 |
|
|
|
|
February 5th, 2013
11:50 AM ET
Can religion prevent violence?By Jim Roope, CNN (CNN) – When tragedies happen like the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, the question of faith often comes up. How can horrible events like that be allowed to happen? Rabbi Marvin Heir with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said he’s not surprised that people question religion, and, God in tragedies. Hear his and others' perspectives on the role of religion in our world from religious thought leaders in the player above or on CNN Radio Soundwaves FULL STORY
Next entry »The Bible Belt brouhaha over beer
« Previous entryNigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel?
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
All so called atheists are liars. That Truth revealed allows all the rest of the world, the normal people to put so called atheists comments in proper perspective. Atheism has been the root cause of war, hatred and violence throughout history. Atheists have tortured and violently murdered more people in the last 100 years than were killed in all previous centuries.
truth be told- "All so called atheists are liars."
You are incorrect. Being atheist does not mean one is instantly a liar. Just as since religion has not gotten rid of all violence..therefor religion never gets rid of violence.
Both ideas are flawed and frankly stupid.
I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. There is no data indicating that populations under ruthless dictators of past regimes have committed atrocities in the name of atheism. There is data indicating that segments of populations under different religions have committed atrocities in the name of their respective religions. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL". Perhaps the following book can help you cope with the problem of repeating unfounded assertions:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
Thanks so much for adding proof to my statements.
"report abuse"
my posts are robotic and unfunny.
"1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.".....Mind if I stick with the Christian position? You can call off your war.
It was foolhardy of the early Christian apologists whose deception is more and more transparent. The story that Satan had made a pre-emptive strike by making earlier pagan stories look so much like the later gospels is one dead give-away.
When a person – like the person above – uses lies to try to push their cause (Christianity in this case) – it clearly shows that they don't think the truth is on their side. They think the truth will push people to atheism.
Truth is – the more atheist a country is, a state, etc. – the less violent crime there is there. Sorry, but it's the truth. I don't think religion creates crime, but this stat is sure proof that it doesn't prevent it either.
Crime is a moving target for the A&A's. Exciting and progressive!
One doesn't "add proof," you imbecile. What a friggin' weenie you are, captain amurica.
This t.wat posts the same thing everyday and you people fall for it every time.
You're on the wrong thread again tommie and by the way you add more proof to the Truth of so called atheists being liars than any other self deluded atheist on these blogs. If it wasn't for your crap some innocent folks might be deceived by your kind but as long as you are you, no one can ever be fooled. Thanks again.
Oh, please, captain america. You're a moron.
Eh, TANK, he's just a turd.
Oh my good grief there are a bunch of idiots on here today.
Ok ppl, the question isn't if religion stops ALL violence. The obvious answer to that is a "no".
But can religion stop some violence....the answer is yes.
Now for all those that have a fallacy-fetish out there...how can anyone show that religion can stop something (violence) from happening?
I've no doubt (as an atheist who generally has a low opinion of religion) that religion can stop violence – for some people.
I've also no doubt that religion can create violence – for some people.
I personally think the second number is slightly higher than the first – people who would be violent anyway, use religion as their excuse – God told them to kill gays, or abortion doctors, or people of another religion, or atheists or whatever. It's god's will that they beat their wife, daughter, etc., to keep them in line. So on and so forth. They'd want to do it anyway, but religion gives them that outlet to claim they're in the right. Now, the reverse can indeed be true – that it can help people restrain negative impulses as well. But I've seen a lot of the other case.
I think the problem lies more in the response to violence, and violent people – with religion, I think there's too much expectation that religion will fix the bad people. Without it, there's more looking to statistics, science, psychology, to figure out how to handle the bad people – is it lock them up, what rehabilitates most effectively, what are warning signs, etc.
"But can religion stop some violence....the answer is yes."
So can dental floss. What's the point?
"So can dental floss. What's the point?"
Hmmm, you do realize what the theme of this blog is about right? Right?!
Dental hygiene?
I'd hazard a guess that the personal discovery of coitus has prevented innumerable acts of senseless violence for innumerable rebellious male teens, but so what?
End Religion- "Dental hygiene?"
Lol...I'm afriad not. That's the theme of CNN's Dental Blog.
Can religion prevent violence? It never has.
Can religion cause violence? It often has.
"CNN) – When tragedies happen like the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, the question of faith..........." The kid had severe mental problems and wasn't taking the divorce very well. The usurper gubmint is in charge of marriage and dissolution and people are asking about God?? Sure go ahead and pull an Esau and use the Edomite solution to despise your birthrights.
The question of faith in this situation is the classic question of "Why does god let bad things happen?"
It's not an invalid question.
Can religion prevent violence? May be after years of efforts, but can religion ignite violence? 100%, and it takes only few seconds, try sketching my Muhammad.
Religions with castration will lower violence rates, but you can still get people like the Heaven's Gate cult who'll kill themselves anyway.
The short answer? No.
"Can religion prevent violence?"
Perhaps, a better or more answerable question would be, "Does religion prevent violence?"
To which, one might answer, "Well, it hasn't yet."
"CNN) – When tragedies happen like the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, the question of faith often comes up. How can horrible events like that be allowed to happen?....................." So society builds the Beast gubmint god and refuses to hold the medical-governmental priesties' feet to the fire. What's wrong with this picture?
Whats wrong is the use of the word "gubmint", since it doesn't exist, and the use of the beast (I assume you mean satan since you capitalized it) which also doesn't exist.
I suspect the gubmint Beast LOL refers to would be the military-industrial/consumer driven, drug addled/seexcrazed, videoviolence-death culture we live in.
"Dan 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it [was] diverse from all the beasts that [were] before it; and it had ten horns.".........."Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms,........." Run along and play in the streets and sing ye ol' hymn about unity thru diversity.
There's never been a better, more exciting time to be alive!
Well, since the level of violent crime is down, not up – I'd say not much is wrong. This type of crazy has always been around. We just hear more about it – and since some loonies – on the RELIGIOUS RIGHT – decided that it's OK for people to have access to weapons that can kill a few dozen people in seconds, those occasional crazies do a lot of damage.
"End Religion sayz
There's never been a better, more exciting time to be alive!"
1.)A frequent need for excitement.
"http://www.thehiddenevil.com/psychopathy.asp"
"Copywrite © 2007 Mark Rich TheHiddenEvil.com All rights reserved."
Great, start your crusade to have it added to the DSM. You will first need to learn to form coherent sentences that don't trail off into abstract lunacy. Perhaps you can have someone ghost write your application.
Hallucinations – the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear
these friends.
Delusions – the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.
Denial/Inability to learn – though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.
Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality – the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.
Paranoia – the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".
Emotional abuse – religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the
psyche for life.
http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2011/05/7-reasons-why-religion-is-mental.html
Never claimed I did. lol
HEY. THANKS FOR POSTING THIS IS GREAT.
Are you still posting your incorrect copy/paste Ciafosmi?
Can ppl with a mental illness (phobias, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder for example) become a Christian.....yes. Can they also be scientists, philosophers..etc. Yes.
Is Christianity a mental illness....no.
Out of politeness, an exemption was given to religious people in the DSM for their delusion. It's in the works to overturn that since it is indeed a delusion.
http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2012/02/14/Jesus-the-Easter-Bunny-and-Other-Delusions-Just-Say-No.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520
Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/11/religion-as-narcissistic-delusion-dsm.html
@End, the NIH link appears to be talking about some, not all beliefs.
Religion won't be deemed a mental illness on its truth values alone. If that were the case the numerous lies people tell themselves (I'm a better driver than average, I'm better looking than average) would all be mental illnesses. The data rather supports that under the right conditions we need lies to live a happy, healthy life. Certainly in a fast moving scientific world stagnant religions are a problem, but they will not, except for idiological reasons, ever be universally deemed mental illness.
@sara: While you may turn out to be correct (though forever is a long time for either one of us to live), I am slightly surprised to see you stating with certainty something you cannot know. It sounds a bit more like your fervent belief. I don't even know if I have a position, pro or con, on whether I think it's a good idea however it does seem to me to be fair to classify religious delusion like any other.
@End, True, I wouldn't claim to know that religion won't be classified as a mental illness on those grounds, but it would be so inconsistent were that to happen that, barring political agendas, I would imagine that the field would reel from such an obvious bias against one particular type of delusion while ignoring so many others.
hungry for blood athiests promoting war in the name of psycho delusional bigotry . that is Satan. He satan.. you dont bother me, you bother them.
The anthropic principle is the strongest evidence there is that creationists suffer from narcissistic psychosis of the most extreme variety. Put them all in strait jackets, I say!
would you feel better then ? they could still talk about their theory what you gonna do then? tape their mouth shut?
you are a freak and a waste of a straight jacket.
Can religon be used to stop violins?
I think it can, I know several religions do not like music, but why pick on just violins?
