Some people have no sense of humor. South Park incurs veiled death threats.

[krzywica]

Let's not get side tracked. The point is all religious groups do stupid things.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Nemo128]

You aren't trying to say that there is no evidence of athiest atrocities, are you...?

Black and white, *sigh*

What I said was we'll agree to disagree about the idea that Atheism and any organized form of religion have proven equally destructive throughout human history. History itself holds significant evidence to the contrary.

Religion has proven to be the single most prevelant factor in almost every instance of mass destruction the world has ever seen. People offer anecdotal evidence against atheist or spiritually apathetic people, but when compared to documented human history, the evidence is overwhelming.

Soviet Union, Communist China, Hitler... first, incorrect. All had documented religious motivations. Second, since when did human history only consist of the last 200 years? In fact, since when did human history only exist since the birth of Jesus Christ? The Abrahamic religions aren't even close to being the oldest ones in history.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Black and white, *sigh*

What I said was we'll agree to disagree about the idea that Atheism and any organized form of religion have proven equally destructive throughout human history. History itself holds significant evidence to the contrary.

Religion has proven to be the single most prevelant factor in almost every instance of mass destruction the world has ever seen. People offer anecdotal evidence against atheist or spiritually apathetic people, but when compared to documented human history, the evidence is overwhelming.

Soviet Union, Communist China, Hitler... first, incorrect. All had documented religious motivations. Second, since when did human history only consist of the last 200 years? In fact, since when did human history only exist since the birth of Jesus Christ? The Abrahamic religions aren't even close to being the oldest ones in history.

I must confess that I don't understand what you're trying to say. I do not, nor have I ever, viewed such things in terms of black and white. You made several statements accusing people of generalizing about Islam. I completely agree with you. But then, you generalize about religions as a whole. What gives?

You are right about the religious motivations behind the atrocities commited by communists and fascists - those political movements became de facto religions and other beliefs were not tolerated. As for the Communist regimes, they were officially athiest and suppressed or suborned the resident religions. When/if these regimes invoked the name of God, when carrying out their nasty practices, it was merely a cynical measure to convince people to do their bidding. It didn't have anything to do with the "religious" beliefs of the leadership.

I don't recall saying anything about when history began. The point I was making - and it does not matter when it happened in history - is that absolute power leads to such happenings. It doesn't matter what philosophy is behind it.

Persecution of Christians by the ancient Romans, the subsequent conversion of Rome to Christianity, persecution of Jews by the Nazis - these events occurred for political reasons, not religious ones.

I won't deny the fact that many terrible things have been done in the name of God. Many terrible things have been done, while invoking the name of God, but really for political reasons. And, many terrible things have been done with no mention of God whatsoever.

Human nature being what it is, if you could wipe religion from the face of the earth, people will still be just as cruel to each other as they are right now. To think otherwise is dangerously naive.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Let's not get side tracked. The point is all religious groups around for any length of time have done stupid things.

No side-tracking going on here! I'm well aware of the point that various religions have done nasty things down through history - no argument with that. However, it doesn't take any particular religious belief to get people to do stupid things.

 

[Nemo128]

All good points GO-NAD, but I'll leave you with this...

Had religion not instilled that blind servitude based on faith, could those movements have realized any form of success in the first place? As you said, religion was used as a motivating factor to garner support.

That was my sole point. Also, I should have multi-quoted because my statements about the history of humankind weren't even directed at you. Literally, only my very first statement was. You asked if I was saying one thing, and I obviously was not.

You made it a black and white, all or nothing statement. You asked, and I quote, "You aren't trying to say that there is no evidence of athiest atrocities, are you...?"

So either I was implying no evidence exists, or the poster in question was correct? The statement was, Atheism has been equally as destructive as religions. I contest that equality. Saying people with no spiritual beliefs have been responsible for no atrocities would be (nicely put btw) dangerously naive. I said no such thing.

I also contest your idea of human nature. Human nature, at its core, is a result of civilization. The two major components of civilization are government and religion. The origin of one (government) is deeply rooted in the other (religion) dating back to the Sumerians.

