a History lesson for my atheists friends.

[Richard B Riddick]

Most are not aware that atheists and atheist leaning governments are responsible for the the majority of intolerance, oppression, bigotry, discrimination and atrocity in recent times.

Most are also not aware that wars have been fought over atheists attempting to oppress others by indoctrinating them under a pretense of forced atheism. So, yes, atheism has been responsible for beginning wars & has been a motivation for them.



I hope this encourages people to think about and research some of the things they say.

Especially atheists considering they're by far the worst offenders in saying things that have zero evidence to support them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

0. Cambodia Though the constitution of Democratic Kampuchea guaranteed the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion, it also provided that "Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden."[71] Religious people were killed in the killing fields, as the leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia's Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was razed. The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed.[72]

1. Mongolia In 1936, and especially after Japanese encroachments had given the Soviets enough reason to deploy Soviet troops in Mongolia in 1937, a whole-scale attack on the Buddhist faith began. At the same time, Soviet-style purges took place in the Communist Party and in the Mongolian army. Mongolia's leader at that time was Khorloogiin Choibalsan, a follower of Joseph Stalin who emulated many of the policies Stalin had implemented in the Soviet Union. The purges led to the almost complete eradiction of Lamaism in the country, and cost an estimated 30,000–35,000 lives.

2. North Korea North Korea's government exercises virtual total control over society and imposes state sanctioned atheism, the cult of personality of Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung, described as a political religion.[78] Although the North Korean constitution states that freedom of religion is permitted,[79] free religious activities no longer exist in North Korea as the government sponsors religious groups only to create an illusion of religious freedom.[80][81] Cardinal Nicolas Cheong Jin-suk has said that, "There's no knowledge of priests surviving persecution that came in the late forties, when 166 priests and religious were killed or kidnapped." which includes the Roman Catholic bishop of Pyongyang, Francis Hong Yong-ho.[82]

3. France During the French Revolution a society delved into the prospect of an atheist state.[17] After the Revolution, Jacques Hébert, a radical revolutionary journalist, and Anacharsis Cloots, a politician, both anticlerical and atheist, had successfully campaigned for the proclamation of the atheistic [18] Cult of Reason, which was adopted by the French Republic on November 10, 1793, though abandoned May 7, 1794 in favor of its deistic replacement as the state religion, the Cult of the Supreme Being.[19]
Cloots maintained that "Reason" and "Truth" were "supremely intolerant" and that the daylight of atheism would make the lesser lights of religious night disappear.[19] The state then further pushed its campaign of dechristianization,[20] which included removal and destruction of religious objects from places of worship and the transformation of churches into "Temples of the Goddess of Reason", culminating in a celebration of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral.[21][22][23]


Counterrevolution against the persecution rooted in the anticlerical aspects of the Revolution led to a war in the Vendée region where republicans suppressed the Catholic and royalist uprising in what some call the first modern genocide.[17][24]

4. Mexico Articles 3, 5, 24, 27, and 130 of the The Mexican Constitution of 1917 as originally enacted were anticlerical and enormously restricted religious freedoms.[26] At first the anticlerical provisions were only sporadically enforced, but when President Plutarco Elías Calles took office, he enforced the provisions strictly.[26] Calles’ Mexico has been characterized as an atheist state[27][28] and his program as being one to eradicate religion in Mexico.[29]

Due to the strict enforcement of anti-clerical laws, people in strongly Catholic areas, especially the states of Jalisco, Zacatecas, Guanajuato, Colima and Michoacán, began to oppose him, and this opposition led to the Cristero War from 1926 to 1929, which was characterized by brutal atrocities by both sides. Some Cristeros applied terrorist tactics, while the Mexican government persecuted the clergy, killing suspected Cristeros and supporters and often retaliating against innocent individuals.

5. Albania State atheism in Albania was taken to an extreme during the totalitarian regime installed after World War II, when religions, identified as imports foreign to Albanian culture, were banned altogether.[44]


The Agrarian Reform Law of August 1945 nationalized most property of religious institutions, including the estates of monasteries, orders, and dioceses. Many clergy and believers were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic priests, monks, and nuns were expelled in 1946.[45]

The clergy were publicly vilified and humiliated, their vestments taken and desecrated. More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death. The cloister of the Franciscan order in Shkodër was set on fire, which resulted in the death of four elderly monks.[45]

6. Soviet Union State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as "gosateizm",[56] and was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state V. I. Lenin put it:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[57]

Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression,and, ultimately, the elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution).[58]

