christianity (which i fully oppose) is an excellent example of a religion that teaches the opposite of violence: tolerance.
samcdkey said:And your intolerance has a positive effect on society?
In that case, better get the ovens ready.
There are a lot of theists to eliminate.
Racism i.e. the belief in the inferiority of, or danger posed by people of another race, causes much more violence! The Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, race riots, institutional racism etc.
Poor you! So, have you actually been mugged by Muslims, hit by Hindu's, beaten-up by Baptists or clubbed-to-death by Catholics? Or is this just a paranoid fear you have that it could happen?
People are the source of violence, when they get angry about something they feel passionate about! Religion is something people feel passionately about, but it is also one of the attempted cures for violence. Love thy enemy as thyself, turn the other cheek etc.
christianity (which i fully oppose) is an excellent example of a religion that teaches the opposite of violence: tolerance.
KennyJC said:When rooting out irrational beliefs that shape society yes. I don't see how anybody could respect these set of superstitious beliefs. I tolerate it, but don't respect it. Especially when I see it be the root of violence and degredation of parts of the world.
Is religion the cause of world hunger?
About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes.
This does not make the front pages either.
Why are these people hungry?
* The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants.
* For the poorest countries (approximately 60), $550 billion has been paid in both principal and interest over the last three decades, on $540bn of loans, and yet there is still a $523 billion dollar debt burden.
Guess which countries are "giving" them this aid.
The G8 must go, say UK’s leading radicals
Organised by radical campaign groups including War on Want and LSE People & Planet, the panel will discuss the complicity of the G8 in global warfare, neo-colonialism, the excesses of corporate globalisation and the limiting of free speech and protest. Speakers will challenge the expectation that the undemocratic G8 summit in Gleneagles will bring about a positive outcome for the Third World, and will call for radical global change in order to eradicate international poverty.
War on Want Campaigns Officer Nick Dearden said: “So many of the Third World’s problems originate with the G8 that it is totally unrealistic to expect from them the radical change the world needs. Not just aid and debt, but real power needs to be handed to the Third World if we are ever to stop its exploitation.”
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) maintains protectionist trade barriers in the First World, where the rich counties spend $300 billion every year in subsidies that prevent the poor countries from having access to their markets. Brandt wanted to remove these subsidies, which give the rich world an unfair advantage.
Who needs ovens when they are happy to annihilate each other with bombs?
Where do they get these bombs?
Since the Brandt Report sales of armaments have increased massively, with the US and the UK two of the largest producers and exporters. In 1999, Britain was exporting about £4 billion ($7,478,646,398) worth of armaments per annum. The UK has a government agency especially dedicated to the promotion of arms export: the Defense Export Services Organization.
The British Government, which actively encourages the sale of arms to poor countries, has recently granted arms export licenses to a number of countries with repressive regimes.
British taxpayers subsidize the armament industry to the tune of approximately £200 million ($373,874,032) per annum. The reason why governments subsidize corporations who export weapons is because the public allows them to. Taxpayers' money benefits arms exporters, who do inestimable harm to the Third World countries that buy the arms. These countries are spending money they can ill afford on armaments, instead of investing in services.
Good point, then racist 'beliefs' have a lot in common with religious fundamentalists. Racist violence doesn't tend to grab the front pages in the same way religious violence does, if you are so sure that it is more common.
Perhaps your vision is blinkered?
29 July 2006
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9307
27 July 2006
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aVbEUAVl.xpc&refer=asia
My issue is not being a victim of crime, my issue is that people are victims of crime, purely because of their faith, or lack of. Which is rediculous.
WHO report on world violence (2002)
The death and disability caused by violence make it one of the leading public health issues of our time, says the report. Violence is among the leading causes of death for people aged 15-44 years of age, accounting for 14% of deaths among males and 7% of deaths among females. On an average day, 1424 people are killed in acts of homicide almost one person every minute. Roughly one person commits suicide every 40 seconds. About 35 people are killed every hour as a direct result of armed conflict. In the 20th century, an estimated 191 million people lost their lives directly or indirectly as a result of conflict, and well over half of them were civilians.
Does homicide or suicide count as a "religious" cause of death?
And these are the leading causes of mortality worldwide:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779147.html
How carefully selective of you. People don't quote those parts of the Bible or the Koran when confronted by infidels who don't agree with their faith.
You are obviously the expert in those so I won't bother.
Depends which part of the Bible you read. Also, dense groups of Christians like in the bible belt seem to have missed the opposite of violence... You say tolerance, but I don't see this amongst groups of fundamentalist Christians.
Obviously the fundamentalists define religion- what percent of the theists do they constitute again?
The Devil Inside said:dont let the arguments bring you down, sam.
maintain.
samcdkey said:PS am I doing something wrong?
The Devil Inside said:i was just saying....maintain integrity..you are kind of new here, and its a shame to see new folks getting drawn into a futile argument.
its like talking to a bag of rocks in this subforum.
regardless of what you see, tolerance and love are the teachings of this religion (a religion i do not support).
KennyJC said:You continually try to avoid this and like a good religious moderate, make excuses for those fundamentalists carrying out violence in the name of your religiom
clickAlthough religion is often seen as a force for good, in reality it is often a force for evil, too. One of the ways in which religion can cause problems is by causing people to become intolerant: intolerant of other religions, intolerant of other races, etc. Here you can find information about and examples of intolerance, hatred, and bigotry arising out of religion and religious beliefs.
Godless said:Religion is violent and evil in nature.
click
Collisions of Religion and Violence
I mostly agree with Kenny.
When I openly admited to people that I was an atheist, I was in for a lecture, atempt conversions, distrusted, alienated. Welcome to the heart of Texas. I've learned since, that I wouldn't openly admit my religous stance on mere aquiantences, only to those whom I saw fit, that could handle my alternative relegious views.
Godless
Intolerance is a sign of an uneducated society Godless.
Tell me do the Texans welcome people of color or other nationality on the basis that they share a religion?
What are their views on inter-racial marriages between Christians?
Name the fundamentalists who are violent in the name of Islam and I will explain.
Intolerance is a sign of an uneducated society Godless.
once the world becomes fully educated, religion will be a thing of the past, and there will be a safer environment for all.