 

[GO-NAD!]

All good points GO-NAD, but I'll leave you with this...

Had religion not instilled that blind servitude based on faith, could those movements have realized any form of success in the first place? As you said, religion was used as a motivating factor to garner support.

That was my sole point. Also, I should have multi-quoted because my statements about the history of humankind weren't even directed at you. Literally, only my very first statement was. You asked if I was saying one thing, and I obviously was not.

You made it a black and white, all or nothing statement. You asked, and I quote, "You aren't trying to say that there is no evidence of athiest atrocities, are you...?"

So either I was implying no evidence exists, or the poster in question was correct? The statement was, Atheism has been equally as destructive as religions. I contest that equality. Saying people with no spiritual beliefs have been responsible for no atrocities would be (nicely put btw) dangerously naive. I said no such thing.

I also contest your idea of human nature. Human nature, at its core, is a result of civilization. The two major components of civilization are government and religion. The origin of one (government) is deeply rooted in the other (religion) dating back to the Sumerians.

OK, this is how I understood it:

Nemo128: "My point is, it's pointless arguing with someone who sees nothing wrong with their generalizations. Over 1.5 billion people on this planet are Muslim, and if you're going to generalize over 1.5 billion people based on this or any other terroristic action you've seen in the past 2000 years, you're seriously misguided. The Christian track record of peaceful existence is no better."
Isiberian: "Neither is the Atheist track record or any other. "

Nemo128: "We'll just agree to disagree there. My thoughts on that are based on fact however... "

Your last statement implied that there were no facts to support Isiberian's statement. Can you understand how I came to that conclusion now? If I misunderstood, you have my apology.

I made no "black and white" statement. I asked a question and just wanted a clarification, that's all. Again, sorry if I was misunderstood.

As for, "The statement was, Atheism has been equally as destructive as religions. I contest that equality.", if you want to weigh the destruction caused by religious conflict down through history against that caused by the various communist and Nazi regimes, there is no contest. The death and destruction from religious conflict prior to, say 1914, pales in comparison to that which was caused by the later conflicts.

WW1 was a purely imperialistic pissing match and any religious conotations are purely incidental. WW2 was just a continuation of WW1, as far as I'm concerned. The Nazis had a conflicted relationship with "the church" and religion was not an important factor in their policies (unless we agree that fascism became a religion of sorts). Their persecution of the Jews was rooted in racism, not religious hatred. It may be a splitting of hairs, but I believe it to be an important hair to consider.

The Soviets and Chicoms, were officially athiest and murdered millions of their own people.

"Human nature, at its core, is a result of civilization."

I would've thought it to be the other way round.

In the end, we are all animals. We may be a "higher" species, but we are subject to many of the basic instincts of other animals. Animals fight over territory, food and mates. We do the same and everything stems from that, on a grander scale. It's sad to say, but I don't think there's any getting around that.

 

[highfigh]

Absolutely! How many people did the Soviet Union and Communist China murder? Hitler may not have been a declared athiest, but I don't think any of his nasty deeds were done "in the name of God", as such. Such evil happens when absolute power is held by a select few - be they fascist, communist or theocratic.

Hitler definitely declared his atheism. It's not like the government would have nabbed him and tossed him in a cell, although the World would have been better off if they had.

Those three examples are of regimes and people whose quest for absolute power blinded them to anything good.

 

[highfigh]

Wait your not afraid of vacuum cleaners? I can't stand up in moving vehicles either.....damn it...

Afraid? No, definitely not. As a matter of fact, I used one just yesterday. I don't remember who said "Embrace the suck" first, but....

The only vacuum cleaner I'm afraid of is the one that's hurtling toward me at a speed that makes it impossible for me to get the hell out of the way.

 

[Rickster71]

The point is all religious groups around for any length of time have done stupid things.

A stupid thing would be locking their keys in the car; opposition to Galileo's Sun-centered theory of the universe was more than stupid.

 

[GO-NAD!]

A stupid thing would be locking their keys in the car; opposition to Galileo's Sun-centered theory of the universe was more than stupid.