People are up in arms about violins in video games, and violins in movies and TV,...I just don't understand why.
The problem started when they went electric. If we could put acoustic back into all or our violins, normalcy would prevail.
I haven't heard any complaints about my cello...
I like strawberry cello...
Actually I jest; the first artist I featured as a musical selection post to the Morning Speed Read was Brazilian composer & violinist Marcus Viana, who's made extensive use of electric violin in his scores for decades.
(the piece I had posted was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPiy2PP1hmM )
Let's all fret about stringed musical instruments.
(and how about all of that gratuitous sax?)
All of you shut up or I'll poke you with my bow!!!
Hmm. Gratuitous sax. Tomorrow I might head towards Supertramp for some Breakfast in America. I'd better post early for that.
There has to be a way we can bridge our Pentatonic string theories together. You'd be off your nut not to see that a sunburst of fine tuning is required for universal vibrato. Let's scale the issue back and see if we can peg a solution for the entire CNN Fret Board.
Religion can be used to stop violence. Unfortunately, it is more often the excuse for violence.
Weapons can be used to stop violence, but most often escalate violence.
YEA. YOU GOT IT.
No religion cannot prevent violence and often enough is the cause of it. Religion stunts a person's capacity to use rational thinking to solve problems. It replaces rational thinking with dichoticly circular false logic and tribalistic bigotries. So no, people with religion are much less adept than nonbelievers at coming up with creative solutions to problems.
CAN WE PUT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS LIKE WE USED TO IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS?
*edit
in 2000 years – neither islam OR xianity have done ANYTHING to bring peace to the planet.
Yet both sides believe once they convert or wipe out all other religious persons then we will finally have some peace...until the side that win's starts fighting themselves of course...
Whoa! That last post was a word salad. Let's try again –
You can't really be as obtuse as your behavior indicates. Any reasonable person knows the when a "label" betrays prejudice (I've given a number of examples, Chad. Please refer to them if you want to edify yourself). The posters on this blog know the distinction. I'm not taking the bait, Chad. You're a bigot, plain and simple.
Religion and violence are joined at the hip like two Siamese twins
@Colin "Religion and violence are joined at the hip like two Siamese twins"
=>nonsense
as atheism has resulted in the deaths of over 50 million in the last century alone, and it has been shown that "religion" (that's all religions) have only been responsible for 7% of ALL wars to date (which would mean approximately 25 million in the past 2000 years)
how exactly do you support your statement?
Chad
How has atheism killed 50 million people? Where is the info.
Do not try to pass off things that were not directly attributed to the forceful implimentation of an agenda to remove religion. There may have been some where the perpetrator may have been an atheist, but to kill BECAUSE you are an atheist, that is what you claim 50 million people have died from.
Be very specific Chad, your credibility is near nil anyway, but when you make such a wide sweeping claim, you'd best be able to defend it.
I'm sorry, "Chad", but your assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. There is no data indicating that populations under ruthless dictators of past regimes have committed atrocities in the name of atheism. There is data indicating that segments of populations under different religions have committed atrocities in the name of their respective religions. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I'm nearly breathless in anticipation of Topher jumping in to rescue Chad. . .
“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
democide (death by government)
Governments with a policy of state atheism:
Mao: 50,000,000-78,000,000 killed
Stalin: 10,000,000-20,000,000
Pol Pot: 1,000,000 – 2,000,000
Chad
First you post the OPINION of one person.
Second, you did exactly as you were instructed not to. Did all of those people die BECAUSE the leaders people were atheist. NO. Most died because they resisted the dictators, most for POLITICAL reasons, NOT religious.
Chad, don't bother.....Your credibility is less than nil, since you like posting opinion and misleading info rather than fact.
"Did all of those people die BECAUSE the leaders people were atheist. NO. Most died because they resisted the dictators, most for POLITICAL reasons, NOT religious."
=>Yes they did.
The political reason WAS the advancement of state atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%92Leninist_atheism
You think it is somehow coincidental that the govts with the most brutal history and largest death tolls of their own citizens all had a policy of state atheism?
You cant possibly be that naive.
@Chad
Prove your assertions. Find a single quote from any of the three dictators you listed that clearly outlines that they killed massive amounts of people because they weren't atheists.
Bet you I can find a bunch for people killing for god.
Chad is a liar. That's what he is willing to do to make his points regardless of his beliefs.
Chad, those numbers you're citing for China are ridiculous. Deaths at that time were almost entirely from failed economic policies, not murders, and China is a HUGE country – 5 times the size of the US, depending on whose numbers you use. The counts of starvation and health related deaths are very similar to those who died in India over the same period. You also fail to include Hitler, a Christian, and Idi Amin, a Muslim in your numbers. There were only about 10 million people in Uganda back in Amin's day, so the numbers still come out higher even if you counted that absurd number of Chinese deaths as "killings". Just because the “atheist” countries you cite are large doesn’t mean they had a particularly large number of deaths; you’re just giving absolute numbers because it looks impressive given the population numbers.
I'm not arguing that religion leads to killing, but to make it look like atheism does is a crock.
@Saraswati "those numbers you're citing for China are ridiculous. Deaths at that time were almost entirely from failed economic policies, not murders"
@Chad "umm... you're kidding, right?
you should do some reading, Mao/Stalin created famine conditions and used that as a tool to further Communist-atheist revolution.
Marxist-Lennist Atheism
Klas-Göran Karlsson writes that "Ideologies are systems of ideas, which cannot commit crimes independently. However, individuals, collectives and states that have defined themselves as communist have committed crimes in the name of communist ideology, or without naming communism as the direct source of motivation for their crimes."[24]
According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, the killings done by communist regimes can be explained with the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology – Marxism.
"Of all religions, secular and otherwise," Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide."[26] He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths."[26]
In his book Red Holocaust, Steven Rosefielde argues that communism's internal contradictions "caused to be killed" approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more, and that this "Red Holocaust" – the peacetime mass killings and other related crimes against humanity perpetrated by Communist leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot—should be the centerpiece of any net assessment of communism. He states that the aforementioned leaders are "collectively guilty of holocaust-scale felonious homicides."[
@Chad
Oh yes, if that one guy says something that you agree with, then it must be true. By the way, any answer to my challenge yet? Or will you be ignoring me this time since it's something you don't agree with.
Wow. Chad is ever more absurd. He doesn't seem to know the basic difference between failed dictatorships where freedom was not present and atheism. He's comparing an apple to a football.
"Communist-atheist revolution"
I like how Chad has appended Atheist to Communist. Since the goal of tying atheism to communism cannot be achieved factually the religious resort is to subsume or absorb. Actually begin calling Communists "Communist-Atheist". Repeat it, get it on Limbaugh's show, disseminate to the nutters, rinse, repeat. Startling in its dishonesty. Thankfully religion is dying and creationists are simply in their desperate death throes.
@Saraswati "those numbers you're citing for China are ridiculous. Deaths at that time were almost entirely from failed economic policies, not murders"
@Chad "umm... you're kidding, right?
you should do some reading, Mao/Stalin created famine conditions and used that as a tool to further Communist-atheist revolution.
@Saraswati, Sorry Chad, but I've lived and worked in China and spent a lot of time studying the country and that's just a crock (note I know little about Stalin and am just talking about Mao). Mao was an idiot, but he worked under his erroneous assumptions to make the country to succeed and the people prosper. Rummell is just another theorist trying to go down in history by giving his new terminology as wide an application as possible. Once again, wishing atheists to be evil isn't going to make them so. Unfortunately they can be as big of idiots as anyone else. Mao's biggest crime was probably his early pronatalist policies which led to the overpopulation bubble from which the country is still trying to recover.
Note, I'm not talking about any of Mao's other dubious personal behaviors, but mass murder on the scale you're claiming was not one of them.
Off to volunteer with the old folks...my nasty non-believer ethics in action.
viewing the millions killed by Mao/Stalin as merely a result of failed economic policies goes against virtually all historical analysis and is simply wishful thinking on your part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
viewing Marxist-Leninist communism as somehow disparate from atheism is also wishful thinking and goes against virtually all critical analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%92Leninist_atheism
sorry, no dice.
again, you somehow think that ALL of histories worst govt killers just "happened" to be ones committed to state atheism? Really?
@Chad
How do you draw a line from:
"I don't believe in a god" to "These people must die because they do" without adding a belief into that? Atheism wasn't the cause you dishonest prick. I keep asking you to present any kind of statements from the dictators themselves that shows they committed the mass murders specifically because those people weren't atheists or wouldn't deconvert from their religions.
Why are you ignoring this Chad, you're merely showing why people don't take you seriously.
you somehow think that ALL of histories worst govt killers just "happened" to be ones committed to state atheism? Really?
wishful thinking.
