and in America; (the land of Playboy, Hustler, Kissinger and Billy Graham.) Christianity works best in a free society, but a free society also brings with it the possibility of a certain amount of immorality. The Netherlands is Christian, despite its liberality. Even Thomas Aquinas sights how a Christian society must make moral concessions in order to avoid a worse evil. The liberality has now gone too far in my view.
What Christianity does not do well along side is Islam. Nigeria is a classic example. The trouble there is caused by Muslims with an aggressive dislike of Christians. Same in Pakistan where Christians are murdered and sometimes crucified on a regular basis. Indeed, ever since the 7th century when Islam was founded, one of the first acts of Muslims was to take over Bethlehem and to attack Christians, hence the start of the Holy wars.One of the reasons why Turkey has not yet been been accepted into the European union is because it is a Muslim country which is known to clash with Christianity. Harsh but true.
Luxembourg, (where my brother lives with his luxembourg wife) has a Catholic monarchy, it even still has nuns as nurses in its hospitals. I'm not sure how long those would last in an entirely non-Christian country. Malta is another.
As to your last point, I'm not sure I agree. There was a peak in religious expression during the Renaissance and I would agree that our faith has been in decline since then As for becoming more peaceful....? Let us list the following events: Renaissance followed by the Reformation, during which the people of Britain lived 120 years in fear of torture and death for their beliefs and several generations witnessed the destruction, if not corruption of its art, literature and Holy places. What also began at that time was colonisation and the mass slavery of 12 million Africans and South America, which was to continue some 300 years.
America was founded, but not before annihilating a number of native American tribes.
Then there was the industrial revolution in which we began an onslaught on the natural world with a stampede of factories the length and breadth of the country, scarring both the land, the air and social communities. Millions lost their dignity and left their children behind to work as bits of machinery in factories.
It has all climaxed beautifully with the horror of world wars and the complete loss of belief in anything.
It is peaceful in the same way there is silence immediately after an explosion. I'm not sure if we can be that optimistic about our future.
Lizzie, I've traveled all over Europe and I am not taking my cues from the "loudness" of the humanists and atheists. I am talking about the statistics and the facts (I guess I do have to cite these). For instance, one third of French are atheist. One fifth of the Swedish are atheist. The numbers of course get higher as we include agnostics and the secularized people who still technically believe in God.
You seem to have a different definition of a "Christian society" than I do. To me, it only makes sense to call someone a Christian if they believe and live their life according to that religion. I have ancestors that were probably devout Christians. Does that make me a Christian by default? Despite that I have never believed in God or Jesus?
All religions work best in a free society. That's why there is so much religious dynamism in a country like the US.
Both Muslims and Christians are to blame in Nigeria. To paint Christians as the innocent victims of centuries-long Muslim aggression is understandable given your loyalties, but ignores abundant Christian faults that are just as bad on the whole.
Just to be clear, the vast majority of Native Americans were killed through disease, not any direct action by Europeans. But yes, there was genocide there.
I reiterate, there have been many tragedies and violence over the centuries, but relatively speaking the peace and prosperity in the west has been much greater.
Just think: if the bad stuff outweighed the good stuff, then why and how did we get to where we are now? We would not have the highest living standards in human history, the lowest crime rates, the most freedom, the most flourishing in scientific and intellectual advance, the healthiest and longest lives, the most opportunity for people of all genders and races, and the greatest material wealth in history. We would be WORSE off than we were 500 years ago, or we would all be dead. Come on.
The millions killed in the world wars is awful, but we realize the good outweighs the bad when we remember the billions that have the freedom, wealth, health and education aforementioned. The proportions in question are even more obvious when recall that the world population has doubled over the last 50 or so years--yet war/violence has decreased all the more.
To call this a peace after an explosion is to ignore the vibrant dynamism of modern western civilization: art, music, science, technology, medicine, philosophy, political freedom, economic opportunity.
On an emotional level, I understand the impetus for a child of privilege, living in a beautiful mansion and waited on by 10 servants, with the best education and best fashion money can buy, to cry "woe is me" when their favorite pet dies. But rationally speaking, with all things considered, that response is nonsense.
Perspective, Lizzie. Perspective.
Again--I cannot reiterate this enough--the least religious cultures on earth (Sweden, Netherlands, Japan, etc) are the most prosperous and peaceful. That is the fact.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that some Christians are willing to defame themselves with false statistics and backward history is astonishing to me. This is not to say that I don't respect both sides of the argument.
