The good thing about religion...

The good thing about original sin is it makes you optimistic and gives you hope... that you are intrinsically flawed.
 
....it that it promotes and practises differences between people to the extent that different religions will exert power over others.

This is an historical fact.

As a result of conflict between different flawed beliefs, certain religions will enact overt violence towards each other. Wars, invasions and acts of terrorism take place in the "belief" that my religion is better than yours.

With the above events, religion, over the course of recorded history, has served a wonderful purpose to humanity....IT HAS SLIGHTLY STUNTED THE GROWTH OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION.

Compare deaths due to religion based wars, conflicts, etc., to those of natural phenomena. Religion has a 10 fold advantage over earthquakes, disease, tsunamis, hurricanes, landslides, etc.

For those without a grasp of magnitude, for every human death attributed to storms, earthquakes and so on, ten can be directly attributed to actions of the greed and power of religion.

Hence the dissolution of the relationship between religion and politics is manditory, but will never occur in the current world mindset.

Religion and politics are both as poisonous as each other.
 
Since sciforums.com rejects any editting of my previous post, I will do it manually. One mere typo, but some lame arse will pick it up....

....it that it promotes and practises differences between people to the extent that different religionsWILL exert power over others.

This is an historical fact.

As a result of conflict between different flawed beliefs, certain religions will enact overt violence towards each other. Wars, invasions and acts of terrorism take place in the "belief" that my religion is better than yours.

With the above events, religion, over the course of recorded history, has served a wonderful purpose to humanity....IT HAS SLIGHTLY STUNTED THE GROWTH OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION.

Compare deaths due to religion based wars, conflicts, etc., to those of natural phenomena. Religion has a 10 fold advantage over earthquakes, disease, tsunamis, hurricanes, landslides, etc.

For those without a grasp of magnitude, for every human death attributed to storms, earthquakes and so on, ten can be directly attributed to actions of the greed and power of religion.

Hence the dissolution of the relationship between religion and politics is manditory, but will never occur in the current world mindset.

Religion and politics are both as poisonous as each other.
 
Since sciforums.com rejects any editting of my previous post, I will do it manually. One mere typo, but some lame arse will pick it up....

....it that it promotes and practises differences between people to the extent that different religionsWILL exert power over others.

This is an historical fact.

As a result of conflict between different flawed beliefs, certain religions will enact overt violence towards each other. Wars, invasions and acts of terrorism take place in the "belief" that my religion is better than yours.

With the above events, religion, over the course of recorded history, has served a wonderful purpose to humanity....IT HAS SLIGHTLY STUNTED THE GROWTH OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION.

Compare deaths due to religion based wars, conflicts, etc., to those of natural phenomena. Religion has a 10 fold advantage over earthquakes, disease, tsunamis, hurricanes, landslides, etc.

For those without a grasp of magnitude, for every human death attributed to storms, earthquakes and so on, ten can be directly attributed to actions of the greed and power of religion.

Hence the dissolution of the relationship between religion and politics is manditory, but will never occur in the current world mindset.

Religion and politics are both as poisonous as each other.


People with your ideology are responsible for more deaths than all the religious wars put together. All within one century.

Millitant atheism is the poison, and i'm not even venturing into the real definition of atheist, as opposed to the many sexed up versions.


jan.
 
People with your ideology are responsible for more deaths than all the religious wars put together. All within one century.
Wrong.

Millitant atheism is the poison
Really?

and i'm not even venturing into the real definition of atheist, as opposed to the many sexed up versions.
You haven't, so far, shown that you're aware of the real definition of atheism, only your own twisted version.
 
@Jan --

People with your ideology are responsible for more deaths than all the religious wars put together.

While it is true that some of the greatest mass murderers in history(if you're only counting total numbers and not taking context into account) have been atheists, they demonstrably did not kill in the name of atheism, therefore the comparison is flawed. Now, hundreds of millions have been explicitly in the name of one god or another, this is something that can't be honestly denied.
 
Arioch,


While it is true that some of the greatest mass murderers in history(if you're only counting total numbers and not taking context into account) have been atheists, they demonstrably did not kill in the name of atheism, therefore the comparison is flawed.