@Chad
You're supposed to be all about evidence, so present it instead of just repeating yourself hoping that that'll make you more right. Break your chains of dishonesty Chad.
not sure where you are getting lost..
More people have died under 20th century Communist regimes than any other regime type.
– true statement, it simply can not be disputed at all.
20th century Communist regimes have killed more people than any other regime type.
– true statement, disputing it is wishful thinking.
Communism and atheism are inextricably linked
– true statement, disputing it is wishful thinking
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist‒Leninist_atheism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/13/karl-marx-religion-2.htm
other than "no it isnt", do you have any argument whatsoever?
Colin
So, I see you have picked up on a little truth from the word of God. Good and evil were joined in that one tree of knowledge at the center of our fallen world. Thousands of years later we see man remains attached to that tree like Siamese twins. The first two kids out of the shoot were Cain and Able. One had “religion” and the other was godless. Fast forward to Christ on the cross we see two types of man hanging there one mocks Christ while the other fears God. All are connected to the tree of life showing in full the exact nature of the violence of sin that flows from man and what it does to God.
Keep pounding those nails Colin ! .
The actions of Mao and Stalin (who attended seminary) were totalitarian. They sought total authority, which means getting rid of religions which would compete with that authority. The pursuit of atheism was not the cause for the bloodshed; it was the pursuit of control over a people.
@Chad
Yes you can continue to repeat yourself over and over. The fact remains you have not answered or addressed my point.
Draw a line between "I don't believe in a god" to "These people must die because they do" without adding a belief into that. Atheism wasn't the cause, merely consistent with the political views. To attribute it to "they were atheists, therefore that's why the mass murders" is a complete non-sequitur and you know it. I keep asking you to present any kind of statements from the dictators themselves that shows they committed the mass murders specifically because those people weren't atheists or wouldn't deconvert from their religions.
@fred
First of all, it would read "out of the chute" not "out of the shoot," and second, why would you refer to Eve that way? It seems rather callous, to me.
From Chad's perspective, any reason FOR his position (no matter how stupid or illogical) is "good," and any reason against his position (no matter how stupid or illogical) is "bad." If he applied equal criticism to the arguments for and against his position he'd be an atheist. He knows full well that his "atheists are killers" argument is stupid, but it's "on his side" so he'll lie to himself and continue to use it simply because he THINKS it helps his position.
Moby
Hey,it was the first baby. Here are the Webster possibilities:"
a (1): to eject or impel or cause to be ejected or impelled by a sudden release of tension (2): to drive forth or cause to be driven forth by an explosion (3): to drive forth or cause to be driven forth by a sudden release of gas or air
I agree with you poor Eve
@End Religion "The pursuit of atheism was not the cause for the bloodshed; it was the pursuit of control over a people."
=>can you explain the one to one correlation between
– histories most brutal/lethal regimes in terms of death toll
and
– states that have an official policy of state atheism
?
"that's stupid" and "no it isnt" arent arguments...
@Chad
So correlation equals causation now?
=>can you explain the one to one correlation between
– 3-letter leaders like Mao and Pol, and
– states that have an official policy of state atheism
You forgot Joe, as in Stalin.
and "Joseph"?
fail.
Um, no, Chard, you do.
@Chad,
"again, you somehow think that ALL of histories worst govt killers just "happened" to be ones committed to state atheism? Really?"
I think no such thing but that, as I have already pointed out, you are being highly selective and playing with the numbers to support your own agenda. There are plenty of big killers under non atheist regimes, it just so happens that two of the three biggest states in world history have been atheist so if you pick absolute numbers rather than percents of course that's what you'll see. When you couple that with a very biased interpretation of what happened under Mao's rule (and I'm no fan...I worked with people who had been in reeducation camps) you get the kind of unrealistic numbers you are providing.
Sara, are you saying that Chard is dishonest? Say it ain't so!
Another way to look at it, is simply to review the record of violence against it's citizens that the countries with an official policy of state atheism have:
USSR
China
Cambodia under Pol Pot
North Korea
Cuba
Albania
anyone want to try and argue for any of them?
This isnt just one bad egg... this is the list of ALL COUNTRIES that have had an official state policy of atheism.
Every single country that has had an official state policy of atheism has killed its citizens. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
They aren't practicing atheists. Those countries just say they are atheists to fit in with the intellectuals, like me and Colin.
@Chad, Are you actually unable to tell the difference between atheism and communism or are you just pretending? I'm putting aside the fact that you are exagerrating the deaths in these countries while ignoring other countries with other state religions, which are arguably the problem, and not the particular choice of "religion".
Not that in the US an atheist is as likely to be a libertarian as any other political belief. That's a very different political belief system (though in my mind equally naive) than communism. We aren't talking about remotely the same things.
Lastly, I don't think very many atheists in the US are promoting atheism as a state religion – at least I don't know any that are.
@Saraswati "Are you actually unable to tell the difference between atheism and communism or are you just pretending?"
@Chad "are you actually unable to see what every other historian sees? That atheism and Communism are inextricably linked? Or are you just pretending?
Every communist country has been atheist
Every country with an official state policy of atheism has been communist.
??
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist‒Leninist_atheism
atheism was central to their thought.
end of story.
=======
@Saraswati " I'm putting aside the fact that you are exagerrating the deaths in these countries"
@Chad "really? How so?
those numbers are very real.
Quite a record.
=======
@Saraswati "while ignoring other countries with other state religions, which are arguably the problem"
@Chad "Interesting!
ah.. hate to do this to you.. but.. example please..
remember, I defend only Judeo/Christianity.
Statism is responsible for much violence and evil in the world. It is separable from religion (or opposition to religion). Realizing America's manifest destiny involved enslavement of Africans and extermination of native peoples. It belongs on Chad's list, though he would call it a Christian nation.
as I have said before, I would agree that nearly wiping out the American Indian is a historical responsibility that no Christian can avoid. That goes the same for enslaving blacks.
Horrific what we did.
Interesting...rejection of religion is the thing I admire most about Marxism (and, yes, the list is short).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ecMkshBqQ9I
"as I have said before, I would agree that nearly wiping out the American Indian is a historical responsibility that no Christian can avoid. That goes the same for enslaving blacks. Horrific what we did."
I wonder how many decades will pass before Chad's ilk adopt the same penitence for their discrimination against the LGBT.
@Chad,
I asked if you really thought communism and atheism were the same thing and you said:
"Every communist country has been atheist
Every country with an official state policy of atheism has been communist.
...
atheism was central to their thought.
end of story."
This is the same as someone a couple of hundred years ago saying that because all Christian religions had thus far been "young earth" in nature that Christianity and young-earthism are the same thing.
But you know what Chad, you aren't that stupid, and you aren't stupid enough not to be able to pull out country with a Christian state religion that has committed mass killings. Sorry, if you want to play dumb, go for it, but don't expect anyone else to fall for the act – I'm not playing your game.
...oh, and in case it was too veiled...I'm calling you a bigot, Chad. Bigot.
I see that the ever patient and equable Saraswati is becoming tired of Chad's dishonest nonsense. Welcome to the fold, Saraswati.
– Atheism is a central aspect of communism, fact.
– you forgot to tell me how I was "exaggerating"
– you forgot to provide an example of a Christian state religion that has committed mass killings.
it's a fairly typical response when someone runs out of actual data.. @GOPer does it all the time. Hurl an accusation then accuse the recipient of "playing games" when asked to actually back it up with evidence. Seems pretty bush league to me, but some people go for it.
slavery and the native american killing was a white man thing not a christian thing
All those white men were Christian, they should have done much better.
I brought up the term statism because it describes a core principle behind the communist states you mention, Chad, and others as well. To a statist, religion may be a threat – then athesim, or it may be a tool – Gott mit uns.
computer?/ hello?
slavery and the native american killing was a white man thing not a christian thing
You brought up "statism" in a desperate attempt to avoid owning up to the reality that governments with an official policy of state atheism are the worst killers in history.
Hey, Chad – did you fulfill your inbred southern evangelical quota for discrimination and bigotry today. You still have a few minutes before it's a bright shiny new day.
40,000,000 people were murdered under systems run by men with strange haircuts. Therefore people with strange haircuts are mass murderers.
You have to prove correlation, Chad, and you haven't. You are just committing the fallacy of Non Sequitur and the fallacy of Proof By Assertion.
That's all religious people ever offer: fallacies.
those slave drivers werent christians, neither were the crusaders or any evil causes by the shroud of "christianity"
those arent christians on that premise you cant relate christianity to any atrocities, because it was not administered by the Holy Spirit, only authentic non religious endwellment is what a saved person is and they areent the leaders or followers of demonic evils, opressions, and carnal endeavors
I brought up statism because it more completely describes what you are trying to shape like a topiary hedge to suit your purposes. I thought of it as a kind of favor to you, Chad. People will rightly accuse you of intellectual dishonesty and worse (bigotry was mentioned) if you continue to go after non-theism this way.