That being said, the secular line of thinking tends to be flawed as is and I find myself debating with people unarmed to do true verbal battle, especially with those of the modern christian regime.
Spoken like someone who never knew a Holocaust survivor or a war veteran. "So sorry your family died by the millions, but at least I have the freedom to be crass and insensitive over the Internet and belittle your sacrifice by calling it merely 'awful.'" That's how it comes across.
The question was "why do atheists bash on innocent religions". I said that there is no such thing as an innocent religion and that more people have died in the name of realistate and religion than any other man made cause. That was the basis of my argument and it really had nothing to do with any nationallity. Maybe I should have more clear and precise with my wording.
Religion in and of itself is innocent. Religious people aren't. Neither are atheists. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," should not apply just to religious people. So stop bashing already, if for no other reason than it makes you look silly when people prove that the cause of nearly every "religious" war has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with greed and lust for power, evil qualities that exist in no smaller measure among those who fancy themselves more enlightened.
Most of the wars are predominately religious countries, pure coincident or co-in- sides
The world is predominantly religious. Some are fighting, some are peaceful.
Then you get our point that Emile and I are making, greater power corrupts, no matter if the Atheists grow from 3% x 10 times (not) worldwide or the Christians right now.
I always hear about wars in the name of God not in the name of Atheist.
Another point atheist capita are a lower % to be in prison than Atheist,
Atheist and Christian have their up side and downsides, in the happy middle you will find me. Thank God, more people tell me they are spiritual rather than Religious, and feel the world is slowly getting better.
castlepaloma, again, these statistics are due to the fact that most people are religious to some extent not because there is some inherent virtue in atheism.
As for the world getting better? For us in the west maybe, but as surely as we spurn our Christian heritage, we will find ourselves overwhelmed by a power such as China...atheistic, terrifying in its hugeness and a denier of religious/philosophical freedom. We don't know how good we've got it with our Christian foundations.
Out of touch with reality.
"Official Chinese surveys now show that nearly one in three Chinese describe themselves as religious, an astonishing figure for an officially atheist country, where religion was banned until three decades ago.
The last 30 years of economic reform have seen an explosion of religious belief. China's government officially recognizes five religions: Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam and Daoism. The biggest boom of all has been in Christianity, which the government has struggled to control."
http://www.npr.org/2010/07/19/128546334 … ristianity
I don't think you're quite understanding the context of which I speak. I am saying that while yes a doctrine is innocent, it is what people do with the words that is trully aweful. By the way, Hitler was an eastern orthodox catholic, anyone that says different needs to read a book. Atheists usually don't attack with weapons, so much as intelligent verbal warfare.
Atheists are far less responsible for hate slinging than many religious groups, that are willing to kill to protect their tiny minded egos.
Goodness, every time someone brings up Hitler, his religious credentials have been elaborated on. I'm expecting the next person to say " Hitler was the Pope!".
Look at history and think about what you are saying. "Atheists don't usually attack with weapons..." "atheists are far less responsible for hate slinging..." Did you see the statistic about Mao Zedong? 70,000,000 people dead under his terror. Certainly he used the intellectual tool of propaganda to do impart most of his wickedness. Atheists are as much to blame for human wickedness as any other human.
If you simply look at the person, log their personal beliefs and then how they acted; it would be difficult to argue that atheists haven't been more of a menace. Fewer have done more damage than all of religion combined throughout history.
The average atheist is probably more peaceful than the average person with religion. Throw in some power and the same doesn't appear to hold true.
Emile, I'll have to get a calculator and see if that's true. I would say the average person is peaceful as a general statement. As for religion, well it surely depends on which religion? You and I come from wealthy Christian countries and have been lucky enough to have not had a dictatorship over us.
Violence is violence and is dangerous in the hands of ruthless people. You say the average person with religion and power is dangerous. I say the average person with power is dangerous. I would personally prefer a person in power to be Christian rather than atheist, but that's just me.
I think you misunderstood me. I don't consider the average religious person with power to be dangerous. I think, they are as dangerous as the government that controls their country allows them to be.
I think atheists with authoritarian powers have proven themselves to be deadly. Soviet Russia, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il....did I miss anyone? How many have died by their hands?
My point about the average atheist being peaceful was that I believe many have turned to militant and vocal atheism because of fear due to the religious strife in the middle east and the vocal fundamental religious minority in America and they are projecting their fear onto any religious person they can talk to. I think they simply want peace and freedom of conscience. I see that as a noble aspiration.
