Yes? No?me wrote:
less people would feel the need to give their lives in war should consciousness end at the end of our lives here.
First of all Hitler was not an atheist, also:DoctaStrangelove wrote:
And atheists' track record is sooooooooooo much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
You are a crack up. :) Thanks for the laugh.Phrozenbot wrote:
Secularism has caused more deaths than religion.
LOL... look out atheist heaven or hell here I come... and Atheist church too, I'll be there this Sunday - it's true! Oh and our book of myths, traditions, beliefs, dogma, etc, can be picked up at that very same church - that I'll be at this Sunday.DesertFox- wrote:
This is true. Working with the textbook definition of religion (as I covered earlier, atheism is one, albeit unorganized), it is clearly evidenced by nearly everyone in this forum.Dilbert_X wrote:
Religion gives groups of people the idea they are better than the next group, and can therefore treat them as they want.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-14 10:39:45)
This is true. Working with the textbook definition of religion (as I covered earlier, atheism is one, albeit unorganized), it is clearly evidenced by nearly everyone in this forum.Dilbert_X wrote:
Religion gives groups of people the idea they are better than the next group, and can therefore treat them as they want.
Atheism isn't the reason for the atrocities of Pol Pot or Stalin, it's basically authoritarian communism.DesertFox- wrote:
This is true. Working with the textbook definition of religion (as I covered earlier, atheism is one, albeit unorganized), it is clearly evidenced by nearly everyone in this forum.Dilbert_X wrote:
Religion gives groups of people the idea they are better than the next group, and can therefore treat them as they want.
Actually the missionaries were the only ones who cared at all for the Natives. In fact, a Spanish missionary was the one who got slavery banned in the Spanish colonies, even though few settlers listened to the ban and it was poorly enforced.FallenMorgan wrote:
Atheism isn't the reason for the atrocities of Pol Pot or Stalin, it's basically authoritarian communism.DesertFox- wrote:
This is true. Working with the textbook definition of religion (as I covered earlier, atheism is one, albeit unorganized), it is clearly evidenced by nearly everyone in this forum.Dilbert_X wrote:
Religion gives groups of people the idea they are better than the next group, and can therefore treat them as they want.
As for what Dilbert said, take the Crusades or the Spanish and Portuguese invasions of South America - one group felt that their religion and culture was the right way, and also that the other people in the conflict were inferior and needed to be civilized. Missionaries in North America thought that the Native Americans did not have souls - their intent was to save them, or whatever.
Last edited by DoctaStrangelove (2008-07-14 12:37:16)
An interesting point that I would have to disagree with, at least from the perspective of the treatment of Juaneno natives here in SoCal by the Spanish conquerers. From the following excerpt it's quite obvious that some Missionaries fully believed in the idea of the "White Man's Burden" in regard to civilizing the savages.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Actually the missionaries were the only ones who cared at all for the Natives. In fact, a Spanish missionary was the one who got slavery banned in the Spanish colonies, even though few settlers listened to the ban and it was poorly enforced.FallenMorgan wrote:
Atheism isn't the reason for the atrocities of Pol Pot or Stalin, it's basically authoritarian communism.DesertFox- wrote:
This is true. Working with the textbook definition of religion (as I covered earlier, atheism is one, albeit unorganized), it is clearly evidenced by nearly everyone in this forum.
As for what Dilbert said, take the Crusades or the Spanish and Portugese invasions of South America - one group felt that their religion and culture was the right way, and also that the other people in the conflict were inferior and needed to be civilized. Missionaries in North America thought that the Native Americans did not have souls - their intent was to save them, or whatever.
Emphasis mine.Missionary Jeronimo Boscana wrote:
The motives which have induced me to write the present history, have been, principally, to fulfill my obligations as Apostolical Missionary; to have before me the means of presenting to these poor Indians an account of the errors entertained by them during their state of heathenism, and to contrast the same with the light they now enjoy as Christians
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-07-14 13:12:22)
I'm not saying it was. The idea that religion is the main cause for any of those wars or civilizations being toppled is absurd. Power.FallenMorgan wrote:
Atheism isn't the reason for the atrocities of Pol Pot or Stalin, it's basically authoritarian communism.DesertFox- wrote:
This is true. Working with the textbook definition of religion (as I covered earlier, atheism is one, albeit unorganized), it is clearly evidenced by nearly everyone in this forum.Dilbert_X wrote:
Religion gives groups of people the idea they are better than the next group, and can therefore treat them as they want.