No argument with that!

 

[GirgleMirt]

My point is, it's pointless arguing with someone who sees nothing wrong with their generalizations. Over 1.5 billion people on this planet are Muslim, and if you're going to generalize over 1.5 billion people based on this or any other terroristic action you've seen in the past 2000 years, you're seriously misguided. The Christian track record of peaceful existence is no better.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/26/iftikhar.south.park/index.html?hpt=C2

So you claim that someone here has expressed the view that 1.5 billion muslims are terrorists? You're wrong. Nobody did. You've simply misconstrued somebody's position (we still don't know who that someone is).

Now are you claiming that Islam is not a violent religion? Because there's plenty of evidence pointing to the contrary. Are 100% muslims violent terrorists? No, nobody said so. But Islam is intrinsically violent. Are you saying it's not? Here's a a couple of examples, from the pages of the Quran itself: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm Besides, you'd have to be blind not to see how violent a religion it really is, simply looking at events of the last couple of years...

What, you claim that Islam is a religion of peace? It's not violent? The post above said something along: "Islam = I slam", certainly not hard to see a couple occasions where that applied... Murders... Bombings... Jihad... Wars... Massacres.. Etc... The other was a mockery of Islam being a religion of peace: "religion of peaces", again, you're saying that's wrong and that it's religion of peace?

Just so we're clear...

 

[GO-NAD!]

So you claim that someone here has expressed the view that 1.5 billion muslims are terrorists? You're wrong. Nobody did. You've simply misconstrued somebody's position (we still don't know who that someone is).

Now are you claiming that Islam is not a violent religion? Because there's plenty of evidence pointing to the contrary. Are 100% muslims violent terrorists? No, nobody said so. But Islam is intrinsically violent. Are you saying it's not? Here's a a couple of examples, from the pages of the Quran itself: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm Besides, you'd have to be blind not to see how violent a religion it really is, simply looking at events of the last couple of years...

What, you claim that Islam is a religion of peace? It's not violent? The post above said something along: "Islam = I slam", certainly not hard to see a couple occasions where that applied... Murders... Bombings... Jihad... Wars... Massacres.. Etc... The other was a mockery of Islam being a religion of peace: "religion of peaces", again, you're saying that's wrong and that it's religion of peace?

Just so we're clear...

I agree with Nemo, in that these statements certainly look like generalizations:

"...I hate islam as much as anybody else (maybe hate is the wrong word, hold contempt for Islam is the more correct term, but not even for Islam particularly, mostly any religion, which are pretty much hated equally.),..."

"...islam = i slam (everybody who says anything I don't like).

islam - the religion of pieces. Deliberately NOT capitalized. ...."

As for Islam being "intrinsically violent", that does not make any sense. I would offer this analogy "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The same goes for any religion. Religions have been used like weapons in numerous instances down through history. It does not mean that they are always the primary motivations behind the violence. If Islam was indeed, intrinsically violent, I think we'd be seeing a lot more terrorist attacks than we have. For every muslim terrorist and agitator, there are millions more who want no part of such activity. There have been Christian and Hindu terrorists. We've also had purely political left-wing and right-wing terrorism.
Quoting text from the Quran is not proof of any inherent violent tendencies. There are equivalent passages in the Bible as well. You have to put these books in historical context. They were written by men and are not the "literal word of God" that some fundamentalist adherents may claim.

I believe that Islamic extremism, as we have seen over the last few years, stems from the fact that the overwhelming majority of muslims live in totalitarian states, or states which are only marginally democratic. In such places, it's difficult for different viewpoints to be aired and it's in the interests of those in power to maintain a hold over the populace by demonizing the "external enemy". In such an atmosphere, it's almost impossible for a moderate outlook to prevail.

I think the average muslim born and raised in a western democratic country is a different person than one raised in Pakistan, for example. That's just a guess on my part and is not based on any particular research. If you look at the backgrounds of muslim "agitators" in the west, they are predominantly immigrants from countries where modern interpretations of their religion is not tolerated.