From the late 1920s to the late 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Anti-religious and atheistic propaganda was implemented into every portion of soviet life, in schools, communist organizations (such as the Young Pioneer Organization), and the media. Though Lenin originally introduced the Gregorian calendar to the Soviets subsequent efforts to re-organise the week for the purposes of improving worker productivity with the introduction of the Soviet revolutionary calendar had a side-effect that a "holiday will seldom fall on Sunday" [59]

7. China Between 1900–1950, 90 percent of the population occasionally resorted to Buddhist rites or temples and 99 percent were affected by Buddhist contributions to Chinese thought and behavior[63] The People's Republic of China was established in 1949 and since then the government has been officially atheist.[64][65] For much of its early history maintained a hostile attitude toward religion which was seen as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Houses of worship, including temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use.


The Communist Party has said that religious belief and membership are incompatible. Party membership is a necessity for many high level careers and posts. That along with other official hostility makes statistical reporting on religious membership difficult. There are five recognized religions by the state: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholic Christianity, and Protestant Christianity.[66]

....

 

[Gaige]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Of course there are atheist extremists. There are extremist, flawed aspects of every religion, group and type of person out there and they're the kind that get the most flak. Radical Islamic terrorists, the apartheid regime, those priests that molested little boys, the Rwanda crisis. These examples of extremism in something that is fine in moderation are rife throughout history.

Frankly as an agnostic I tolerate and accept every religion and belief so long as it doesn't take away basic human rights. I don't need to or have any right to judge a religion. I have the right to deny assuming the mantle of such a religion as an agnostic, just like you have every right to defend your faith as a religious person. Frankly you're welcome to your faith. It's the last thing I'd ever judge someone on assuming it leaves my human rights alone.

These examples you have are examples of flawed atheists and atheist regimes, but...what are you getting at here? Isn't an atheist as entitled to believe in what they wish? Frankly a true atheist shouldn't need to feel they need to challenge every other faith. The same applies to any other religious or spiritual group. By nature most religious and non religious majorities preach acceptance. It's not a religious doctrine, it's a moral one. Religion might have its roots in morality but the majority of people here would retain their morality. This applies regardless of what we see beyond the mundane.

I could easily pull up the whole priests molesting, holy wars, excesses of a pope, sexism etc etc in religion but I choose not to. Why? Because, and I can't say this enough. These aren't religious flaws. They're human flaws. We as humans are inherently flawed, some moreso than others. What we see happening as it is disguised behind pretenses of faith and sectarianism is just humans showing their greatest flaws and hiding it behind a mask. Yes, that counts for oppressive atheists as well.

Why in the world would anyone judge someone based on faith? We have what they show to the world and the people within it to judge them on. I don't give a damn what God they worship. I care how they display themselves. Atheists and their violent campaigns, religious zealots and their violent campaigns, it's all humans being flawed. That's literally all there is to it.

And frankly, your post is just overtly preaching hate towards atheism. Congrats. This isn't even religious debate. It's just atheism centered bashing. :dave: Replying to perceived discrimination with overt discrimination isn't very endearing you know.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Of course there are atheist extremists. There are extremist, flawed aspects of every religion, group and type of person out there and they're the kind that get the most flak. Radical Islamic terrorists, the apartheid regime, those priests that molested little boys, the Rwanda crisis. These examples of extremism in something that is fine in moderation are rife throughout history.

The term 'extremist' implies a fringe minority.

Considering its quite possible that at least half of the countries which have had atheist leaning dominant political parties devolve into these type of intolerant and inhumane societies, I'm not certain you can call it an extremist movement.

Justify why these examples should be considered extremist or minority issues and not representative of atheism at large.

In case that doesn't make sense, I'll clarify.

Let's say there have been 10 countries in history that had atheist leaning governments. And, let's say that 7 of those 10 countries all devolved into inhumane, oppressive and intolerant societies.

You can't be apologetic and call it a fringe movement. Its representative of a majority not a minority.

Therefore, calling it a fringe movement and being apologetic would likely be indicative of your personal bias and prejudice twisting facts and reality to suit some pre-conceived notion that you have.

Frankly as an agnostic I tolerate and accept every religion and belief so long as it doesn't take away basic human rights. I don't need to or have any right to judge a religion. I have the right to deny assuming the mantle of such a religion as an agnostic, just like you have every right to defend your faith as a religious person. Frankly you're welcome to your faith. It's the last thing I'd ever judge someone on assuming it leaves my human rights alone.