As for what Dilbert said, take the Crusades or the Spanish and Portugese invasions of South America - one group felt that their religion and culture was the right way, and also that the other people in the conflict were inferior and needed to be civilized. Missionaries in North America thought that the Native Americans did not have souls - their intent was to save them, or whatever.
DoctaStrangelove wrote:
And atheists' track record is sooooooooooo much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
Phrozenbot wrote:
Secularism has caused more deaths than religion.
You all need to pull your heads out of your arses to be quite frank. Firstly, you are all talking as if these atheists all got together and exchanged ideas or worked off of the same manifesto or something. Atheism isn't a religion, it isn't anything, it's an absence of something, not a presence. You all seem so wired to the idea of basing your lives around a faith system that you can't seem to comprehend the concept that some people simply just do not; I'm sorry guys but some people put religion on the same level as fairy tales. Do you have a special group for people who don't believe in fairy tales ... does it count as a religion?DesertFox- wrote:
More often than not, I'm all for people practicing religion, which I have often made the argument that atheism, while largely unorganized, is a religous belief because religion is rarely used by people as the textbook definition, but more the "I believe in a god" side. If you break up the word "a-theism" you get the root "theism," meaning belief in at least one deity, negated. If one claims to be an atheist, all they are saying is they do not believe in a diety, but there are many more aspects to religion than a deity that are lost in the dumbing-down and simplification of difficult concepts today.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-14 13:08:25)
Yeah, it's that important.Braddock wrote:
DesertFox- wrote:
More often than not, I'm all for people practicing religion, which I have often made the argument that atheism, while largely unorganized, is a religous belief because religion is rarely used by people as the textbook definition, but more the "I believe in a god" side. If you break up the word "a-theism" you get the root "theism," meaning belief in at least one deity, negated. If one claims to be an atheist, all they are saying is they do not believe in a diety, but there are many more aspects to religion than a deity that are lost in the dumbing-down and simplification of difficult concepts today.
Most people are using #2. Nearly everyone still has developed their own set of beliefs about the objects in #1. Although people from the same organized religions may share some of the same beliefs (i.e. as in there being or not being a deity), the damn well do not have the same ideas and thus, each person is the sole member of their little religion that has tendencies towards the labels we know as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so forth.Dictionary.com wrote:
religion-noun-
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Last edited by DesertFox- (2008-07-14 13:16:18)
The third is not really a definition of religion but rather a loose definition of a contextual use of the word as a replacement for the concept of devoted to some particular interest or pursuit. To say someone is religiously pursuing something is a loose colloquial way of saying their devoted to what they do. And, that could be anything: art, dance, music, science, gaming, etc... and it would never imply that they were actually religious or a member of any religion or religious pursuit.Braddock wrote:
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-14 14:04:03)
Secularism as a concept has not killed more people than religion.Phrozenbot wrote:
Secularism has caused more deaths than religion.
How about his ability to kill things instead, and often his willingness to do so.CameronPoe wrote:
Man's propensity for greed is the root of all evil.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-14 14:05:44)
Greed give him the willingness.topal63 wrote:
How about his ability to kill things instead, and often his willingness to do so.CameronPoe wrote:
Man's propensity for greed is the root of all evil.
The driver is the important thing. Animals can kill too but one would hardly call them evil.topal63 wrote:
How about his ability to kill things instead.CameronPoe wrote:
Man's propensity for greed is the root of all evil.
Except for BEARS!CameronPoe wrote:
The driver is the important thing. Animals can kill too but one would hardly call them evil.topal63 wrote:
How about his ability to kill things instead.CameronPoe wrote:
Man's propensity for greed is the root of all evil.
I wouldn't really disagree with that, in the very loosest of ways, but I do think if you remove the killing part - you simply end up with a lot of nauseating human bickering as opposed to anything you would call evil.CameronPoe wrote:
The driver is the important thing. Animals can kill too but one would hardly call them evil.topal63 wrote:
How about his ability to kill things instead.CameronPoe wrote:
Man's propensity for greed is the root of all evil.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-14 14:31:28)
Speaking of swallows.God Save the Queen wrote:
heard she swallowed it too
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-14 15:30:11)