Audie
Veteran Member
Call me what you will, I ;am sure not a Moslem!
Anyway, I really admire the Scandanavians, Denmark,
Norways, Sweden, and Finland must be the most
civilized places on earth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
An Unscientific Theory On Religion Forums
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
Call me what you will, I ;am sure not a Moslem!
Anyway, I really admire the Scandanavians, Denmark,
Norways, Sweden, and Finland must be the most
civilized places on earth.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
You do business in HK?
gnostic
The Lost One
It is both Chinese and Mongolian history, dianaiad.
Just because Genghis was a Mongol, doesn’t mean it isn’t Chinese history too, since he conquered the northern part of China.
The region that Genghis did conquer, weren’t controlled by Chinese. At that time, northeast China were under the Jin dynasty, and the Jin were Manchurian-speaking people, who were at war with the Han Chinese of the Song Dynasty for generations.
The Jin conquered northern China in 1115, and started a new dynasty (1115 - 1234).
The remaining Song Dynasty moved their court and army, starting the Southern Song Dynasty (1115 - 1279).
My point is that Genghis Khan being Mongol doesn’t make any less a Chinese history.
Last edited:
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
gnostic
The Lost One
What do you mean by red herrings.
I am arguing who many people being killed by which group (atheists, theists, pagans, etc).
What I did is only inform you Mongol or not, the invasion of northern China is still Chinese history, and I gave you some historical context that northern China was already in the hand of Manchurian-Jin, when Genghis’ army invaded.
What you need to know that it wasn’t Genghis Khan who conquered the rest of China, the Southern Song Dynasty. It was Genghis’ grandson, Kublai Khan who conquered the rest of China.
I don’t see it as red herrings, to give minor correction on your claim on history and clarification to go with it.
If you don’t like my explanation then you can go suck a lemon and sulk.
Last edited:
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
OK...perhaps not quite a red herring. Perhaps non sequitur?
The point being made here, at least by me, is a simple one, supported by data.
Officially atheistic governments (that is, governments that make religion illegal) have a higher body count than theocracies, to the point that such governments have killed more people in sixty to eighty years than theocracies have managed in 2000.
One can argue semantics...that the atheists didn't 'kill in the name of atheism!" Well they didn't SAY so, the way theists claim to kill in the name of God, but the outcome is the same; a whole lot of dead bodies.
This is proven by data; there hasn't been even one officially atheistic government that was NOT 'democidal.' Not even one...and every single one of them was murderous to a degree that most other nations simply don't come close to. Were the murderous natures of these nations BECAUSE they were atheist?
That may be arguable. What is NOT arguable is this: their atheism didn't STOP the murders. None of the different forms of atheism that were followed by the leaders of those nations prevented them from killing their own people by the millions upon millions.
So whenever some atheist comes up with the idea that the world would be better, more rational, kinder, sweeter and all around BETTER without religion...er....
No.
For one thing, that whole idea is about as illogical a thing to say as I've ever heard. If atheists are correct and there is no God, and thus no God to hold responsible for the murders and the disasters and the illnesses and whatever, then who IS responsible?
I mean...hello?
(waving hand over here rather violently...) You know, PEOPLE? They may SAY they are doing things for God, but if there isn't a God, then they aren't doing anything for Him, are they?
What makes anybody think that, if all of a sudden everybody suddenly realized that there isn't any God to blame all their atrocities on, those atrocities would cease?
The data, again, shows that people not only would not cease committing them...they go nuts and multiply those atrocities. No brakes, because 'atheism' doesn't apply any. "Atheism" has no ethical system. No rules. No beliefs, remember?
Now I've personally never met an atheist who didn't have an ethical and moral system, but s/he didn't get it because s/he was an atheist. S/he got it because s/he espoused a belief system (like secular humanism) that was under the 'atheist' umbrella, but certainly doesn't comprise the whole of the 'atheist' world.
As far as I am aware, none of the leaders of those murderous nations were secular humanists. They were, however, atheists.
....and please do not confuse 'officially atheist' or 'atheist' with 'secular' in terms of government. SECULAR governments, which allow their citizens to believe (or not) as they wish tend not to be murderous at all.