I don't believe you're agnostic.

Everything you say and the way you approach things is virtually identical to atheists I've dealt with in the past.

1. Have you ever thought about how impossible it is for a religion that preaches love and tolerance to be a method by which people lose basic human rights? Suggesting such a thing is possible may be indicative of bias on your part.

2. Whether you realize it or not, based on the above a person could make the case that atheism is the greatest threat to a person's faith and human rights than anything else on this planet. Your personal bias is showing in that you're unwilling to admit that atheism and state sanctioned atheism can be dangers to human rights and a person's right to choose their faith.

These examples you have are examples of flawed atheists and atheist regimes, but...what are you getting at here? Isn't an atheist as entitled to believe in what they wish? Frankly a true atheist shouldn't need to feel they need to challenge every other faith. The same applies to any other religious or spiritual group. By nature most religious and non religious majorities preach acceptance. It's not a religious doctrine, it's a moral one. Religion might have its roots in morality but the majority of people here would retain their morality. This applies regardless of what we see beyond the mundane.

Your tendency to go off tangent, bring up completely unrelated things and quote the topic out of context are all things I've seen a lot of atheists do.

1. No one said atheists weren't entitled to choose their beliefs. A right to choose belief also does not condone the type of intolerance and oppression atheist sanctioned governments are guilty of. Why bring up things that are completely irrelevent?

2. If you recognize the difference between atheists challenging faith and atheists being oppressive and forcing everyone to believe in atheism as they strip away a person's right to choose their religion, why would you think challenging faith is relevent here?

3. Acceptance can be a moral and religious doctrine. Saying it isn't a religious doctrine may well show your personal prejudice against religion.

4. So, anyway, you might call yourself an "agnostic" but everything you say is exactly the same things that I've heard from atheists.

5. I'm not convinced atheists can be as moral as religious people. I've known a lot of atheists who were absolute shit. That's not bashing, btw. Call it a personal observation.

I could easily pull up the whole priests molesting, holy wars, excesses of a pope, sexism etc etc in religion but I choose not to. Why? Because, and I can't say this enough. These aren't religious flaws. They're human flaws. We as humans are inherently flawed, some moreso than others. What we see happening as it is disguised behind pretenses of faith and sectarianism is just humans showing their greatest flaws and hiding it behind a mask. Yes, that counts for oppressive atheists as well.

That is an extremely bad argument.

Why do people criticize republicans? Why do people criticize religion in government? Why do people criticize Ron Paul, Romney and others?

If talking about human flaws is pointless, why do people do it?

Your double standard is showing. When people criticize things & individuals you personally dislike I bet you embrace it. Where were you when people on this forum were criticizing me? You could have said that it didn't matter what I said because I was human and humans make mistakes, but you did the complete opposite. Hence you showed exactly what type of person you are and how what you're saying here is quite hypocritical.

Also, it shows that your double standard. When people criticize atheism you're apologetic and say: "well, everyone makes mistakes".

But, when people criticize other things I bet you're the first person to hop on the bandwagon and bash away.

So tell me, what's the point in you saying these empty words you obviously have no conviction nor belief in?

Why in the world would anyone judge someone based on faith? We have what they show to the world and the people within it to judge them on. I don't give a damn what God they worship. I care how they display themselves. Atheists and their violent campaigns, religious zealots and their violent campaigns, it's all humans being flawed. That's literally all there is to it.

Why would anyone judge someone based on faith?

Unless you live under a rock you might realize people judge others based on faith all the time. They judge over appearance, the type of music you listen to and your political affiliation as well as other things.

Usually when I see atheists they're often trying to pretend their faith is superior to that of theists. You can see it in the Coexistence thread in this section. Atheists try to pretend atheism has never been a cause of oppression, intolerance or war. Why? Because they follow people like Richard Dawkins in blind faith and believe every word they say without questioning the doctrine behind it.

It seems strange to me that Stalin can be one of the most tyrannical, inhumane and intolerant people of all time & George Bush will receive more criticism than Stalin does. There is a double standard present in terms of the media demonizing religion and ignoring many of the negatives committed by atheists.

So, yes, this post does in fact serve a purpose why would you pretend that it didn't?

And frankly, your post is just overtly preaching hate towards atheism. Congrats. This isn't even religious debate. It's just atheism centered bashing. :dave: Replying to perceived discrimination with overt discrimination isn't very endearing you know.

Your bias & prejudice is showing in that you refuse to differentiate between a historical narrative and atheism bashing.