Austin v Chad ... Christian catfight! Sweet!
@Tom, Tom, the Other One –
I accuse Chad of bigotry because of his atitudes towards and treatment of those with amounts of cutaneous melanin and sexual orientation not in line with his personal preference.
no i agree with chad on his points completely, but i have my own opinion on the way i label people who do wrong as a lifestyle.
I approve of Chad's quest whole heartedly.
Austin,
So you think that every one who follows your opinion/ interpretation of the Bible is a Christian. Others are just WHITE!
@Austin – "I approve of Chad's quest whole heartedly."
And yet you "wholeheartedly" disagree with Chad's assertion that Christian's share responsibility for genocide and the Atlantic slave trade. Must be more Christian logic, I guess.
...I guess it might be like Chad saying, "I disagree with almost every one of President Obama's policies, but I sure am glad we elected a black Christian."
Sorry, Really-O? Then I'll be the one to call Chad a bigot for his intolerant devotion to his opinions regarding non-theists as a group. We are represented in Chad's mind by Stalin and Pol Pot, among others, after all.
...sorry, "I sure am proud", not "I sure am glad".
@Tom, Tom, the Other One – "Chad['s] a bigot for his intolerant devotion to his opinions regarding non-theists as a group"
Testify!
Cheers
no Chad and I agree on scripture, i had not read what you all were talking about at all.
you all are talking about america. i havent said what i think about that.
hey Simran
no you are reading in to that one way differently than i have ever thought. what ever you were saying about "others are just white" also i did not say that Christians should or do agree with me.
I said that a Christian is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and an authentic christian is fillid with God's holy spirit and therefore would not take part in an atrocitie. I said that slave drivers and native american killers are just crazy white people.
please do not try to insinuate that anything racist my direction. I believe that God created the human race. and that there is one human race. I will leave it at that. I do not consider America a christian nation. especially because of the genecide of Native Americans and slavery.
I'll be the one to call Chad a bigot for his intolerant devotion to his opinions regarding non-theists as a group.
=>so.. what does that make you for your intolerant devotion to your opinions regarding theists?
LOL
they dont sell mirrors to atheists? or you just dont buy them? what's up with that?
@austin
dont forget that atheists mock, that's what they do, that's all they have.. you have won the argument when their entire retort consists of name calling.
peace 🙂
Seems like a dead thread, Chad. You should note that you have never won an argument. I do admire you for trying with nothing to work with other than the legend of the God of Israel.
Q.E.D.
🙂
The debate also ends when we grow tired of pointing out facts you ignore. I don't know of any communist countries that didn't have state-imposed "irreligiousness" with the goal of controlling a populace which you are confusing with organic atheism (except apparently from some short rebellion periods in France and Mexico).
You should know by now, as has been pointed out several times, that supposed correlation is not causation. And that atheism is not a "lack of religion" but a "belief in no gods." Since you do not recognize these facts, you are stuck thinking like a child and basically planting a flag of victory over pointing out that "bananas are yellow therefore yellow crayons must taste like fruit".
Totalitarian leaders want control over populace (then neighbors) and so based on their ideology of force must wrestle political parties and religions away from them. This isn't atheism, it is "imposed irrelgiousness". The pursuit of control leads to internal deaths, not the imposed lack of religion. If the leader gains control then he may seek to extend that into other countries. Again, it is his pursuit of power and control which is the cause.
hmm..
– 100% correlation
– Marxist-Leninist atheism at the core of communist thought
– Simply to review the record of violence against it's citizens that the countries with an official policy of state atheism have:
USSR
China
Cambodia under Pol Pot
North Korea
Cuba
Albania
so.. you lost me.. how exactly are you Mr. Atheist extricating yourself from that?
sorry, I accidently flipped the Chad meme on France and Mexico. They weren't communists with state-imposed atheism, they were "state atheists" who weren't communist.
Again, you can't even get a simple definition correct. Your parents must be so embarrassed for you.
@Chad
"Marxist-Leninist atheism "
- Well you said it right there, in black and white. Marxist-Lenninist atheism..... it looks like you're sort of understanding at least that it wasn't straight up atheism but instead a spin on atheism to promote marxist theory and communism. When you have a government trying to impose a specific form of government where they need absolute control they either use a specific religion (a.k.a. Islam in Iran) or try to stamp out religion in order in order to have supreme power (Stalin in the USSR). Islam isn't forcing Ahmadinajhad and the Ayatolla to cause wonton destruction in Iran and kill anyone that rises up the same way that atheism isn't what caused Stalin to kill people in the USSR, it's political, specifically Communism and Theocracy that causes these violent governments to not suffer political rivals and using deadly force to ensure that. How is this so hard to understand? If we look at historically violent governments we come up with the theocracy out of the Vatican as a crazy violent government but do you think it was christianity that drove the pope to declare a crusade?
Lets also think for a second about what you are really saying here. If you say that atheism is evil because of communism you are trying to argue that although religion has killed a lot of people that atheism has killed more so we should choose the lesser of two evils? Are you asking which government I would rather live with the government that kills only certain groups or the government that kills people regardless of the group they belong to? That seems like a weird sophies choice to hang your religion on Chad
@Chad, Excellent points!
Chad, there's a question below about atheist vs religious violence in recent times. Just like clinging to ancient unfounded myths, you are clinging to the past. Atheism has progressed while religion is regressing.
@Chad – "so.. what does that make you for your intolerant devotion to your opinions regarding theists?"
I don't have "opinions regarding theists", Chad. I don't know if I've ever even used the term theist in one of my posts (I know I have called you an "inbred backwoods evangelical", but I'm referring to your personal characteristics – and it's hyperbole...maybe). If I have, it was simply to indicate those who believe in a god, not to imply a whole host of assumed characteristics. You see, Chad, labeling is what prejudice is all about and you, Chad, seem to feel the need to label everything and everyone:
"I'm and evangelical."
"They are atheists"
"They are anti-theists"
"All communists are atheists."
"I'm proud we elected a black president"
"I'm proud we continue to elect Christians as president"
"They are evolutionists"
"I'm a theistic evolutionist" (as though Chad performs research).
Simple minds need to simplify things, and assigning assumed characteristics to entire groups of individuals and slapping a label on them, simplifies things. That is prejudice. That leads to bigotry. You Chad, are a bigot and, like most bigots, you can't see it.
I just realized I replied to a post by Chad intended for Tom, Tom, the Other One. Sorry TTtOO. My post still stands.
@Really-O "I have called you an "inbred backwoods evangelical"" ... it was simply to indicate those who believe in a god
@Really-O "You see, Chad, labeling is what prejudice is all about and you"
=>simply fascinating..
you dont own a mirror I gather..
@Chad -"you don't own a mirror I gather"
Belief in a god is a specific characteristic one explicitly identifies with when they assert they are a theist; therefore, saying, "theists believe in god" is not prejudice. Rather like saying, "He is Irish." when speaking about someone who was born and lives in Ireland. Saying, "only theists have a moral foundation" or "the Irish drink a lot" is prejudice. I don't expect you to understand the distinction – you've show over and over that you are incapable of comprehending nuance.
@Chad –
You take a beating day in and day out on this blog, Chad. No other poster is subjected to the criticism and contempt you receive. Nearly every post you garner is a criticism, not just of your beliefs and arguments, but of your behavior and person. And yet you return, day after day, for more abuse. Why is that? I've seen you argue that the outspoken criticism of Christianity in the western world somehow affirms the "truth" of Christianity (that is warped, by the way) – do you assume the same for yourself. Do you see the derision heaped on you as affirmation? If so, you really should seek some professional help. Really. I'm not being derisive. You may benefit from some counseling. It might also help you get over your prejudice and bigotry. Bigotry is ugly Chad.
@Really-O "You see, Chad, labeling is what prejudice is all about and you"
@Really-O"specific characteristic one explicitly identifies with"
Label: An item used to identify something or someone
so...
you are labeling, but arent labeling.. ..
you lost me, once again 🙂
You may benefit from this: The first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.
Folks...there's another example of Chad's blatant dishonesty. You see, I never said
"I have called you an "inbred backwoods evangelical"" ... it was simply to indicate those who believe in a god"
that was Chad re-wording (almost slipped that by me, Chad) in order to give the appearance I was calling all who believe in god "inbred backwoods evangelicals", which, of course, I was not.
Another one for the "Dishonest things Chad posts" project. Dishonest. Bigot.
You can't really be as obtuse as your behavior indicates. Any reasonable person know what make apply a label prejudice. The posters on this blog know the distinction. I'm not taking the bait, Chad. You're a bigot, plain and simple.
From my February 6, 2013 at 12:04 pm post:
" I don't expect you to understand the distinction – you've show over and over that you are incapable of comprehending nuance."
I guess I was right, Chad really is that obtuse.