Indeed, of the three forms of government: officially atheist (all religion is illegal); theocracies (all but one form of religion is illegal, or certainly 'second class') and secular (stays out of religion and religion stays out of government), the least murderous is the secular. Far nastier is the theocracy in that, though history has shown us that it IS possible to have a theocracy that didn't murder it's own people by the millions. At the top (or bottom, however you look at it) is the officially atheist...or anti-theist...the one that makes all religion illegal.
You are quite free to make of the data what you wish, but nobody has tweaked the data. It says what it says, and what it SAYS is...getting rid of religion, as some here have proposed, isn't going to make the world all happy happy joy joy pass the s'mores.
Audie
Veteran Member
"screed"
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Atheists tend to be responsible for their wrong doings. They can't claim that the Devil made them do it. They can't say that they fell into temptation. The atheists that have done massive killings were for an idealistic cause that was not atheism. Mass killings are almost always done for some sort of idealistic cause. And that cause is usually wrong. Religion is an idealistic cause. Best to avoid excessive causes.
gnostic
The Lost One
My points were just explanation that you only got history partly wrong, regarding to Genghis Khan being solely a Mongolian history, just because he was a Mongol.
That to me is narrow thinking.
Because Genghis had China invaded, it is also Chinese history.
The Mongolian armies have also invaded other kingdoms too, like Persia for instance, so it is also Persian history. And the Persian Muslims were massacred, when they resisted his hordes.
My point is to point that out to you, not to get into tit-for-tat with you on who killed the most, atheists or theists.
You have brought up atheists killing more people in history than any religious groups.
I don’t think so.
What is the definition to atheism?
It is a lack of belief in the existence of a deity or deities.
Nothing more, nothing less.
No where in that is an order to commit violence against theists or killing theists.
Atheism isn’t a religion, because one of the definitions to religion, is that involved “worshipping” deity. They worship nothing, therefore it isn’t a religion. It is more a philosophical (and personal) stance on regard to theism and religion.
Athiem isn’t science. Nothing in the definition to atheism involved science.
And lastly, atheism isn’t politics.
There is nothing in atheism that tell people how to rule, govern or legislate laws. There is nothing in atheism that direct government policies into killing theists “in the name of atheism”.
The problem is, as with some theists, like yourself, is that they confuse atheism with religion, with science or with politics.
Atheism, as I repeat, only deal with the question of the existence of god. Nothing else.
Atheism don’t deal with the subjects of religious lifestyle, morality, customs and holidays. Atheists may have opinion on these subjects, but it has nothing to do with atheism.
You are confusing atheism with atheists.
You brought up Mao after Genghis Khan:
Sorry, but while I don’t deny a lot of people had died in China because of Mao’s communism, he wasn’t just killing people in the name of atheism, but in the name of the new Socialist Republic.
And the people who died weren’t just religious people, but anyone who oppose his regime, such as return to the empire dynasty-rule, or to any right-wing or moderate groups. It is government policies, not atheism, that had Mao cracked down on anyone who would be or could be dissidents.
Are you so shortsighted, that you forget the Americans were the same way during the late 1940s to mid-60s? The US during the Cold War? Does that not ring any bell?
Truman, Eisenhower and McCarthy had policies where they round up Americans “suspected” of being communist or socialist sympathisers.
The Americans didn’t brook the other sides, any more than the Soviet and Chinese did.
It wasn’t safe for atheists at that time, because most Americans see atheists being the same as being in league with communists, even when they are not.
The problem with the Cold War is that it is often the minorities get in the crossfire and suffered because of Chinese, Soviet and American oppressive policies.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Oh, I agree.
My POINT is with those who think that the imposition of atheism (getting rid of religion) is a good thing and will cure all the world's ills.
It won't.
The data shows that trying this results in some very bad results; worse than theocracies.
So...not that it matters, but my suggestion to atheists is this: use reason. Use persuasion. Try to convince those who disagree with you to see it your way.
But the second an atheist starts saying 'there oughta be a law," I, personally, get really, really nervous.