I could have made this post anytime since I joined. If you cared about accuracy & knew anything about me you might realize this is me making zero effort to bash atheism.

I'm only posting this because Conor @Frank Fontaine criticized me for "not making debate threads". And, because Conor said that atheism has never been a cause for war in the coexistence thread. This isn't an unprovoked atheism post, Conor asked for it and its in response to something he said.

 

[Will Graham]

Most are not aware that atheists and atheist leaning governments are responsible for the the majority of intolerance, oppression, bigotry, discrimination and atrocity in recent times.

Most are also not aware that wars have been fought over atheists attempting to oppress others by indoctrinating them under a pretense of forced atheism. So, yes, atheism has been responsible for beginning wars & has been a motivation for them.



I hope this encourages people to think about and research some of the things they say.

Especially atheists considering they're by far the worst offenders in saying things that have zero evidence to support them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

0. Cambodia Though the constitution of Democratic Kampuchea guaranteed the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion, it also provided that "Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden."[71] Religious people were killed in the killing fields, as the leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia's Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was razed. The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed.[72]

1. Mongolia In 1936, and especially after Japanese encroachments had given the Soviets enough reason to deploy Soviet troops in Mongolia in 1937, a whole-scale attack on the Buddhist faith began. At the same time, Soviet-style purges took place in the Communist Party and in the Mongolian army. Mongolia's leader at that time was Khorloogiin Choibalsan, a follower of Joseph Stalin who emulated many of the policies Stalin had implemented in the Soviet Union. The purges led to the almost complete eradiction of Lamaism in the country, and cost an estimated 30,000–35,000 lives.

2. North Korea North Korea's government exercises virtual total control over society and imposes state sanctioned atheism, the cult of personality of Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung, described as a political religion.[78] Although the North Korean constitution states that freedom of religion is permitted,[79] free religious activities no longer exist in North Korea as the government sponsors religious groups only to create an illusion of religious freedom.[80][81] Cardinal Nicolas Cheong Jin-suk has said that, "There's no knowledge of priests surviving persecution that came in the late forties, when 166 priests and religious were killed or kidnapped." which includes the Roman Catholic bishop of Pyongyang, Francis Hong Yong-ho.[82]


....

I have only read through the first three so far because it's late, but this shan't take long. All of those three involve purported atheists doing terrible things, however they do not even mention in passing that they committed these atrocities in the name of atheism. I have never said atheists did not do bad things, simply that know wars had been waged in the name of atheism. Also considering Pol Pot believed providence wanted him to lead Cambodia, and the Kim-Jongs are effectively gods to their people, I am not sure they were the best choices

 

[The Master]

No one in the history of EVER has killed/waged war with someone over who doesn't believe in God/a God more...
Religion and greed are the base of most/all wars. It's very sick actually.

 

[The Master]

Can't really make out your sentence (too tired atm), but from what I understand, you're saying atheists have never waged war?

Incorrect, I said atheists/no one has ever waged war over who doesnt believe in God/a God the most. However, people have waged war and converted people to their God/Gods. Even though some people have the same God/gods they fight over who's word of their higher-up is the correct word. Please try not to debate when you are tired.

 

[Shinra Executive]

No one in the history of EVER has killed/waged war with someone over who doesn't believe in God/a God more...
Religion and greed are the base of most/all wars. It's very sick actually.

Religion is a very potent thing. Take Christianity for example- it has an extremely powerful driving force.
In the first centuries, Christians started to become prevalent among the poor in Rome. The Roman empire was the most powerful and modern civilization during the time, and yet it still fell to Christianity. Christians were persecuted, and it only quickened the religion. Eventually, Rome went from paganism to a complete state of Christendom.

Over the next few centuries, Christianity had become prevalent through all of the west and north. The European natives who battled with Rome converted as a result of their loss, and even when Rome fell, the Christian state only grew.
Almost everybody in the past were religious. There was, and still is, no alternative explanation to why we exist.

The belief in a deity has little to do with war, however. It has always been the same cause- politics and expansion. Religion is secondary. If you say atheism is innocent, then you have a flaw in your logic- who invented religion in the first place? Was it not atheists themselves?
It's easy to go and scapegoat on religion rather then accepting the fact that people simply do anything to propel their agendas. You should marinate on that.