If Islam could find a peace within itself and the religious right in America could be reined in I don't know that these forums would be so contentious.
Totalitarianism and religion have a lot in common - both demand unquestioning faith and belief in the righteousness of the system. Those regimes didn't so much seek to deny religion as to replace it with their own version of a *total solution*. As George Orwell wrote:
"A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible."
Just look to North Korea and the regular worshipful praise that was demanded of the North Koreans toward the *Supreme Being* Kim Yung Il and Orwell's point becomes clear.
Any ideology, religious or otherwise, that demands unquestioning faith and worship and doesn't allow for free expression, questioning and criticism is bad news for humanity but atheism/secularism wasn't the cause of totalitarianism. Rather it was a byproduct, partly because it was feared religion would deflect from the worship of the State.
I'm backing secular pluralism, which is the opposite of totalitarianism - it demands no devotion to one particular ideology, it upholds political and religious freedoms and allows for the free exchange of ideas.
Yes I think you're probably right there. In fact they really must sort themselves out on both sides if there is to be any hope of improvement. Easy for us to say, mind you, since we don't hold their views. We have to remind ourselves of that greatest gift the earliest Christians had: to speak all languages. How wonderful if everyone understood each other.
Oh and, Emperor Nero is another good one for the atheist list. Gracious how he loved killing Christians.
That looks very similar to your notions about Catholics being targeted by Hitler.
Nero committed matricide and a host of other executions in order to consolidate power.
According to Suetonius, Nero "showed neither discrimination nor moderation in putting to death whomsoever he pleased"
Valerie, really? Way to completely ignore my argument and attack me personally.
"Merely awful"? You honestly think I don't realize the depth of the Holocaust tragedy? You don't even know me.
If you don't like the word "awful" please tell me what specific vocabulary words I should use so that you will be satisfied.
But to the larger point, if you truly believe that all human lives are equally valuable, then you will see that, IN THE AGGREGATE humanity is better off today than it was centuries ago. An individual, a group, or even millions murdered IS awful (or a tragedy or whatever vocabulary word you want), but it IS NOT AS SIGNIFICANT AS THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS MORE that have led peaceful, productive, satisfactory lives.
Only if you truly believe all human lives are equal in value will you see this fact.
My grandparents came from germany, one side during the German socialist movement in which anyone with a demacratic view was killed and the other during world war ii and was a prisoner in an internment camp. Don't presume to tell who I do and who I don't know. Plus my answer had nothing to do with war so much as the reasons that start them.
secularist, I don't want to keep finding ways to contradict your arguments, but there is another side to all your points. Sweden may be peaceful politically but it also has the worlds highest suicide rate. The happiness levels are not great.
Japan may be largely peaceful but has a history of cruelty to other nations including extreme torture and the intentional spreading of siphilis around its enemy nations during WW2.
The Chinese are guilty of killing millions of their own babies due to their one-child policy and forced abortions, the death penalty and corruption is rife.
Russia's abortion rate has just surpassed its birth rate!
I must reiterate the view that the problem is that the world is not Christian enough. There is not enough love for our fellow man. There is not enough care and charity and goodwill. To take the view "thank God religion is dying out" ('scuse the pun) is to ignore the very thing that unites us in a good way.
You have a point about suicide, because directly, suicide is a greater cause of death than wars.
Indirectly and distractionally wars budgets and war over suppress people is indirectly related to the number one cause of death, poverty.
Over population is a humanity an nature crime, because we live with a million other species and their are going extinct at 3 species a day yet do agree there must be a better way than one sided Chinese male population.
For suicides, abortion, cannabis, gays, and many of non christian who prefer less crime and warlike resolves. Give non Religious people the free choice to their own minds and bodies yet first educate them well because mainly people know what is wrong or right along with love and kindness.
One World Order will force me to live in the hills, if the hills don't have eyes too.
No but the Vatican seemed to be able to accommodate itself ok to Nazism, even after the war, when it aided and abetted the passage of Nazi war criminals through the infamous Rat Line. It's true that individual priests fought against Nazism but they weren't getting their orders from the official Church.
At the time of WW2, the Emperor of Japan was regarded not only a religious head of state but an actual deity. This was not a secular society...back then the Japanese believed they were fighting for their God.