@Really-O "Any reasonable person know what make apply a label prejudice."
=>hunh?
=======
@Really-O "You're a bigot, plain and simple."
Label: An item used to identify something or someone
@Really-O "You see, Chad, labeling is what prejudice is all about and you"
=>hunh?
You're labeling.. but not prejudiced?..
wait..
I get it, I forgot the first rule.. "nothing an atheist says applies to himself".
now it all makes sense 🙂
All males are humans. Not all humans are males.
All prejudice involves labeling. Not all labeling is prejudice.
Once again, Chad shows his utter lack of comprehension of nuance.
And yes, I see the mistake in my last post –
All men (an adult male human) are humans. Not all humans are men.
This has become tiresome. You're a bigot, Chad. This forum knows it. You're also this forums whipping boy. Even you should be able to see that.
On to more fruitful interactions. I'm out.
The following was posted in the wrong thread –
Whoa! That last post was a word salad. Let's try again –
You can't really be as obtuse as your behavior indicates. Any reasonable person knows when a "label" betrays prejudice (I've given a number of examples, Chad. Please refer to them if you want to edify yourself). The posters on this blog know the distinction. I'm not taking the bait, Chad. You're a bigot, plain and simple.
Using a "label" (like, referring to people who don't believe in God as atheist) betrays prejudice when the "labeler" is a Christian.
I get it, no need to beat it to death.
🙂
@Chad
Once again
How do you draw a line from:
"I don't believe in a god" to "These people must die because they do" without adding a belief into that? Atheism wasn't the cause. I keep asking you to present any kind of statements from the dictators themselves that shows they committed the mass murders specifically because those people weren't atheists or wouldn't deconvert from their religions.
It's very simple
From the statement: Christianity and violence are joined at the hip
now, what does that mean?
Is he talking about restricting the definition of "violence" only to:
1. "killing other people because they arent Christians"
or, is the violence he is referring to
2. "violence done by a group of people who were unified under the banner of Christianity"
If you want to say only the former, then:
Christianity is responsible for the crusades, Salem witch trials, few other odds and ends.
atheism (USSR, China, North Korea, Albania, Cuba, Cambodia) is responsible for persecution of members of religious groups.
If you want to say the latter, then
Christianity is responsible for American Indian genocide, slavery in the US, crusades, Salem witch trials, other odds and ends
Atheism is responsible for all the deaths to their citizens during the reigns of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
so, you can pick.
You dont get to expand the definition when the target culprit is Christians and restrict the definition when the target culprit is atheists.
=========
cue attempt to expand the definition when the target culprit is Christians and restrict the definition when the target culprit is atheists.
@Chad
What the fuck are you even talking about? When did I talk about christians and violence being anything? I challenged you to provide something to back up your assertion, and it takes you a day and 3-4 posts asking the same thing and you come back with something completely irrelevant.
read it again...
Chad, religion was the motivation for those atrocities. However, atheism was NOT the motivation for the atrocities of communism; politics were.
But you know that. You have been told the truth repeatedly, and still you turn around and lie again and again and again.
@Chad
I don't care what anyone else has been saying. I asked you how YOU draw a line between 1 thing, and another. You come back with "Well if you wanna use this usage of violence as opposed to this one..." Come the fuck on. Do you just enjoy being a dishonest prick? I said nothing about violence, I said nothing about christians. I asked something very specific on what you were claiming, and you have yet to answer it.
@Chad "cue attempt to expand the definition when the target culprit is Christians and restrict the definition when the target culprit is atheists"
@Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm "religion was the motivation for those atrocities. However, atheism was NOT the motivation for the atrocities of communism; politics were"
@Chad "Well done! Right on cue!!!"
Chad: "Atheism is responsible for all the deaths to their citizens during the reigns of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc."
Nope – try again. That's just a wild, wild generalization with no foundation. And yes I read your quotes. Doesn't matter. Too many factors involved to make that giant assumption. But then you're good at that, Chad – making wild leaps and lying for your God.
Chad
Try and look beyond your christian bias to the evils that religion, tribalism has perpatrated. You probably do not give a damn what is happening in the middle east or Africa but try and explain the difference of where christianity was in the dark ages and what is happening now in those areas of the world. I love how you can gloss over the ugly history of almost all god cults/religions, better off without any of them.
Chad doesn't get it. The reason we say, "that's not accurate" is because what he is saying isn't accurate. The reason we say, "that's incredibly stupid" is because what he's saying is incredibly dumb.
End Religion summed him perfectly with these lines:
......."Since you do not recognize these facts, you are stuck thinking like a child and basically planting a flag of victory over pointing out that ",bananas are yellow therefore yellow crayons must taste like fruit'"......
When it's a dumb argument, tell him it's a dumb argument. If he thinks that "disrespect" towards his stupid argument somehow magically makes him correct, then it's just more stupidity he beleives that we can't waste our time worrying about.
I used the same correct relevant factor for both, Chad, so your childish attempt at pre-emptive strike fails miserably. My point is totally valid: the reason those religious atrocities were done was religion, and the reason those communist atrocities were done were politics.
Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
Chad
So try and explain why the Scandanavian countries, hardy democracies, are far more moral than heavily religous nations. I refer you to a book by Phil Zuckerman, Learning from Secular Nations. Other nations, United Kingdom, Canada, Austrailia, etc. really do not give a good god damn what the religion of their leaders are.
All communists are atheists. Chad is right that more violence was perpetrated by these atheists on humanity.
@Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm "I used the same correct relevant factor for both, Chad, so your childish attempt at pre-emptive strike fails miserably. My point is totally valid: the reason those religious atrocities were done was religion, and the reason those communist atrocities were done were politics."
@chad "wow.. where to begin..
1. LOL
2. define what acts you are referring to when you say "those religious atrocities".
========
Chadwatch "So try and explain why the Scandanavian countries, hardy democracies, are far more moral than heavily religous nations"
=>wow, where to begin...
1. Define what you mean by "morality", what metric are you using to make the determination that they are "more moral"
2. what countries are you referring to when you say "religious nations"
3. "Scandanavian countries, hardy democracies" Norway, Finland, Sweden have a parliamentary system of government(you'll have to look up what that means.. sorry about that..). What in the world are you talking about??
=====
as an aside, I'm starting to wonder if atheists arent somehow descendant from a race of vampires. As far as I can tell, they never see their reflection in a mirror.
@Chad
If I started being as dishonest as you are, would you actually start addressing points?
It would be fascinating to watch Chad debate in real life without relying on dishonestly misqoting someone or wikipedia all the time. Something tells me he would be in tears by the end of the opening points.
Chad, that's because you don't use correct logic. You don't use correct reasoning because you have caused your brain to malfunction by continually using two sets of rules to evaluate incoming data. Rather than process a logical argument faithfully, you twist and contort all ideas until they bow before your throne of a priori belief. You have not reached the limit of your knowledge, but by your own decree, you have reached the limit of your understanding.
@Chad
What abut if I did this.
HEY CHAD YOU STUPID, IRRELEVANT, DISHONEST FUCKSTICK! Why won't you answer anything? I'm starting to wonder if all christians go to classes on how to be lying bigots without use in the world.
Would that work Chad? How can I get you to actually discuss any subject honestly? How can I prevent you ignoring points that are brought up, or you haven't actually answered?
@Hawaii.
read the post at February 6, 2013 at 3:04 pm
again..
you havent understood it yet.
@Chad
You continue to say that, yet your inane post in no way addresses how you draw the line from:
"This person in atheist" to "This other person must die for not being an atheist", without adding anything else. Without that line, you cannot logically continue to claim a cause between "countries that were atheists" and "mass murder". You say it does, but it really doesn't, and whenever I have challenged you on this for the past day, you give absolutely nothing.
Why are these communists so fond of using 'fook' in their posts? Why do they keep fooking their posts?
Oops, meant to say atheists not communists.
Question: What do communists see when they look at themselves in the mirror?
Answer: An atheist!
What do believers see in the mirror?
A deluded lost soul.
Chad, you stupid fvcking moron, the issue reason the killing took place. If it took place in god's name, under the banner of christ and christianity, then that's the way it is. Azzholes who took the lives of others for some vision or ideal, but NOT under the banner of disbelief, are simply azzholes.
There's no comparison; you just want there to be one, so you're making sh1
Chad,
I see you ignored the post about Canada being more moral. Canada is far less religious than the US (way more atheists per capita), and yet has fewer abortions per capita, far less gun violence per capita (despite being just as ethnically diverse), is a peacekeeping country, less divorce per capita, has universal health care, more social safety nets, and Canadians are considered much nicer than Americans.
How do you explain how a country with far more atheists per capita is way more moral than the US?
What does an atheist see when they look at themselves in the mirror?
Mirror turns to horror
What religious affliation do Canadians identify themselves as?
