An Unscientific Theory On Religion Forums

[dianaiad]

Rationality.

Like Mao's?

 

[ecco]

Actually....they wanted the property and riches that the Catholics had...

Who "they"? The Protestant King who had made himself the Head of the Church Of England and the True Representative of the True God.

I'm not as familiar with the history there as I should be, but I'll bet you anything that the base is...political. Someone thought they should be the ruler and someone else thought he should. oops.

Ruler of what? Ruler of the Religion of Islam.

It was when the targets were picked BECAUSE they were religious, and as I have pointed out, atheism didn't stop him from killing anybody else.

In the context of this discussion, neither Atheism nor Theism stops someone from killing.
In the context of this discussion, only Theism is a reason to start the killing.

You have not been paying attention. It does NOT give 'one less reason to kill.' Whether you kill because you think your religion tells you to, or you kill because you don't like religion, at base those two motives cancel themselves out.

Yes, it is one less reason to hate and kill...

Doctors of abortion clinics are killed because religious people are carrying out god's will defending the unborn.
Anti-abortion protesters are not killed by atheists defending atheism.

Black men are lynched for looking at white women because the bible says the races should remain separate.
White men are not killed by atheists defending atheism.

.........and then one is left with all the OTHER reasons people kill. Atheistic dictators have nothing to stop them from freely exercising his freedom to do so, and history has shown that every leader of an officially atheistic (anti-theist) government has exercised that freedom. With great abandon and verve.

Now you are going to try preaching about religious morals, Christian Morals? I already commented on religion and blacks. When whites beat up and torture someone for being a ****** it's because the bible says homosexuals are evil. Slavery is condoned by your bible. Taking the young females of your fallen enemy is expressly recommended by the god of your religion. Not only does your religion not prevent atrocities, it encourages them.

The final solution, actually, is to have strictly secular governments...governments that stay out of religion altogether so that such atrocities cannot be committed 'in the Name of God," OR for the purpose of eliminating religion.

But that never happens. Our founding fathers were aware of the dangers of allowing religion to intrude on government, but didn't take a strong enough stand on it.

 

[ecco]

Rationality.

Like Mao's?

No. Like mine.

 

[Earthling]

There has never been a steel high rise structure that was impacted by a 737 and doused in jet fuel.



1. Ask any blacksmith if they have to melt steel in order to bend it. Guess what? They don't.

2. The impact of the jet stripped the fireproofing off of the steel superstructure.

3. It wasn't just jet fuel that was burning.

Now I feel guilty for feeding the troll.

You are missing the point. Even if the steel was bent where the plane impacted it stall had many floors where the steel wouldn't have been touched by fire. The firemen and police officers nearby hear explosions on each floor as towers 1 and 2 collapsed. The said it was like a demolition. Video shows beams being thrown out from the buildings.

You can ask a blacksmith whatever you want, but I would also recommend talking to an engineer or architect.

Like Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area architect who founded Architects for 911 Truth

"In particular, Gage argues that the buildings of the World Trade Center could not have collapsed at the speed that has been observed without tearing apart several columns of their structures with the help of explosives.[31] To support its position, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth points to the "free fall" acceleration of 7 WTC during part of the collapse,[45] to "lateral ejection of steel," and to "mid-air pulverization of concrete."[29] Richard Gage also said that the absence of "large gradual deformations" associated with the collapse would indicate that the buildings have been destroyed by controlled demolition.[46] That the three buildings of the World Trade Center "fell through what should have been the path of greatest resistance" would, according to the organization, require "precisely timed removal of critical columns, which office fires cannot accomplish".[45] As the mass of the top of the North Tower had been blown outward during the collapse, there was "nothing left to drive this building to the ground," Gage says.[47]The evidence of the use of directed energy weapons is being considered and reviewed by the panel.[citation needed]

Gage maintains that the "sudden and spontaneous" collapse of the towers would have been impossible without a controlled demolition, that pools of molten iron found in the debris of the buildings were evidence of the existence of thermite,[48] and that researchers had found unignited nano-thermite in the dust produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center."

Wikipedia

 

[dianaiad]

No. Like mine.

Yours scares me. You write of the founding fathers not taking a strong enough stand in not allowing religion to interfere with government...

but the first amendment doesn't say anything at all about not allowing religion to interfere with the government. It's about not allowing the government to interfere with religion. Of course that also means that religion, since not interfering with religion or establishing a state religion means that many different religions can flourish, and one of 'em can't overpower the government.