Yet caring and goodwill are not peculiar to Christianity. Why can't we be united through our common humanity? There will never be 'one uniting religion'..even within one faith there can be excluding divisions. Looking around the world at all the violent hotspots,in the big picture, religion seems more divisive than it is uniting.
Lizzie, the data just don't back you up.
Sweden unhappy? Hmmm... let's look at the happiest countries in the world survey:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world- … table.html
Who are at the top? You guessed it, our good friends the Nordics. Here's the top ten:
6. Costa Rica
7. New Zealand
Lots of secular cultures there.
Now of course autocratic governments like China are going to do bad things. Jane makes a great point on Japan. But even so, war and aggression between countries is separate and apart from the internal culture of the people.
I don't quite understand what Christianity or religion has to do with uniting people. It just seems to be another layer of division.
That's not to say religion cannot have positive effects. It can. But any positives (community spirit, moral guidelines, sense of purpose, etc) can be easily had through nonreligious means.
Note that the top countries on that list have a very good social infrastructure (good welfare safety nets, universal healthcare etc). This is the kind of secular *care and goodwill* that can make a real difference to people's lives. More effective than church charities, prayers and the mouthing of religious platitudes about love.
Merry Xmas Secularist and everyone else too.
And certainly more effective than condemning condoms, abortions, and spreading aids and homophobia.
And just for another cheap shot at the largest sect of Christianity: peadophilia.
The Catholic Church sure seem to think so - the reason atheists bash religions is because religions pretend like their moral values are perfect, not allowing any room for change, because change would be an offence to the lord, who cares if it kills people.
And to that point, fair moral values are seen as only accomplishable once religion is extinct or subdued, which is why it's promising to see that happening in the developed world.
Wouldn't God have wanted a fair society?
Same to you, Jane. And you're right. Secular means "the world." The great thing about a world-based mentality, rather than a next-world-based mentality, is that it forces all of our attention into the problems and benefits of real people and real lives, here and now. It's one thing to say "I'm praying for you" and say your job is done. It's quite another to make a real measurable difference in someone's life.
Notice 9 out of the top 10 happiest countries in the world by are low in population and low to moderate in Religion
I actually agree with you (though I am a Christian) that it is quite problematic when people focus on the "next life" and ignore what is right in front of them in this one. God never intended for people to withdraw from the world into a little bubble of "self" but instead said He desired just the opposite (feed the hungry, loosen the chains of injustice, take care of widows and orphans, etc.) Prayer is also not meant to be a heart-felt sentiment that means the same as, "I care about you." Prayer is a step towards action--action on behalf of God for the person you are praying for and for the one praying to actively represent God. The Bible says if you say to one, "Oh you are in need--may God bless you" that is no good. God says that if you see one in need, to help them! :-)
Again, totally not true. Prayer is doing nothing but pretending to do something and is an insult towards anyone whom the prayer is focused. The starving pray for food but still starve. The cancer patient prays to live, but dies of cancer.
What is it that lays at the root of your troubles? The name you've chosen for yourself always makes we wonder. I could take time to try to respond to your comments, but I have a sense that your mind is very made up. Although I do have a question I would like to ask. If you have to boil it down to the most basic reasons for your unbelief in a God--if you were to cite the strongest reasons for your passion against such a Being, what are they? I know your opinions as you are very clear in this regard--but I'm curious about they "why" beneath the "what." If you feel like answering, I'd love to hear. Thanks!
Why you are focusing on me and would love to hear what 'lays at the root of my troubles' rather than dealing with the subject matter is not as baffling as it seems when intelligent response is lacking.
This is a response from the heart--it means I care. And from my perspective--this is what I see as the real issue. You certainly don't have to answer. I really don't see the point in going in circles with people. You don't really want to be be convinced--so why should I try? Okay, time for me to finish getting ready for Christmas! I hope you have a great holiday sir! :-)
Care about what?
No, the real issue is that you can't seem to focus on the subject matter of the thread and are instead focusing on me personally.
That is not what these forums are about, or did you not know that? Please read the TOS if you're confused.
Care about what it is that is beneath the formation of your opinions. One of the reasons for these forums is for people to seek a better understanding of others' views and reasons for believing what they do. You are entitled to your opinion--I am entitled to mine. I think it to be a positive thing for me to try to understand. Topics are not divorced from the people that hold certain views about the topics. Sometimes the best way to better explore an issue is to better understand the roots of beliefs in others--especially when they are on the opposite end of the coin. You are certainly free to criticize me for seeking better understanding--but if you truly want to speak for the purpose of not just being "heard" but being understood, then I would think you would welcome clarifying questions. If your response of choice is another personal attack, I'll take that to mean you are not interested in discussion. Thank you!