If you look at Christianity, as is practiced in western democratic countries, you will find that there is an overwhelming advocacy for non-violence. That's because mainstream Christianity has been able to mature into a voice for peace. It has come full circle. Jesus said, "If somebody hits you in the face, offer him the other cheek", i.e. don't respond to violence with more violence. Then, for hundreds of years, the religion was used as a weapon for political puposes. Now, most western Christians have returned to what Jesus preached, in that they advocate settling differences by peaceful means. There are exceptions of course, such as the conflict in Northern Ireland and some of the fundamentalist militias (which I consider more "nutbar", than "Christian") we see in the US. But, they are very small exceptions.

 

[GirgleMirt]

I agree with Nemo, in that these statements certainly look like generalizations:

"...I hate islam as much as anybody else (maybe hate is the wrong word, hold contempt for Islam is the more correct term, but not even for Islam particularly, mostly any religion, which are pretty much hated equally.),..."

How is that a generalization? Ah ok I see what you did... I was actually going to defend the quoted muslim by saying it was not threatening, and not wanting to sound like an apologist just thought it be wise that I have no love for religion, any of it... And as I said, I do have contempt for Islam, and religions.

As for Islam being "intrinsically violent", that does not make any sense.

Of course it does. Islam is no more than plagiarism from the old testament and other religions. When it was made up, there was quite a bit of competing religions, hence for example, one of the ten commandments of crhistians: "You shall have no other gods before me". It's as barbaric as the barbaric primitive man who created it...

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" etc.. etc...

How can you say that it's not extrinsically violent? Even teh bible is littered with similar verses... Old testament was really to be read, big eye opener as to what/who god is and what his values was/is...

I would offer this analogy "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The same goes for any religion. Religions have been used like weapons in numerous instances down through history.

My god... What a bad analogy. A gun is a tool, an object whose purpose is hurl a projectile at high velocity to incapacitate/maim/kill a target/being. Religion, I won't go in depth, is basically a set of primitive beliefs which poisons the mind. And yes, it's been 'misused', if you can construed this as 'misusing', you could easily argue that it has simply served its purpose.

There's no way to 'use' it properly. Tell me, what's the punishment for breaking one of the ten commandments? At one point, it was death was it not? Today, luckily, civilized world has evolved to a point where they don't give any weight to silly religious beliefs. But in many parts of the world, religion is law. You can say now that it's being misused, but you're simply applying your own values to what you consider to be the correct use of religion. Which is absolutely flawed btw. You're simply not seeing religion for what it really is.

Ex: You'll claim, for example, that disfiguring a young child because she is going to school is not what your beliefs deem ethical, yet, some equally or more religious than you will disagree. Same for stoning a woman because she's out in a bathing suit, this would be barbaric to you, yet, to other equally or more religious than you, wearing the bathing suit is appalling and based on their religious beliefs, stoning is the correct response. Or, you might think that drawing a cartoon of the prophet is ok, but some religious believers might believe otherwise, and would say that beheading is the correct response. And religiously, they'd probably be right. As it's all a matter of interpretation of the silly religious beliefs/laws. You interpret it one way, somebody else interprets it another way, who's to say who's wrong? You think you're more qualified than them? How presumptuous and pompous of you... How dare you judge their beliefs and their ways?

Anyhow, this discussion is rather pointless is it not? Simply, religions are false beliefs. They make grand claims and fail to deliver. Civilized societies do not need religion in any shape or form. It's negative effects have been well documented throughout the years, and even today, a great number of people suffer greatly because of these primitive beliefs. It's divisive, it's... *sigh*

 

[Chu Gai]

Just curious as to what the theological position is on the "thou shalt have no other gods before me" statement? As I read it, it doesn't preclude that there aren't other gods or eternal beings.

 

[GO-NAD!]

How is that a generalization? Ah ok I see what you did... I was actually going to defend the quoted muslim by saying it was not threatening, and not wanting to sound like an apologist just thought it be wise that I have no love for religion, any of it... And as I said, I do have contempt for Islam, and religions.