*cough* approximately 70% Canadians identify themselves as Christian
Aww chad has a new sock puppet "Justin"
The religious demographics of Canada and the USA are different but not hugely so. Take a look at Japan – they are almost completely non religious with incredibly low crime rates.
Chad, when are you going to answer my question about more recent violence, almost entirely due to religion not atheism?
@HotAirAce "when are you going to answer my question about more recent violence, almost entirely due to religion not atheism?"
=>when you explain what "recent violence" you are referring to.. same answer as before.
Are you expecting me to guess?
If only religion would prevent Chard from doing anything.
I forgot – you can't read and comprehend. . .
Post the breakup of The Evil Empire – since December 26, 1991.
@Chad, on second thought you're just an @ss.
@Jen "I see you ignored the post about Canada being more moral. Canada is far less religious than the US (way more atheists per capita).
@Chad "Looks like 2% in US, 7% in canada.
I would agree that divorce rate, violent crime rate, abortion rate are good moral indicators, but I dont see how you can ascribe that to having ~5% more atheists especially when you have countries with 90% more atheists that ALL have abysmal morals.
Consider heavily catholic nations, divorce rates, abortion rates, etc.. vastly lower than US.
To get a meaningful comparison, you would have to compare perhaps the top 10 of each across all the morality metrics.
The 10 most atheistic nations
China
Ja pan
Czech Republic
France
Korea
Germany
Netherlands
Austria
Iceland
Top 10 most Christian:
Bermuda
Greece
Romania
Papua New Guinea
Equador
Armenia
Equatorial New Guinea
East Timor
American Samoa
Moldova
@HotAirAce "I forgot – you can't read and comprehend. . . Post the breakup of The Evil Empire – since December 26, 1991."
@Chad "in the past 22 years, North Korea and China continue their persecution of religious groups, including jail and execution.
I am not aware of ANY Christian nation that is persecuting atheists..
hope that answers your question.
Chad is a very simple minded, but persistent fool. I usually just follow to see how long it will be before he embarrasses himself royally.
You conveniently neglected believe-on-believer violence and states such as Iran.
Chin up, Chad. Someone'll be along any minute to slap you around. I can steer you toward some more healthy pursuits if you want to ease off of the God of Israel thing. AMDG
Iran?
In case you somehow missed it, Iran is a Muslim nation.
I am a Christian
I dont defend non-Judeo/Christian people or nations.
in the Christian viewpoint, there are believers in the God of Israel, and everyone else. Putting you atheists in the same bucket as Muslims.
Judeo/Christian/Islam -all people of the book, and all followers of the God of Abraham.
It's pretty obvious that Chad avoids answering some people directly. Something in hawaii guest's posts really seem to make him squirm and run.
I'm not asking you to defend the christian cult or any other cult, merely to admit that there are numerous more examples of religion driven violence than atheist driven.
But it is good to know that you are just one god away from being an atheist.
Well, by his own admission, Chad hasn't sorted out the trinity. So he has to juggle three Gods in his adventures in biblical exegisis.
lol
Hawaii wants desperately to indict Christianity for all violence done by a Christian nation regardless of the motives or target, but at the same time excuse atheism for all the violence done by atheistic nations against anyone regardless of motives or target.
like I said: cue attempt to expand the definition when the target culprit is Christians and restrict the definition when the target culprit is atheists.
took me 5 minutes to find the reply button. you guys are too fun.
this means war!
Give me an example of Christian driven violence.
what's so hard about that?
why do you find that such a hard question to answer?
The Muslim world is still a bit sensitive about the Crusades, Chad. Should we bring that up?
Christianity is responsible for the crusades, Salem witch trials, few other odds and ends.
atheism (USSR, China, North Korea, Albania, Cuba, Cambodia) is responsible for persecution of members of religious groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#China
NFLT, Orissa, Anders Breivik, Lord's Resistance Army, evangelical christians in Peru. And http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/.
NFLT, Orissa,
=>Hunh??
Anders Breivik
=>lunatic
Lord's Resistance Army
=>not Christian
evangelical christians in Peru
=>Hunh?
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/
=>hunh?
that's what you call evidence?
God is a supernatural God. if you ask for faith and forgiveness this puts you in contact with the supernatural living God. thats what i recommend. I got saved, and then when i started falling away and struggling , He started to show me that He was there and that He wasnt' going to let go. It is really an amazing experience. He must be full of love. because I didnt deserve it, but He gave it out anyway. He is alive. Ask for faith. He loves you.
Well said Austin!!! I have had a very similar experience myself
Since I sure cant top that, I bring my participation in this particular discussion to a close 🙂
What an arrogant prig this Chad is.
"Hunh??"
That is a very fitting response to those of you here who were foolish enough to think you could hold anything resembling rational debate with a religious loony.
State-imposed "irreligiousness" is not atheism.
NFLT should have been NLFT and I included the Fox News URL just to demonstrate the general nastiness of christians. All the references are to proven or probable instances of violence by christians. Whether or not Chad considers them to be christians is not relevant. Google "christians killing others" to get the details and other examples.
There is more factual evidence for recent violence by christians than there is for any god, The Babble or the jesus myth.
Can religion prevent violence? Seriously? That's like asking, can excessive alcohol consumption prevent hangovers.
@Colin,
You make an intersting comparison. But what about this- if you never sober up, you never get a hangover. Sure eventually you'll die from either liver failure or a drunken accident, but it would save you the hang over. SO, by comparison if everyoen spend ALL of there time praying and worshiping, there would be no violence. We would all starve to death and all critical thought in the world would stop, but it would end the violence issue.
I think the whole thing can be amended by asking "Could religion realistically stop violence", adn the answer there is obviously no, because we're all still humans, and a good many humans suck.
THATS LIKE ASKING A SELF-CONFESSED INTELLECTUAL TO TREAT SOMEONE WITH RESPECT. WE CAN'T DO IT.
If the world would follow Christ then there would be no violence. You point as always to the truth in the Bible. In this case Jesus said for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. That is the truth and that is why we have violence.
translation of fred:
"blah blah christianity is awesome, just ignore all the bad things in the bible, blah blah I'm right because I say so, blah blah I will never answer a question with anything but irrelevant bullshit".
if the world would follow christ there'd be nothing but violence
End Religion
Go and read the words of Christ and tell me exactly how that is even possible
Christianity is no guarantee of a violence free world.
Atheism is a guarantee of a violence filled world
The bible is filled with the advocation of violence against any and all people who disagree with you based on religious belief. Heck, if you buy that laughable fiction known as the bible, your evil overlord killed everything on the planet for the same capricious reasons. Everything on the planet but a handful of people and some animals. Everything. You nutters run around talking about walking in the footsteps of your imaginary friend, well, here's his example for you to live by. Kill anyone who disagrees and then a few more for good measure. If the world would follow Christ there'd be nothing but violence.
Chad, it's been about 25 years since the fall of the Evil Empire. How many wars have been started in the name of atheism since then? How many wars have been entered into because some believer political leader believed their god was good with waging war since then? I believe the score is something like Atheists 0 – Delusional Believers (including George "The Monkey Shrub" Bush) Many.
End Religion
Go and read the words of Christ and tell me exactly how that is even possible.
Not one thing you mention is of Christ. I did not say tell me how a Levite 3,400 years ago would respond to camel that poops in his tent.
Your answer tells me that you know for certain that if the world obeyed Christ there would be no violence.
fred, u have your answer. I understand you don't like it because your petulant god isn't painted in a very good light. I also understand since you do not use logic that you may not understand the answer. I can't coddle your stupidity all day. Study my answer until it makes sense.
@fred
So do you only take Jesus as the answer for everything? Guess you can't be against homosexuals anymore.
End of Religion
We have been down this road.
Thales in about 590 BC argued that the ultimate element is water, from which everything else is made. He also believed that the earth was flat and floated on water. He and his followers did not involve appeals to the supernatural. He was the father of Western philosophy.
Your conclusion therefore would be Western philosophy is antiquated and based on foolishness.
hawaiiguest
I never was against ho-mo$exuals. We are all subject to this fallen world in the absence of the presence of God in our lives.
@fred
Wow you went way out into irrelevant land on that one. End Religion must have really gotten to you.
Hawaiiguest
The Bible was written by 40 authors over 1500 years each targeting an audience that was in the mindset of the time and place. In addition parts of the Bible reflect events of a specific time and or are directed towards a specific group of people or indicative of that group. In short certain things carry forward into this day while others no longer apply.
Christ reflected God in a way that even Jefferson claimed this was certainly not the God of Moses whom he found to be angry and vindictive. He had a similar view of that God as your impression of the God of the Old Testament.
@fred
Bullshit. Are you for equal rights of gays? Are you for gay marriage? No, you're not.
hawaiiguest
Believers do not even obey Christ why should they obey or even give a hoot about the God of Abraham. The secular world will do whatever it can get away with as the desire of man is most important. In the U.S. the desire of man is evident and the laws are changing to reflect this desire that has risen far above God in their eyes. That is the world we live in.