Again, that is not what these forums are about, please try to stick to the subject matter. If you want to create a thread in that regard, please do so.
Then, you should be asking questions regarding the clarity of the subject matter instead. I am criticizing your posts, not you personally. That's how it works.
It is you who is not interested in discussion because you're focusing on me rather than the subject matter.
Do you understand it works, yet? Will you go back to the subject matter?
There no better time in life, than living in the moment or at present. People who dwell in dark age,, or live for the after life, I think can become off balance.
Not to down Religion, it's a fine guideline for some people and for some others who are down and out, it's just not for everyone
In Regard to the OP's Original Question...
I believe for me... it was the influence of the Film - 'Clockwork Orange' and the Song - 'Singing in the Rain.'
- I claim that it was a Completely Innocent reaction to what was promoted as new dance moves! Besides, didn't Billy Connelly start it all with his TV show.. "What to do with your Watchtower!".. I swear that I never swore before seeing that show!
There seems to be a troubling aspect of our views here, there is certainly not a black and white line between atheists and religious people. I think what we are all talking about is four distinct characteristics of humanity...
Religion is a covenant...it is an organization. People choose to commit themselves to an organization in return for the spiritual guidance and community that is offered to them through this covenant...You do not need to be a member of a religion in order to have a relationship with god.
Atheism could even be viewed as a type of religion (by some) as it meets certain qualifications. It's a group of people who engage in a similar belief structure and form community based upon that structure.
So, battle's between atheists and religious people are very similar to battles between different religions...but there's a huge point being missed because antagonism is not an act of the spirit, it's an act of the heart. There are antagonistic people on any side of any disagreement throughout history. Whether you are willing to antagonize someone or not only reflects upon your psychological character, not really upon your spiritual character.
The spirit transcends religion and atheism. The spirit longs only for peace and stillness...regardless of how you believe that comes about. Like it or not, you're all on the same journey. It's just that one story doesn't work for everyone. The point is to find peace and stillness and let your brain do what it does rather than try and occupy it with pointless thoughts and worries.
I once met a good guy in a train. He would make nasty jokes about other people wives, very nasty. He was doing so. Then someone made such a beautiful joke about that joker's wife.. guess what? He got angry!
HubPages is full of children, and they love to do those things over the internet, that they could never even dream to speak to the people they hurt, in a real life setting. They would get bleeding nose to begin with.
Take it lightly Mick Menous.
"The biggest boom of all has been in Christianity"
Maybe you'll get your wish lizzieBoo
According to Chinese philosophy, every journey begins with a single step, and each subsequent step is necessary to reach your destination. Far from being a waste of time, religion was a necessary step. Seeking to understand the world around us, gave birth to science. Many scientists also have spiritual or religious beliefs. How in the hell could all the "brilliance" come from a foundation of so much idiocy? It can't.
You hit it bull's eye brother, I agree with you and God bless.
No belief is entirely innocent. There has been a lot of evil committed in the name of religion, as well as atheism. Human beings need to believe that they are correct, and are often willing to do evil deeds in order to prove their point. If we were willing to accept that none of use knows everything, perhaps we could accept that it is pointless to argue over things we cannot ever hope to prove.
I can say you trash us because you are pretty miserable in your life. You love your life, so you don't want to change it because you are scared of change.
by Claire Evans 4 years ago
Very rarely do I see a forum thread on Islam. I have not seen an atheist who has started a thread on Islam insulting Mohammed or Allah or just speaking out against them. Christianity and Jesus seem to be the target. I know it is because the US, for example, is considered a...
by mischeviousme 8 years ago
To clarify, I am not an atheist, but I have seen some violence coming from religious folks that is to the extreme. Where an atheist will talk, a christian will pull a trigger. What makes one side any more innocent than any other way of thinking? They both have great points, some more practical than...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 6 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think it is not necessary to speak against religions. Instead of that we should...
by Mark Knowles 11 years ago
An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated.Madalyn Murray O'Hair
by paarsurrey 9 years ago
Mick Menous wrote:Personally, I really don't see what gives non-believers the right to criticize and verbally hurt innocent religions who want to do nothing but help spread peace, love, and do charity work for the poor.Paarsurrey says: It makes sense; the atheists should...
by Brittany Williams 9 months ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|