Of course it does. Islam is no more than plagiarism from the old testament and other religions. When it was made up, there was quite a bit of competing religions, hence for example, one of the ten commandments of crhistians: "You shall have no other gods before me". It's as barbaric as the barbaric primitive man who created it...

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" etc.. etc...

How can you say that it's not extrinsically violent? Even teh bible is littered with similar verses... Old testament was really to be read, big eye opener as to what/who god is and what his values was/is...


My god... What a bad analogy. A gun is a tool, an object whose purpose is hurl a projectile at high velocity to incapacitate/maim/kill a target/being. Religion, I won't go in depth, is basically a set of primitive beliefs which poisons the mind. And yes, it's been 'misused', if you can construed this as 'misusing', you could easily argue that it has simply served its purpose.

There's no way to 'use' it properly. Tell me, what's the punishment for breaking one of the ten commandments? At one point, it was death was it not? Today, luckily, civilized world has evolved to a point where they don't give any weight to silly religious beliefs. But in many parts of the world, religion is law. You can say now that it's being misused, but you're simply applying your own values to what you consider to be the correct use of religion. Which is absolutely flawed btw. You're simply not seeing religion for what it really is.

Ex: You'll claim, for example, that disfiguring a young child because she is going to school is not what your beliefs deem ethical, yet, some equally or more religious than you will disagree. Same for stoning a woman because she's out in a bathing suit, this would be barbaric to you, yet, to other equally or more religious than you, wearing the bathing suit is appalling and based on their religious beliefs, stoning is the correct response. Or, you might think that drawing a cartoon of the prophet is ok, but some religious believers might believe otherwise, and would say that beheading is the correct response. And religiously, they'd probably be right. As it's all a matter of interpretation of the silly religious beliefs/laws. You interpret it one way, somebody else interprets it another way, who's to say who's wrong? You think you're more qualified than them? How presumptuous and pompous of you... How dare you judge their beliefs and their ways?

Anyhow, this discussion is rather pointless is it not? Simply, religions are false beliefs. They make grand claims and fail to deliver. Civilized societies do not need religion in any shape or form. It's negative effects have been well documented throughout the years, and even today, a great number of people suffer greatly because of these primitive beliefs. It's divisive, it's... *sigh*

It seems to me that you cannot understand any viewpoints beyond your own. Yes, the analogy I used wasn't a perfect one, but it was merely to illustrate a point that I used it. If you couldn't see that, I can only presume wilful blindness. A set of beliefs or philosophy cannot inflict any physical harm on anybody. It takes a person to do that. The closest that a religion can come to inflicting physical harm is if you whack somebody over the head with a bible. Even then, it is still just the physical book and not the religion itself. Sure it provides the basis for belief, but it still just a book and it boils down to how it's interpreted.

You conveniently ignored my point about religions not having a monopoly in violence. The vast majority of people killed in the 20th century were not victims of religious persecution.

You stated, "There's no way to 'use' it properly." Are you implying that nobody can hold religious beliefs and still act in an responsible manner? Do you really believe that?

Bottom line is, freedom of speech trumps all, as far as I'm concerned. If anyone wishes to mock Mohammed, Jesus, or any other religious figure, that is their business and I wouldn't have it any other way. They should not be punished or persecuted for it. I draw the line when any action taken "in the name of God" violates another person's basic human rights.

You are right about civilized societies not "needing" religion. It's more important what a person does, than what he or she believes. One could argue that we don't "need" socialism. However, if there were no socialist beliefs allowed, our economy would still resemble the age of feudalism at worst, or robber-barons at best. It's all a matter of ballance. If somebody chooses to hold certain beliefs that would be considered "religious", they shouldn't be regarded as soft in the head. That would be rather close-minded. I can appreciate why some people are athiests and I respect that. To make the claim that a religion is a set of "false beliefs", is truly "presumptuous and pompous". You can no more prove the non-existence of God any more than I can prove that God does exist.

I probably do not conform to the stereotype that an athiest would consider a Christian. I do not think that God is a man up in the clouds with a long grey beard and flowing white robes, I do not believe that there were an "Adam and Eve" in the literal sense or that they rode dinosaurs and I do not believe Jesus to be divine, i.e. the literal son of God.