.....and yes, I get just as nervous when a theist wants to 'pass a law' attempting to enforce HIS theistic world view on those who do not agree with him, but right now, in here, I haven't seen anybody argue against atheistic viewpoints with solid facts about what happens when people who 'wanna passa law" succeed in doing so, especially when that law restricts someone else's right to worship (or not) as he or she pleases.
It's not pretty.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What atheist that you know has ever proposed making religion illegal?
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, but the Christians have been doing that for centuries...since Constantine.
I am not denying that some Roman emperors had persecuted, tortured and executed Christians as matter of policies. But when some Christians came to powers and became Roman emperors, they did exactly the same things to the pagans.
And what did the Church Fathers (and later popes) back then did, when Constantine and other emperors began persecute pagans. They were cheering them on.
Since Constantine, Christians have been using the laws against those who disagree with their "way".
I don’t think it is right for pagans to persecute Christians, but it is equally wrong when Christians to persecute fellow Christians (eg different sects), Jews, pagans, witches or atheists.
Doing two wrongs don’t make it right.
It just show how easy for some Christians can quickly forget Jesus’ teaching not to persecute others.
I have just posted here on this thread the last couple of days, and I see in your posts, judging and bashing atheists, because of what some other atheists (eg Mao) did while in power, which really have nothing to do with atheists in this thread.
Btw, I am agnostic, not atheist.
My parents were Chinese, but we have lived in Australia in the last 50 years, and I don’t want australia to go from democracy to communism or dictatorship. I see myself as a moderate when it come to politics.
But I understand Australia don’t have a perfect government or legal systems. There are no such utopia, anywhere, including Australia.
Sorry, but Christians have a bad track records too, when it come to abusing their powers.
Last edited:
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
It's basically a study in psychology. Make a forum concerning religion, assuming it's successful, it's always the same type of people always show up. Straight-up fundie Christians, extremely narcissistic or emotionally damaged people, the spiritual outcast, the Muslim, and the atheist.
The fundie Christian and Muslim come there to try to testify and get converts.
The atheist falls into two categories: the proselyte (who ironically claims atheism is not a religion, while trying to de-convert people
) and the sadist (basically, they hate religion, and like to argue/bully people). Both of these are drawn to a religion forum for different reasons: the proselyte believes that they can convince stubborn or committed people to leave behind their faith (it generally doesn't happen, not unless someone's already in a sucky mood, in which case they convert without help), the sadist honestly doesn't care, they just want to troll people.The narcissist and the emotionally damaged basically want to be right and want someone to attack, respectively. They might have a religion, but they are defined more by their psych state.
Lastly we have the spiritual outcast, the Hindu or Buddhist, the person who enters a majority Christian or Muslim forum because they can't find any forums for their religion. They basically wander through, and eventually leave or find a niche.
Every single forum.
ecco
Veteran Member
The atheist falls into two categories: the proselyte (who ironically claims atheism is not a religion, while trying to de-convert people
I have been around forums, on and off, for many years. I have never seen any atheist arguments convince the religious to convert.
I am not a sadist and I don't hate religion. For the most part I think religion is a silly, harmless undertaking, like metaphysics and belief in spoon bending.
The biggest danger I see in religion, these days, is the denigration of science. That's not done by all religious people by any stretch. However, the ones who do are a very vocal and activist group.
Finally, Atheism is not a religion. It always amuses me when some religious folks put down atheists and, at the same time, say we are just like them. If we are so bad, and we are just like you, you're saying you are just as bad as we are. Cognitive dissonance.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
I'm sorry, everything you just said is extremely funny.
Exactly the same thing? Are you sure?
The pagans crucified Christians. They tortured them, trying to get them to give up their religion, and even fed them to animals.
In actual fact, several Christian rulers tried to find common ground among the faiths. Including Constantine II. Some of those times, even this got met with resistance. Other times, Christians banned temples or at least new temples to pagan sects, or vandalized existing temples. There is a serious difference from "being mean" though, and actually trying to kill people in a specific painful way for a different belief.
Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire - Wikipedia
Yes. Persecution did at times happen. Yes, pagans were even killed. But crucified?
I am reasonably certain that Christians never crucified anyone.
Crucifixion btw is a special kind of death. It's set up so the victim's feet cannot touch the ground (often believed holy). First, the person is flogged. Then they have to carry their own cross (well, the crosspiece of it, weighing btwn 75 and 125 lb) up to the site. The crime of the sentenced would then be displayed (this is what the passage where it says "Jesus King of the Jews" means, that was his "crime"). The person would be nailed to the cross (driving a spike through their hands and feet), which stretches their body out in a way similar to hanging, only it's the reverse, they can't exhale. Because their lungs are filled, they are ironically gasping for air. If nothing is done, the person apparently passes out within about12 minutes, but typically, they fight for air by trying to boost themselves up. This does keep one alive and conscious, but it prolongs their agony, and they last for hours to days in pain until hunger and thirst kill them.They are also in constant pain from trying to push themselves up (nail through feet remember) and their arms often probably dislocated (always a fun feeling too) and they were having the wounds on their back from flogging reopen (slowly weakening them until they no longer boost themselves). If the Romans or others (Muslims did it too) want to wrap things up, they can stop the person from boosting themselves by breaking the bones. The bodies after death would sometimes get eaten by birds if nobody claimed the body.
The facts of crucifixion
The pagans did so, simply because the Christians were at odds with the state religion. Not because of any other crime. Not because they broke laws or staged revolts, they just were a rival religion to state faith. Any persecution in turn was not even the same order of magnitude.
Ohhh noes, other people judged you. They wrote mean posts.
You know, many areas, people lose their jobs simply for saying "Merry Christmas" or wearing religious necklaces/jewelry. In North Korea, there is "freedom of religion" which involves, arrest, re-education, and possibly execution. You're all like #NothingToDoWithAtheism. Okay, so all Christians are guilty of the Crusades and Inquisition, but nobody wants to own up to Mao?
https://thejesuitpost.org/2017/09/jesus-is-not-a-communist/
Read this article, on Christian persecution. Those Christians are awful with their persecution and all. Especially when they manage to put up with it, instead of doing it themselves.
Never said you were. But there are militant types out there.
Not sure why this is a "danger" but okay.
The Scandinavian Sceptic (or why atheism is a belief system)
Read this please. If atheism does not assert itself as a belief system, it is doomed to irrelevancy because of Hitchens's Razor ("That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence").
Last edited:
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
there have been a few IN HERE that have.
Those that, for instance, have proposed that it be against the law to allow PRIVATE SCHOOLS to teach religion to children under a certain age, for instance, or those who insist that....
OK, two examples:
One city has a 'message hall' in which all non-profit organizations may advertise fund raising activities, like dances or plays or 'yard sales' or car washes, or to have sign up sheets for volunteers to work in homeless shelters, pediatric wards, etc., All non-profit organizations are allowed to do this...except religions. That is, it doesn't matter that the church is advertising a fundraiser for the community homeless shelter, or the hospital summer camp for children with cancer. It doesn't matter if the fund-raiser has nothing at all to do with religious doctrine, if the group is a 'church' group, it may not advertise in the hall. It may not participate in the community fair. It may not put a float in the local Christmas parade...the one that churches began and supported until a local atheist group sued.
Second example: a neighbor of mine, who was having a very hard time financially and couldn't afford to buy Christmas presents for her kids, still took all the yard decorations she had and, with her kids, put them all up in her yard, as always. She couldn't light up her place the way she used to, but she COULD, and did, put lights on the cross that stood just behind the Nativity Set her husband had carved. That cross reached the window of her second story bedroom. An atheist group sent her a letter telling her that because that cross could be seen from the freeway, that she was violating the law and that they would sue her if she didn't take it down immediately.
She took it down, even though that cross was on private property, and quite legal (it actually could NOT be seen from the freeway) because if she couldn't afford Christmas presents, she SURE couldn't afford a lawyer to defend her right to keep it up.
I'm sorry, but examples like this are 'making religion illegal."