 

[SiderealPassing]

None of those countries committed their atrocities in the name of atheism. The Soviet Union, socialist Albania, and North Korea operate(d) under their respective ideals (i.e. Marxism-Leninism, Juche, etc.). The very foundation of those ideologies are built on totalitarian command economics which has proven time and time again throughout history to cause atrocities of varying degrees. It has nothing to do with atheism. A non-belief can't be a guiding force the way religion can because it isn't a belief system. What does an "atheist" state teach its citizens when atheism doesn't have any teachings? There are always other matters at hand.

That being said, it's easy to look at Marxism-Leninism as a form of religion. It's a way of telling people that a certain way of doing things is the right way. It's pretty ironic how atheism got in bed with Marxism because the two heavily contradict each other. A selfless Utopia where everyone works together in harmony sounds pretty Jesus-like don't you think? A state shoving an all-powerful, all-encompassing, idea about the way they think society should be is religion, not atheism.

But I digress. It's outrageously silly to say that atheism is the leading cause of those atrocities, much less that it is the cause of the MAJORITY of recent discrimination and bigotry. Even if you could blame atheism, most of those countries you mentioned barely enforced it. It was a minuscule detail among much more pressing issues for the state to take care of than stamping out religion. The only exception I can think of is socialist Albania.

But really though. For the sake of argument, let's say that these countries were following some kind of "atheist doctrine". Do you honestly think that it competes with the countless human atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion throughout history and continuing to this day?

 

[Marquis of Granby]

recognising that riddick and shinra are no longer with us i wouldn't want to make my point (which i've made before) too sharp as i won't be getting a response from either of them. atheism isn't a religion or a belief system anymore than aunicornism is. there is no big book of atheist rules or an atheist doctrine to follow. if someone says they are an atheist all it means is that they do not hold a belief in a god. if you are monotheistic that just means they believe in one less god than you. that is all it says about them. the proponents of those regimes mentioned may well have been atheists (and that isn't really relevant) but the regimes themselves are not. they are based on ideologies and atheism is not an ideology, it is just the lack of belief in a god. it doesn't necessarily follow that someone who lacks a belief in god would commit genocide or oppress any particular group or have any urge to do those things. here i am not killing jews, christians, muslims or buddhists. i'm not killing anyone.
ShinRa's post: yes religion is very potent. given that christianity has kept and continues to keep poor people very poor and uneducated i'm not so sure that is necessarily something for christians to be proud of.

some people are unpleasant enough as it is without being encouraged further by thoroughly unpleasant holy books, dogma and harmful ideologies.

 

[asm]

I think the OP, while banned, makes a really good and interesting point.

I guess now all that is missing, is him searching for atheists that irregardless of political beliefs such as communism, are opting for an atheistic state where atheism is enforced as a mandatory (un)belief system.

Good luck with that one.

 

[Ultimaja]

I think the OP, while banned, makes a really good and interesting point.

I guess now all that is missing, is him searching for atheists that irregardless of political beliefs such as communism, are opting for an atheistic state where atheism is enforced as a mandatory (un)belief system.

Good luck with that one.

Atheist society has done nothing but attack religion. They have ridiculed it, have tried to prove it wrong, and have attempted to conform laws and culture itself into one completely cleansed of religion.
What happens when a person speaks publicly of their religious beliefs and principles, if not shot down and shamed?

A little study on history can tell exactly what will happen. It will either be illegal to practice and promote religion, or there will be a revolution. This is how the world has always worked, and it's not going to change. People today seriously need to brush up on history, especially the UK. The UK has gotten pretty much obliviously retarded to any notion whatsoever that history repeats itself- like in the future religious or traditional revolutionaries aren't gonna wreck shop on their recent moral grandstanding.

 

[Shenorai]

Atheist society has done nothing but attack religion. They have ridiculed it, have tried to prove it wrong, and have attempted to conform laws and culture itself into one completely cleansed of religion.
What happens when a person speaks publicly of their religious beliefs and principles, if not shot down and shamed?

Every major religion is guilty of doing exactly the same thing to those who are not in their clique. Crusades and such.

A little study on history can tell exactly what will happen. It will either be illegal to practice and promote religion, or there will be a revolution. This is how the world has always worked, and it's not going to change. People today seriously need to brush up on history, especially the UK. The UK has gotten pretty much obliviously retarded to any notion whatsoever that history repeats itself- like in the future religious or traditional revolutionaries aren't gonna wreck shop on their recent moral grandstanding.

Yeah, no.

The major issue with the current major religions is they discourage change. They discourage free thinking. They instill fear into those within their flock by warning them of what may or may not be outside of their chapel walls instead of keeping them together with compassion and understanding.