You can argue philosophy and wishful thinking with me all you want to, but you can't argue with cold hard fact. Officially atheist governments have been tried. According to your ideas, those governments SHOULD have been idyllic paradises of rationality and ethics, right? After all, wasn't religion the cause of all horrors?

It turns out, however, that every single government that tried it has been utterly, uncompromisingly, horrifically, murderous. Every. Single. One.

Their atheism didn't make anything better. Their regimes were more murderous than any theocracy that has ever existed. In fact, the body count of the atheistic nations of the 20th century (and not even the whole century; just the first 60 years or so) were higher by far than the sum total of all the deaths of all the theocracies in written human history.

That, my friend, is FACT. There HAVE been theocracies in which the citizens were not murdered by the job lots. There has never been a nation in which religion was forbidden where they were not. That is also FACT.

You can wiggle around this all you want to, but you can't wiggle around that.

Atheism...or rather, getting rid of religion...is NOT going to make all mankind peaceful, wonderful, rational, sentient entities who love one another and sing 'Imagine,'

.............and as an atheist you oughta know that. After all, if you are correct and there is no God to worship, then religion is entirely man-made, and the atrocities committed in the 'name of God' were really just committed by people for other reasons. If for some reason everybody just stopped believing in a deity and everybody became 'without religion' or 'without God," what miracle do you think would happen to change basic human nature and impulses? We see already that the murder rate sure as heck doesn't go DOWN any.

The excuses will change, that's all.

......and those atheists who think that getting rid of religion will suddenly turn everybody into rational thinkers are showing more irrational faith in the impossible than the most fervent of religious believers.

 

[Earthling]

You presented no corroborating evidence. Do you expect anyone to just accept your assertions?

I've given you a great deal of information to get you started. The rest is up to you.

please explain why you believe this video, that you posted, is meaningful.

The video where the owner of the WTC complex, Silverstien, says we decided to pull it, that is bring it down, isn't convincing to you? I indicated in my post that the reporter error was just that, but the fact that it was announced that a building with only a small office fire, undamaged by the collapse of the other buildings, contrary to what was reported, should come down and was "pulled" "brought down" could only mean they had prepped it before hand with explosives.

 

[ecco]

According to your ideas, those governments SHOULD have been idyllic paradises of rationality and ethics, right? After all, wasn't religion the cause of all horrors?

Well, there ya go. If you cannot counter an argument, rephrase what the other party said.

I said if religion did not exist there would be one less reason for hatred and killing. Does that sound like "idyllic paradises of rationality and ethics"? Did I ever state that "religion (was) the cause of all horrors?"

 

[ecco]

ecco:
You presented no corroborating evidence. Do you expect anyone to just accept your assertions?​

I've given you a great deal of information to get you started. The rest is up to you.

I asked for corroborating evidence and you reply that you have provided information. So, I must conclude you have no corroborating evidence. I'm not surprised.

ecco:
please explain why you believe this video, that you posted, is meaningful.​

The video where the owner of the WTC complex, Silverstien, says we decided to pull it, that is bring it down, isn't convincing to you? I indicated in my post that the reporter error was just that, but the fact that it was announced that a building with only a small office fire, undamaged by the collapse of the other buildings, contrary to what was reported, should come down and was "pulled" "brought down" could only mean they had prepped it before hand with explosives.

I referred to the video about the BBC report. What are you talking about?
Also, this sentence...

I indicated in my post that the reporter error was just that, but the fact that it was announced that a building with only a small office fire, undamaged by the collapse of the other buildings, contrary to what was reported, should come down and was "pulled" "brought down" could only mean they had prepped it before hand with explosives.​

...is far too long and convoluted for me to make any sense out of.

 

[Earthling]

ecco:
You presented no corroborating evidence. Do you expect anyone to just accept your assertions?​

I asked for corroborating evidence and you reply that you have provided information. So, I must conclude you have no corroborating evidence. I'm not surprised.

ecco:
please explain why you believe this video, that you posted, is meaningful.​

I referred to the video about the BBC report. What are you talking about?
Also, this sentence...

I indicated in my post that the reporter error was just that, but the fact that it was announced that a building with only a small office fire, undamaged by the collapse of the other buildings, contrary to what was reported, should come down and was "pulled" "brought down" could only mean they had prepped it before hand with explosives.​

...is far too long and convoluted for me to make any sense out of.