Nobody has killed in the name of theism as far as I know. Feel free to correct me.
If they killed in the name of God, that doesn't prove they were theists.
For all we know they may have been atheists killing in the name of God. ;)


Now, hundreds of millions have been explicitly in the name of one god or another, this is something that can't be honestly denied.

Hundreds of millions you say?
How do you know?

jan.
 
@Jan --

Nobody has killed in the name of theism as far as I know.

People have killed in the name of god, for their beliefs. Theism is the belief in god, therefore those who believe in god and kill in the name of that god are killing for their theism. Killing in the name of god and killing in the name of theism are functionally equivalent.

Feel free to correct me.

Oh you know that I will.

If they killed in the name of God, that doesn't prove they were theists.

Yeah, it kind of does. People kill in the name of god because of what they believe about god, lacking a belief in god precludes one from that activity unless someone is using it to hide a murder, in which case they're not killing for god. While not all theisms create murderous rage in their adherents, it is undeniable that it is easier to kill others when you believe that a god(or the god) wants you to.

For all we know they may have been atheists killing in the name of God.

Really? Quit being so deliberately obtuse.

Hundreds of millions you say?

It, like all estimates of those killed, is an estimate. You may wish to put it at tens of millions rather than hundreds, but that's doubtful considering how long theists have been putting each other(and those unfortunate atheists) to the sword. We've had more than ten thousand years of near constant religious warfare, even today that are over a dozen armed conflicts which are explicitly religious in nature. Even if it is only tens of millions, that's still an ungodly(pun fully intended) number to have died over beliefs which have no supporting evidence.
 
People with your ideology are responsible for more deaths than all the religious wars put together. All within one century.

Millitant atheism is the poison, and i'm not even venturing into the real definition of atheist, as opposed to the many sexed up versions.


jan.

...communist philosophy is based on economics, not metaphysics. The political and economic policies of communism do not follow from the hypothesis of non-belief. Indeed, with it's dogmatic policies and authoritarianism, communism more closely resembles a godless religion than secular atheism. The only political views of atheists that are closely linked to their beliefs are that the church and state should be separate and that decisions should be based on reason rather than revelation.

Victor J. Stenger​
 
Arioch,




Nobody has killed in the name of theism as far as I know.
Feel free to correct me.
Ever heard of the Holly Crusades?

If they killed in the name of God, that doesn't prove they were theists.
For all we know they may have been atheists killing in the name of God. ;)
This is true, but devil worship would still make you a theist. Atheism is a rather new idea, yea? Let me ask you do you follow the Christian church?



Hundreds of millions you say?
How do you know?
This sounds about right to me


@Jan --



While it is true that some of the greatest mass murderers in history(if you're only counting total numbers and not taking context into account) have been atheists, they demonstrably did not kill in the name of atheism, therefore the comparison is flawed. Now, hundreds of millions have been explicitly in the name of one god or another, this is something that can't be honestly denied.

Atheism is in the same book as false prophets. Plus, you can't kill in the name of "whats not there."
 
Something to do with Christmas?


No.


Wrong.
As per your own claim, below:

Yea, Christmas is a pagan Holliday. I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. Lack of belief in God is as good as worshiping satan. The beast doesn't need your worship, just as a angel would not accept your worship.
 
Lack of belief in God is as good as worshiping satan. The beast doesn't need your worship, just as a angel would not accept your worship.

Remember, we're not dealing with a rational person here.
 
Worshiping God is as good as kicking a baby in the teeth.

Then don't worship him, just be ready to fight for him when that day comes. What possible harm will that do? With this you must accept him as truth, you need not spread his word, but I pray to you do not let the word of atheism spread.

You worship a dictator, but you don't necessarily believe in him, right?
 
@Knowledge --

How are the two equivalent? One is an explicit lack of taking a stance while the other is a positive action based on a stance already taken. It would seem to me that they're about as diametrically opposed as you can get.
 
@Knowledge --

How are the two equivalent? One is an explicit lack of taking a stance while the other is a positive action based on a stance already taken. It would seem to me that they're about as diametrically opposed as you can get.

What are you referring to?
 
Back
Top