If religions were allowed to grow and evolve, I imagine we actually would have something great to look forward to on Sabbath days or whatever you wish to call your day of gathering. But no. That growth is stunted by the very people who lead the said religions. The ones who would indoctrinate intolerance of those who do not follow their ways and encourage their followers to harbor hate toward all who are not a part of their church. Ones who do not realize that the books they rely on were meant for the era they were written in, not the era of today.

It's a sad state of things, really.

 

[Ultimaja]

Every major religion is guilty of doing exactly the same thing to those who are not in their clique. Crusades and such.

Yeah, no.

The major issue with the current major religions is they discourage change. They discourage free thinking. They instill fear into those within their flock by warning them of what may or may not be outside of their chapel walls instead of keeping them together with compassion and understanding.

If religions were allowed to grow and evolve, I imagine we actually would have something great to look forward to on Sabbath days or whatever you wish to call your day of gathering. But no. That growth is stunted by the very people who lead the said religions. The ones who would indoctrinate intolerance of those who do not follow their ways and encourage their followers to harbor hate toward all who are not a part of their church. Ones who do not realize that the books they rely on were meant for the era they were written in, not the era of today.

It's a sad state of things, really.

Let me run this past you. Suppose religion is all made up- who invented it?

By atheist's own argument, they propel the obvious notion that nobody is born religious. Therefore, when you speak of an enemy, you're really referencing atheists themselves, not the religions they made up.

If humans conjured up religion to conform others, then how is a conjuration an enemy?
Well, I suppose since secular society has taken to blaming guns rather then there selves and their culprits, I imagine that should be a difficult question to answer.

The era of today is nothing better then it ever has been in the past. Where there were religious inquisitions, there are now ruthless oil wars. Where religious society were just looking for prosperity and calling it a holy war, oil blood money is imply called spreading democracy.

A 'new era' has no meaning, and therefore what and what isn't subject as a moral or governmental palette is a completely open game for anybody. The difference is that atheists labor under the delusion that the world is so different and superior, when really it's just a facade.
Atheists have painted religion to be some fairytale, but they fail to understand that religion is a mighty force which has ruled over humans despite every single attempt at change.

A few decades is not enough to even think it reasonable or even possible that this era is some sort of end to religious prominence, and atheists need to realize that they are being extraordinarily arrogant and ignorant toward the scales of mankind. Where you think so much progress has been made over the past fifty years, there is a dominating force of human nature that is going to show just how tiny and inept that progress is.

It's like I said, the entire secular argument is built on a supreme lack of historical accountability. Intolerance is part of having a set of beliefs. You're completely tolerant, so long as others completely agree with you. The tolerance argument basically collapses in on itself.

 

[Shenorai]

*cracks knuckles* All right. Let's feed this thing for a bit, then.

Let me run this past you. Suppose religion is all made up- who invented it?

Various clan leaders who, at the time, needed a way to control large groups of people. People who had little understanding of the world and would basically eat up any sort of half-assed reasoning behind one's fortunes/misfortunes.

They did this by creating an entity/several entities that no one is able to easily see and claim that this is the force that awards the obedient and punishes the disobedient. When you have a group of people who scare easy and would do anything to make sure their family is fed and kept in a warm shelter at the end of every grueling day, they tend to eat up this sort of thing.

This same reasoning is also why it's far easier to teach religion to children compared to young teens/adults in this day and age: The teens have grown beyond the age of reason.

By atheist's own argument, they propel the obvious notion that nobody is born religious. Therefore, when you speak of an enemy, you're really referencing atheists themselves, not the religions they made up.

No, you are simply setting up the idea that all atheists are 'the enemy' by default. Atheism IS a religion all on its own. They just do not recognize the entity commonly known as 'god'. By denouncing Atheists, you are basically just trying to bash the people as a group, not as an individual.

Now stop that. You're making a fool of yourself.

If humans conjured up religion to conform others, then how is a conjuration an enemy?
Well, I suppose since secular society has taken to blaming guns rather then there selves and their culprits, I imagine that should be a difficult question to answer.

The era of today is nothing better then it ever has been in the past. Where there were religious inquisitions, there are now ruthless oil wars. Where religious society were just looking for prosperity and calling it a holy war, oil blood money is imply called spreading democracy.

This is called 'Scapegoating'. Instead of looking at the actual problem, you are instead shifting the problems onto other things and blaming them instead. This is irrelevant to the conversation.