My original statement included in the videos, one of which you mentioned, was that a reporter from the BBC reported the building as having collapsed 20 minutes before it did. That, I concluded, could have been an error on the part of the reporter. That was the first video.

I then explained how the owner of the building explained how the police and fire departments decided the building should be pulled, or brought down. You don't just huff and puff to knock down a building of that size due to a small office fire. It takes weeks to set up the explosives. The second video was the owner explaining this. He had just insured the building for billions of dollars a few weeks before. They wanted to tear down WTC towers 1 and 2 because they were almost empty, and full of asbestos.

If all of that is corroborating evidence for you to start at least a debate, rather than just disagreeing with me, then I don't know what I can tell you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My original statement included in the videos, one of which you mentioned, was that a reporter from the BBC reported the building as having collapsed 20 minutes before it did. That, I concluded, could have been an error on the part of the reporter. That was the first video.

I then explained how the owner of the building explained how the police and fire departments decided the building should be pulled, or brought down. You don't just huff and puff to knock down a building of that size due to a small office fire. It takes weeks to set up the explosives. The second video was the owner explaining this. He had just insured the building for billions of dollars a few weeks before. They wanted to tear down WTC towers 1 and 2 because they were almost empty, and full of asbestos.

If all of that is corroborating evidence for you to start at least a debate, rather than just disagreeing with me, then I don't know what I can tell you.

Wrong "pulled" is not a term for taking a building down. Pulled referred to pulling the firefighters from the building.

I thought that you researched this?

Can you support your claims about WTC ! and 2 from a valid source? That means no videos by loonies or websites written by losers. If true you should be able to find independent sources that agree with you.

 

[Cacotopia]

But they are all Christian Bibles. There are no non-christian bibles.

I think you are missing the point here entirely.

Of the 1000's of different bible printed how can you be certain the version you are reading is the correct one? You could perhaps study ancient greek and then translate it from the Rosetta Stone. Then you would have an original copy, a copy that is unedited by even the council of Nicea.

 

[Cacotopia]

That's also true of murderous theocracies, except perhaps the Mayans...and I'm not certain about them.

The PROBLEM here is that the atheism of those governments I mention didn't STOP the murders, did it? I have another post here (perhaps the one just above this one) that addresses this in more paragraphs: I won't repeat it here.

The atheist nature of those governments did not command death, but in theocratic governments, death was a commandment from their god, which only adds to the violence.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, there ya go. If you cannot counter an argument, rephrase what the other party said.

I said if religion did not exist there would be one less reason for hatred and killing. Does that sound like "idyllic paradises of rationality and ethics"? Did I ever state that "religion (was) the cause of all horrors?"

The problem is in how one gets religion to 'not exist.' If it simply didn't exist, there wouldn't be any atheism, either...so an atheist can only imagine religion not existing if someone or something does something about the existence of religion.

And THAT is simply replacing one reason for hatred and killing for another, and frankly? at the bottom it's the same reason: "you don't believe the same thing I do about deity, so it's just fine to kill you."

Please note: in all the above I have not even once excused the atrocities committed by theists using their theism. I'm simply pointing out that 'militant atheists' are doing the same thing...except of course that history proves that people attempting to enforce atheism (no religion=atheism) get murderous every time they have the power to enforce the 'no religion' idea.

 

[Audie]

The problem is in how one gets religion to 'not exist.' If it simply didn't exist, there wouldn't be any atheism, either...so an atheist can only imagine religion not existing if someone or something does something about the existence of religion.

And THAT is simply replacing one reason for hatred and killing for another, and frankly? at the bottom it's the same reason: "you don't believe the same thing I do about deity, so it's just fine to kill you."

Please note: in all the above I have not even once excused the atrocities committed by theists using their theism. I'm simply pointing out that 'militant atheists' are doing the same thing...except of course that history proves that people attempting to enforce atheism (no religion=atheism) get murderous every time they have the power to enforce the 'no religion' idea.

In the French revolution, they were throwing out
everything of the established order.

It seems to me, that what went on in Russia and China
had relatively little to do with religion, or non-religion.
It was out with the old, whatever it was.

Stalin may well have qualified as a militant atheist, but
that would hardly be the primary thing he was militant about.

In the event, if the church had somehow stood to help
him, he'd have been quite different about it, dont you think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is in how one gets religion to 'not exist.' If it simply didn't exist, there wouldn't be any atheism, either...so an atheist can only imagine religion not existing if someone or something does something about the existence of religion.