My desire is to please God and doing so means that I am to pray for our leaders and our country that makes the laws we are to abide by. On the individual level it is a sin for me to harbor negative thoughts toward another person.
@fred
Congrats on yet another irrelevant pile of shit in order to not actually address anything.
@fred
No more irrelevant idiocy? Oh that's right, you've been called more than once on your dishonest stupidity and now it's time for you to run like the little coward that you are.
hawaiiguest
You are just stirring up trouble.I responded to all your posts. In case you missed it please compare:
“So do you only take Jesus as the answer for everything? Guess you can't be against ho-mo$exuals anymore”
=>my direct answer was: “I never was against ho-mo$exuals. We are all subject to this fallen world in the absence of the presence of God in our lives”
“Bul#$%it. Are you for equal rights of gays? Are you for gay marriage? No, you're not”
=>my direct answer was: “My desire is to please God and doing so means that I am to pray for our leaders and our country that makes the laws WE ARE TO ABIDE BY. On the individual level it is a sin for me to harbor negative thoughts toward another person.”
In case you failed to read the last line it says I could not take away or begrudge anyone equality.
@fred
Nice non-answer. So what you're saying is you want to continue thinking your a pios amazing person better than evreyone, and don't want to get your hands dirty by actually saying you're against something that you're against. It's still a non-answer, and merely shows how much more you care about feeling superior than actually saying anything honestly.
Good grief...what is this? A witch hunt?
A person can disagree with the law of the land but still respect it.
Just because a person does not agree with ho mos exual marriage does not mean they are going to directly fight the law. It doesn't even mean that the entire concept os that important to them in any way. Maybe they are just going by their Biblical teachings and not worrying about other ppl's sins and trangressions and worrying about their own.
@Uncouth
Because fred is lying. He has constantly advocated that we need to base our laws on the bible, and what do you think that would mean? He doesn't just disagree with the law, he actively wants his particular religion to be the law. In the case of christianity, then that would mean a complete ban on gay marriage. He's using feel good noncommital bullshit.
Uncouth Swain
Thanks ! You got it right, I have enough problems keeping my self in line with the Bible.
hawaiiguest
I never said or implied that I am against gay marriage or equal rights. I made it clear that is a secular legal issue and I have no choice but to support the authorities over me. That is biblical and an easy law to keep. You don't know God so you cannot understand that God puts leaders in place I do not.
@fred
More bullshit. Tell us again how there should never be "godless government", and it's never been tried. Tell us again how the laws of the bible are supposed to be the basis of our laws.
hawaiiguest
“ Tell us again how there should never be "godless government", and it's never been tried.”
=>I said there has never been a time when the godless have dominated the World view with the exception of the days of Noah. There will again come such a time in the days of the Anti Christ where the mark of beast will be upon the World and only a remnant of believers will survive.
“ Tell us again how the laws of the bible are supposed to be the basis of our laws.”
=>Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your being. This is basis of all that is good. Should anything in this world take that place in your life the blessings God has will not be with you individually and the same applies to Nations.
The founders saw to it that this law cannot be tampered with at any level of government or by any power or authority established under the consti-tiution.
=>Love your neighbor as yourself.
The const-itution safeguards the rights, liberties and freedom for all. My neighbor is ent-itled to the same goodies I am.
I conclude that by his silence, Chad agrees there have been no mass deaths due to atheism over that past 25 years but believers have caused numerous wars.
HotAirAce
Chad will disagree with you but you need to repost your reply one Colin up from here where that thread is located.
@fred
So more and more non-answers and bullshit. You really are just pathetic fred.
From the individual standpoint, I think it can. Apply religion to group think and I have to lean no.
Though I wouldn't say that religion is the main cause for violence like "some" on here would. Those ppl ignore the broader scope of the world those wars happened in.
The crusade casualties: 1 million dead for religions.
The Mongol conquest casualities: 60 million dead for territorial expansion.
Dugan Revolt: 12 million dead over bamboo pole price dispute.
In all fairness, the price of bamboo was just too darn high.
The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:
M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)
The Muslim Conquest of India
"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*
1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")
2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)
3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)
4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)
5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)
6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)
7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)
8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)
9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)
11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)
12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)
13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C
14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C
16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)
17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)
18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)
19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)
20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C
*:" Is religion responsible for more violent deaths than any other cause?
A: No, of course not – unless you define religion so broadly as to be meaningless. Just take the four deadliest events of the 20th Century – Two World Wars, Red China and the Soviet Union – no religious motivation there, unless you consider every belief system to be a religion."
Q: So, what you're saying is that religion has never killed anyone.
A: Arrgh... You all-or-nothing people drive me crazy. There are many doc-umented examples where members of one religion try to exterminate the members of another religion. Causation is always complex, but if the only difference between two warring groups is religion, then that certainly sounds like a religious conflict to me. Is it the number one cause of mass homicide in human history? No. Of the 22 worst episodes of mass killing, maybe four were primarily religious. Is that a lot? Well, it's more than the number of wars fought over soccer, or s-ex (The Trojan and Sabine Wars don't even make the list.), but less than the number fought over land, money, glory or prestige.
In my Index, I list 41 religious conflicts compared with 27 oppressions under "Communism", 24 under Colonialism, 2 under "Railroads" and 2 under "Scapegoats". Make of that what you will."
Hmm, I don't see where you explained how religion caused those conflicts. Do you normally skip Point B when going from Point A to Point C?
For those who need added information not about religion preventing violence but about religion causing violence:
From the koran:
http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/005.asp et al
o "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
o
"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)
"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)
"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)
"'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)
"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)
"Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)...These are the heirs of Paradise..." (Surah 23:1-5-)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)
Sorry but I still don't see your point.
You have evidence that those verses have actually made people violent? You can scientifically point this out?
Do you have any copy/paste for that?
Some added examples of religion causing violence:
"Bangladesh: Muslims Attack Buddhist Temples, Homes Over Quran ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../bangladesh-muslims-attack-buddhists-q...
Sep 30, 2012 – COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh — Thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims set fire ... and 40 homes in anger over a Facebook photo of a burned Quran ..........................................................
o "Islam gives women almost no rights and treats them like fodder for the male species as so bluntly noted by Aya-an Hi-rsi Ali in her autobiography, In-fidel.
"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circu-mcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hi-rsi Ali escaped – and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.
some excerpts:
"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly be-aten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their scre-ams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"
"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had cas-tes. The Untou-chable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were unt-ouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were tou-chable: we to-uched them see? but also hor-rifying to think of yourself as un-touchable, des-picable to the human race."
"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were ki-lled by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exa-ggerating."
"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Som-alia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feu-dal mind-set based on tr-ibal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hypro-cricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".
More on the treatment of females in Islam:
Islam’s widespread practice of amputating the cli-to-ris and sometimes part or even all of the vul-va from the ge-n-ita-lia of Muslim women, affirmed in a had-ith by Mohammed himself, most likely also traces back to the founder’s deliberate abuse of se-x to lure pagan males into his cu-lt. The more the male s-ex drive is purposefully aro-used, the more the female s-ex urge may have to be proportionately suppressed, lest org-iastic he-ll begin to spread.
Consider then what frequently happens when even a modestly clothed young Western woman walks alone in broad daylight down a street in, for example, a non-Westernized area of a city in Pakistan. Muslim men around her can see her face, hair and neck—maybe even her ankles. Some of them perceive that much exposure as intent on her part to a-rouse them. The fact that she is not accompanied by a male relative confirms their susp-icions. Knowing that she, a Western woman, has not been subjected to that cruel amputation which Islam forces upon millions of Muslim women, some males may even imagine that she must feel s-exual desire for them.
They tend also to perceive themselves as not responsible to exercise decent social restraint. Rather she is responsible not to tempt them! Whatever lewd thing Muslim men around her say, do or feel as a result is regarded as her fault alone. . . .
During a major upheaval in Indonesia in the late 1990s, s-ex-crazed Muslim men gang-ra-ped dozens of Chinese women in shops, homes and even in the streets, shouting in Arabic, “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great!)*
o On the koranic passages and world domination:
o
"Mohammed could not have known the size of the world, but several passages in the Koran show that he envisioned Islam dominating all of it, however large it might be: “He it is who sent his messenger . . . that he may cause it [Islam] to prevail over all religions´(Koran 9:33, M.M. Ali; see also 48:28 and 61:9). M.M. Ali designates these three passages as “the prophecy of the ultimate triumph of Islam in the whole world.”
Mohammed’s successors, the caliphs, quoted passages like these to inspire Muslim armies as they advanced out of Arabia, imposing Islam by the sword upon a peacefully unsuspecting Middle East and North Africa, as I described in the previous chapter.