A 'new era' has no meaning, and therefore what and what isn't subject as a moral or governmental palette is a completely open game for anybody. The difference is that atheists labor under the delusion that the world is so different and superior, when really it's just a facade.
Atheists have painted religion to be some fairytale, but they fail to understand that religion is a mighty force which has ruled over humans despite every single attempt at change.

See previous statement regarding leaders and control. The quest for control hasn't changed, but the times certainly have. The general goals may be the same, but they now require a far different approach to meet those goals. Very long and tedious approaches, due to the fact that people these days aren't as easily swayed by the phrase, "_____ condemns all those who ____", but a different approach nonetheless.

A few decades is not enough to even think it reasonable or even possible that this era is some sort of end to religious prominence, and atheists need to realize that they are being extraordinarily arrogant and ignorant toward the scales of mankind. Where you think so much progress has been made over the past fifty years, there is a dominating force of human nature that is going to show just how tiny and inept that progress is.

The Atheists aren't the problem. The problem lies in the fact that humans as a whole do not know how to agree to disagree and just move along their way. Instead, they are informed that difference in thought, race, gender, sexuality, etc. is bad and thus it must be shunned. Religion was always a distraction from one's daily trials of survival. These days, it's becoming more of a problem than anyone cares to pay attention to.

It's like I said, the entire secular argument is built on a supreme lack of historical accountability. Intolerance is part of having a set of beliefs. You're completely tolerant, so long as others completely agree with you. The tolerance argument basically collapses in on itself.

That doesn't even make any bloody sense. Intolerance suggests that you are unable to accept something that differs from what you consider the norm. It doesn't matter if there are others who agree with you.

On that note, you appear to be very intolerant of Atheism as a whole. Why is this?

 

[Ultimaja]

*cracks knuckles* All right. Let's feed this thing for a bit, then.

Various clan leaders who, at the time, needed a way to control large groups of people. People who had little understanding of the world and would basically eat up any sort of half-assed reasoning behind one's fortunes/misfortunes.

Well, that's sort of presumptuous. The earliest literary history goes back to the Sumerians, who believed in alien forces (angels and demons) and a monotheistic belief; God.
You don't really know what they witnessed or why they believed in these things, but one thing you should know is that their god, the earliest god known to exist in human history, is the same god that Abraham would eventually be sought after.
In other words, it's the same God that people believe in today.

Nothing in the history of this god has ever given an implication that he was made up to suffice as an answer of explaining people's misfortunes and such. However, there is much in that he exists in giving power to the virtuous and the oppressed. Atheists assume that God was made to explain the world; this even comes out the mouths of esteemed atheist like Hawking. But that is not really the case- belief in God has always been an instrument of justice over an explanation of why we exist. Him being the reason why we exist is just, inevitably, part of the package.

They did this by creating an entity/several entities that no one is able to easily see and claim that this is the force that awards the obedient and punishes the disobedient. When you have a group of people who scare easy and would do anything to make sure their family is fed and kept in a warm shelter at the end of every grueling day, they tend to eat up this sort of thing.

This same reasoning is also why it's far easier to teach religion to children compared to young teens/adults in this day and age: The teens have grown beyond the age of reason.

Tribes cared about their kinsmen, it's all they had. It wasn't some common practice to scare people into conformity among tribes, because there simply wasn't enough ana to do so. They all saw and did the same things, there weren't good resources for much imagination. This is different from mainline civilizations, such as Egypt, but tribes? No-
with Abraham, for example, a lot of his people simply up and left, not believing in his god. He didn't, and couldn't, force them to believe anything.

No, you are simply setting up the idea that all atheists are 'the enemy' by default. Atheism IS a religion all on its own. They just do not recognize the entity commonly known as 'god'. By denouncing Atheists, you are basically just trying to bash the people as a group, not as an individual.

I'm setting up the idea, which is the truth no matter how one perceives it, that mankind is it's own enemy, and no amount of being atheist or religious really dismisses accountability.
And that is what atheists try to do, despite their recurring bashes on religion. They are the one's that presume that religion is the enemy and take no accountability, even though their own notion is that religion was, inevitably, created by atheists themselves.

Deducing that is opening a door to a much bigger perspective. How can you blame religion for anything if it isn't even real?
But humans are very real, and can be unanimously blamed for everything. Funny enough, the Bible holds to that- that is to say, ancient, ignorant people as you see them as had a better perspective then today's own, allegedly superior observation of world society.