And THAT is simply replacing one reason for hatred and killing for another, and frankly? at the bottom it's the same reason: "you don't believe the same thing I do about deity, so it's just fine to kill you."

Please note: in all the above I have not even once excused the atrocities committed by theists using their theism. I'm simply pointing out that 'militant atheists' are doing the same thing...except of course that history proves that people attempting to enforce atheism (no religion=atheism) get murderous every time they have the power to enforce the 'no religion' idea.

This is rather convoluted logic. If religion did not exist everyone would be an atheist. There would simply not be a title for atheism.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Be honest with yourself. Troll is just a word used to describe people who you disagree with that you wish would go away. Xenophobia.

No. Rather, I know lovely atheists in person and a bunch of bitter ones who hound religious forums. Why don't they hobnob at "The Thinking Atheist" instead?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There's some truth to that, but you are missing the point. Why aren't the religious people using the forums?

Um, atheist trolls!

 

[dianaiad]

The atheist nature of those governments did not command death, but in theocratic governments, death was a commandment from their god, which only adds to the violence.

You keep ignoring facts. The FACTS are that officially atheistic (as in, religion is against the law) governments have killed more people in the first half of the twentieth century than theocracies have killed in the entire written history of the world. That's fact. Or at least, it's certainly the well researched opinion of the man who coined the word 'democide."

Freedom, Democide, War: Home Page

Another fact: there HAVE been theocracies that were not especially murderous. There has never been a country in which all religion was made illegal that was NOT murderous. Not even one, beginning with the "Reign of Terror" during the French Revolution (though short lived and not complete, the attempt to replace Christianity and everything else with the 'cult of reason' got particularly nasty).

My point here is simple; yes, people can and do use religion to excuse killing. Getting rid of religion doesn't get rid of the killing. People simply use different excuses, and the one excuse religious killers do NOT use is "get rid of all religion in the name of reason!"

And THAT excuse has been used quite effectively over the last hundred or so years, I'd say that 'in the name of God" and "get rid of religion!" cancel each other out as 'reasons for violence," and certainly those who have been killing in the name of reason, or because they don't like religion, have been a great deal better at killing people than the religious have in at least the last two thousand years.

Shoot, they've been better at killing people than the sum total of government sanctioned mass murderers have been in the last two thousand years, 'in the name of God' or not.

That's not, as I have also written, because of 'atheism.' It's because people in power will do what people in power can do, which is pretty much anything they want. They justify their actions to themselves, and while theists can, and have, twisted their religions to justify killing people, they do have to manipulate an already existing belief, with priests that also have power and might actually restrain the leader, if only slightly.

Atheistic leaders don't have ANY sort of brake. No higher power to which they have to report. None that they have to make seem is on their side. They are utterly free to do anything they want, and whenever a leader was able to make religion against the law, mass murders..democide...happened. Every time.

I didn't come to this conclusion because I am biased towards a specific religion. I came to this conclusion because I saw the research and the sheer numbers...and who did the killing. My opinions here are data driven.

It doesn't matter much, it seems, WHAT religion is in play; it's better to have one, pretty much any one, than not to have one. Better still, there should be many of them. Even if they are entirely imaginary and false. It's better to believe that one must answer to something 'higher' to which one is responsible for one's actions than to figure that one is free to do anything one wants without personal consequence.

Secular humanism is atheist...but there is a 'higher power' to answer to for them; the human race as a whole. Secular humanists don't tend to be mass murderers. People like Mao, Stalin, et. al were not secular humanists.

But their personal philosophies were certainly atheistic. They had nobody. and Nobody, to whom they had to answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Rather, I know lovely atheists in person and a bunch of bitter ones who hound religious forums. Why don't they hobnob at "The Thinking Atheist" instead?

No one here is bitter. And the problems that we deal with probably do not exist at The Thinking Atheist. You will find a lack of people that want to inflict others with their mythological beliefs there.

 

[Earthling]

Um, atheist trolls!

That could be. I don't like to use the word troll because it's abused. It's supposed to apply to people who are only looking to cause trouble and disrupt the discussion, when it really is used just to describe someone who disagrees with you. If you can't take someone disagreeing with you, especially in a debate forum, then you really have no business in public discourse.

That's like saying whatever a person has to say is unimportant unless it agrees with me. A really bad perspective in society.