Islamic armies, imbued with what Mohammed claimed was divine authorization, imposed Islam by force over vast areas, all the while extorting wealth from subjugated Jews and Christians to fund their ongoing conquests. As I noted, major defeats at Tours, France, in A.D. 732, and again at Vienna, Austria, in A.D. 1683, halted Islam’s attempt to take all of Europe by force. Gradually Islamic forces were forced to retreat from Europe, except for part of the Balkans. But Islam has again set its sights on a conquest of Europe and of European civilization, wherever the latter has spread to North and South America and other regions. Muslim strategists ask their followers, Why do we find in these modern times that Allah has entrusted most of the world’s oil wealth primarily to Muslim nations?
Their answer: Allah foresaw Islam’s need for funds to finance a final politico-religious victory over what Islam perceives as its ultimate enemy: Christianized Euro-American civilization. So, Islam follows Nazism, fascism and communism as the world’s latest hostile takeover aspirant.
Nazis, fascists and communists failed. Does Islam have a better chance at success? I believe it will flounder if we awaken to its threat in time; yet, if there is not adequate planned resistance, Islam does have a better chance of succeeding. Communism’s world takeover attempt was guaranteed to fail because its economic policy was naively contrary to human nature. Advocating the rubric What is mine is thine, and what is thine is mine, communism failed to see that human nature will not keep those two balanced propositions in equilibrium. Like
a female black widow spider consuming her mate, the latter part of the formula makes a meal of the former, leading to the collapse of any system based upon that formula.
In contrast, political systems do well if they can persuade people to adhere to What’s mine is mine and What’s thine is thine maxims.
Only if a strong religious incentive is added does such an idealistic formula have any long-term chance. Even then success will be spotty. But communism (and Nazism, for that matter) excluded religion. And that mistake was the final nail eventually clamping a lid on communism’s coffin. Communism, on a historical scale, perished while still in its childhood.
Islam is not repeating communism’s mistake. Mating political cunning and incredible wealth with religious zeal, Islam does have a chance to succeed and will succeed unless major parts of the Western world unite to take appropriate countermeasures. But many Western leaders, unable to believe that a mere religion could possible be a serious political threat, keep proclaiming themselves as Islam-friendly, reasoning that all religions are good-aren’t they?
A Muslim strategist in Beverly Hills, California, declared several years ago, as quoted by a friend of mine: “Now that the struggle between Western democracies and international communism is winding down, it is time for the real and final struggle to begin, and we are going to win!”
Don Richardson
Reality- "Some added examples of religion causing violence"
Hmmm...no. All you have shown is that some ppl that belong to a religion can cause violence. You have yet to show that religion itself has caused violence.
And still more evidence that religion causes violence:
the Old Testament and the god-approved atrocities:
•Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.
•Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)
•Joshua: ◦Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.
◦Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."
◦Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
◦TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.
•Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.
•Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.
•Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon
•Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes. 25,000 killed.
•1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.
•David: ◦2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.
◦2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.
◦2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.
•1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.
•2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.
•2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.
•2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans
•TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Old Testament/Torah.
The New Testament has only one major atrocity, that of god committing filicide assuming you believe in this Christian mumbo jumbo. Said atrocity should be enough to vitiate all of Christianity.
Reality- "And still more evidence that religion causes violence:"
Hmm, no....still it isn't. In the cases you cited, it was actually ordained by God. Those of the faith would remind you that all belongs to Giod and God can do as he pleases. So no...you failed.
BTW, do you think the Tanakh is factual? Why else would you cite it like it was scientific evidence if you didn't?
In the end, no matter what you copy/paste....you keep missing the point. The answer is yes, religion can prevent violence.
Only a fool would try to imply that religion prevents all violence.
Putting the kibosh/”google” on all religion and its lack of relevance to preventling violence in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
Added details available upon written request.
A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
e.g. Taoism
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
What's wrong Reality? Ran out of copy/paste that might even remotely have to do with the topic?
Soooo...now you are arguing against what? Must be nice to argue points that no one else is talking about.
As the koranic/mosque driven acts of violence, terror and horror continue:
The Muslim Conquest of India – 11th to 18th century
■"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
and the 19 million killed in the Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C by Muslims.
and more recently
1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured
1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh
2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured
3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US troops killed in action, 3,480 and 928 in non combat roles. 102,522 – 112,049 Iraqi civilians killed as of 9/16/2011/, mostly due to suicide bombers, land mines and bombs of various types, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]
5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.
6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.
7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.
8. UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.
9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.
10) – Afghanistan: US troops 1,385 killed in action, 273 killed in non-combat situations as of 09/15/2011. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror
11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.
12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.
13) The May 28, 2010 attack on a Islamic religious minority in Pakistan, which have left 98 dead,
14) Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on 21 December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the United Kingdom the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane's wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, destroying several houses and leaving a huge crater, with debris causing damage to a number of buildings nearby. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations.
15 The daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings in the terror world of Islam.
16) Bombs sent from Yemen by followers of the koran which fortunately were discovered before the bombs were detonated.
17) The killing of 58 Christians in a Catholic church in one of the latest acts of horror and terror in Iraq.
18) Moscow airport suicide bombing: 35 dead, 130 injured. January 25, 2011.
19) A Pakistani minister, who had said he was getting death threats because of his stance against the country's controversial blasphemy law, was shot and killed Wednesday, 3/2/2011
20) two American troops killed in Germany by a recently radicalized Muslim, 3/3/2011
21) the kidnapping and apparent killing of a follower of Zoraster in the dark world of Islamic Pakistan.
22) Shariatpur, Bangladesh (CNN 3/30/2011) - Hena Akhter's last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh's Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70 and died a week later.
23) "October 4, 2011, 100 die as a truck loaded with drums of fuel exploded Tuesday at the gate of compound housing several government ministries on a busy Mogadishu street. It was the deadliest single bombing carried out by the al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia since their insurgency began. "
o 24) Mon Jun 4, 2012 10:18am EDT
o
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-packed car outside a Shi'ite Muslim office in central Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 26 people and wounding more than 190 in an attack bearing the hallmarks of Iraq's al Qaeda affiliate.
The bombing on a Shi'ite religious office comes at a sensitive time, with the country's fractious Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs locked in a crisis that threatens to unravel their power-sharing deal and spill into sectarian tensions."
25) BURGAS, Bulgaria | Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:27am EDT
(Reuters) – A suicide bomber carried out an attack that killed seven people in a bus transporting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, the interior minister said on Thursday, and Israel said Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants were to blame.
26 ) September 12, 2012
U.S. AMBASSADOR KILLED
Envoy to Libya dies in rocket blast
Oh Reality...you still are not proving anything. it's not religion (which you still haven't proven) where the violence comes from
Obviously any violence came from them because they came from an arab based society. Duh.
Jim Roope asks the single most retarded question, possibly ever: "Can religion prevent violence."
no, Jim, it cannot. try reviewing history, you dolt.
who lets these people publish articles?? doesn't anyone check this crap before they post it???
seriously – you should be ashamed, Jim.
The question is a valid one. And yes (as with many things) religion can prevent violence. Does it always? No. But then again, what creed, code, science or faith has ever completely stopped violence?
"The question is a valid one."
it was an absolutely retarded and ignorant question. religion can't prevent violence – it never has – it never will.
anything predicate on ignorance and division, which religion is, cannot prevent violence – and quite often as evidenced by history, instigates and propagates violence.
in 2000 years – neither islam nor xianity have done absolutely nothing to bring peace to the planet.
all monotheistic religions are steeped in violence.
as for the strawman argument: "But then again, what creed, code, science or faith has ever completely stopped violence?" –
lol
*shaking head slowly*
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nelson Mandela
Mahatma Gandhi
Jesus Christ
I'm not sure what yea rights point is, but 3 of the 4 people listed died violently so I'm not sure how they would be proof that religion can end violence.
"it was an absolutely retarded and ignorant question. religion can't prevent violence – it never has – it never will."
Your incorrect and factless opinion has been noted.
"anything predicate on ignorance and division, which religion is, cannot prevent violence – and quite often as evidenced by history, instigates and propagates violence."
You are incorrect.
"in 2000 years – neither islam nor xianity have done absolutely nothing to bring peace to the planet."
Was that the goal of either? I think your research into those faiths are flawed.
"all monotheistic religions are steeped in violence."
And your point is what? I think you are very confused over the point of the question. This question is not asking about an absolute you know.
"as for the strawman argument: "But then again, what creed, code, science or faith has ever completely stopped violence?""
Sorry, it wasn't a strawman. I simply expanded your notion...an incorrect notion that it was.
Tommy- "I'm not sure what yea rights point is, but 3 of the 4 people listed died violently so I'm not sure how they would be proof that religion can end violence."
Would you describe those ppl as violent? From their POV....their faith did not bring them to violence.