I am a Christian because I believe Jesus' teachings to be valid life lessons. If you haven't read about Jesus, I can tell you that non-violence was at the core of his teachings. Wait a minute, I already did. But, you chose not to address that point at all. Martin Luther King Jr. took those lessons to heart. Do you think he was a danger to society?

You've nitpicked at a couple of points I made, without actually countering any of them. I am more than happy to discuss any topic that is of interest to me and will always listen to different viewpoints. But, if your posts are going to be essentially "copy and paste" jobs and the typed version of a broken record, my interest will fade rapidly. I try to maintain an open mind and I do not ridicule other peoples beliefs when I do not share them. I just ask that the favour be returned. If you wish to actually counter any of the points I have made, I'd be more than happy to read and acknowledge what you have to say. But, if it's more of the same, don't expect a response.

Having said that, I'm more than happy to "agree to disagree" and leave it at. Peace be with you!

 

[GO-NAD!]

Just curious as to what the theological position is on the "thou shalt have no other gods before me" statement? As I read it, it doesn't preclude that there aren't other gods or eternal beings.

Don't know - I'm not a theologian. My view is that you take whatever you want from the bible, interpret it in your own way and leave the rest. I don't have a conventional view on what God is or isn't. I'm not sure if God can be quantified as a definite entity or entities. Can you put a number on the universe?

 

[Chu Gai]

No. Just asked a simple question. If the statement had read, you should not have any other cans of corn before this can of Green Giant corn, I'd take it as saying the can of Green Giant corn is at the head of the line followed by the other cans of corn. Replace corn with God and I take it to mean there's a bunch of gods but one is at the head of the class for whatever reason. Do you see it the same way or not?

 

[GO-NAD!]

No. Just asked a simple question. If the statement had read, you should not have any other cans of corn before this can of Green Giant corn, I'd take it as saying the can of Green Giant corn is at the head of the line followed by the other cans of corn. Replace corn with God and I take it to mean there's a bunch of gods but one is at the head of the class for whatever reason. Do you see it the same way or not?

Well, we have to make it clear that "God" didn't write that, a man did - Moses. So, who knows how God feels about it? I don't know. I don't know that you can place God in a hierarchy - it all comes down to what your perspective is.

I personally wouldn't try to quantify God, so by default I won't try to place him/her/them/it in a hierarchy.

 

[Chu Gai]

I know man wrote it but you say you're a Christian which I guess means you follow the teachings of Christ. Yet Christ himself did not write a word down. The events were passed down from man to man and ultimately to you. So your belief is in someway based upon men's writings and there's not a Christian that I know that is not familiar with the commandments and holds them to be useful tenets. Same with Muslim's I know that hold to the five pillars. All I'm asking is what does that particular commandment mean to you as well as asking does the commandment exclude the existence of other gods? If you're rather not articulate upon it, I respect your position.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I know man wrote it but you say you're a Christian which I guess means you follow the teachings of Christ. Yet Christ himself did not write a word down. The events were passed down from man to man and ultimately to you. So your belief is in someway based upon men's writings and there's not a Christian that I know that is not familiar with the commandments and holds them to be useful tenets. Same with Muslim's I know that hold to the five pillars. All I'm asking is what does that particular commandment mean to you as well as asking does the commandment exclude the existence of other gods? If you're rather not articulate upon it, I respect your position.

I see what you're getting at now. Well, I take from the 10 commandments, the same way I take anything else from the bible. If it makes sense to me, I accept it. If it doesn't, I don't. For example, in the 10 commandments, we are told not to steal or kill. Makes perfect sense to me and I don't do either - not even pirating software, movies or music. Others are more murky - including the commandment you refer to and I won't pretend to have all the answers. I don't regard the bible in black and white terms. There are many shades of grey. So, to answer your question (partially), I believe some of them to be useful tenets. But, since I cannot define God, I cannot answer your specific question regarding the existence of multiple Gods and any hierarchy that might apply.