The Atheists aren't the problem. The problem lies in the fact that humans as a whole do not know how to agree to disagree and just move along their way. Instead, they are informed that difference in thought, race, gender, sexuality, etc. is bad and thus it must be shunned. Religion was always a distraction from one's daily trials of survival. These days, it's becoming more of a problem than anyone cares to pay attention to.

If you took all the vanity out of the 1st world, it would be just as religious as it always used to be. Take away all the distractions from one's daily life, and you are left with nothing more then an observance of good and wicked acts done among others and a completely unacceptable idea that we came from nothing.
In reality, secularism is a technological construct. It's not even really a foundational setting of man.

That doesn't even make any bloody sense. Intolerance suggests that you are unable to accept something that differs from what you consider the norm. It doesn't matter if there are others who agree with you.

It makes plenty of sense. If you accept something as just, you are intolerant of the contrary. It's simplicity itself, tolerance and intolerance are moot words on this subject, you're really just usurping an idea that what you tolerate is just. I could do the same, and that makes it completely irrelevant.

On that note, you appear to be very intolerant of Atheism as a whole. Why is this?

Because there is more then enough intolerance to the contrary, with a supreme irony attached for all it's grandeur:
without a foundation, there is nothing to build upon. And that makes atheism vain and worthless.

 

[Donald Trump]

What happens when a person speaks publicly of their religious beliefs and principles, if not shot down and shamed?

That's clearly ridiculous, in most countries, political leaders must comment on their religious beliefs in order to be elected. The best example is obviously America, in which candidates must be open about their religion. Those who have to defend their religion, JFK, Romney, Obama (on two counts), are not attacked by atheists, but by Protestant America. It's also a major issue in many other countries.
The idea that there's some kind on atheist conspiracy attacking religion is equally wrong. I can't think of any major media organisation that has an atheist agenda, the closest is probably the Guardian. You do occasionally get Dickie Dawkins spouting off on twitter and he is sometimes invited on TV shows to discuss atheism and religion. However, mainstream media is at best neutral on the subject, having no particular religious agenda to push, and at worst, religious. There aren't commies under the bed, the Ruskies are not trying to reclaim Alaska, and atheists are not out to persecute the religious.

Let me run this past you. Suppose religion is all made up- who invented it?

Of course religion is made up, all concepts are, time, society, democracy, are all invented. You could possibly argue that emotions are innate, and we developed a vocabulary to express these inherent feelings, I would agree with that to a certain extent. Also I think it's likely that the earliest religions developed organically, rather than one guy coming up with the idea of their being an all powerful being, or beings, and exploiting that idea to his own gain.

By atheist's own argument, they propel the obvious notion that nobody is born religious

By this I think you mean that atheists argue that people are indoctrinated into religion. However, if that statement is to be read more literally, then we go back to the idea of inherent beliefs. Of course a belief in god is not an inherent human belief. Babies, or to use a slightly more religious definition of life, one day old foetus' are clearly incapable of believing in god.

The era of today is nothing better then it ever has been in the past. Where there were religious inquisitions, there are now ruthless oil wars. Where religious society were just looking for prosperity and calling it a holy war, oil blood money is imply called spreading democracy.

So what you're arguing is that if we eradicate religion, we'll have the same number of wars as we would have had if religion did exist. It's an argument that appeals to me, as I have a very negative view of humanity. I think it's a barren argument however, as one side says there will be fewer wars, the other side says the same amount or more. It's barren because there's no evidence on either side.

Atheists have painted religion to be some fairytale, but they fail to understand that religion is a mighty force which has ruled over humans despite every single attempt at change.

Actually that's kind of the atheist argument in a nutshell. A mighty force which has ruled over humans despite every single attempt at change. Doesn't sound a very positive thing does it?

Where you think so much progress has been made over the past fifty years, there is a dominating force of human nature that is going to show just how tiny and inept that progress is.

Oh dear, is religion going to overturn Obamacare, destroy the Welfare State, and destroy all copies of the Wire. I hope not.

It's like I said, the entire secular argument is built on a supreme lack of historical accountability.

Atheists tend to be more historically informed than religious people. Which is the group of people that believes that the Earth is only 10,000 years old?

 

[Ultimaja]

That's clearly ridiculous, in most countries, political leaders must comment on their religious beliefs in order to be elected. The best example is obviously America, in which candidates must be open about their religion. Those who have to defend their religion, JFK, Romney, Obama (on two counts), are not attacked by atheists, but by Protestant America. It's also a major issue in many other countries.

You're sort of missing the point. Being Christian is not unpopular- being a Christian who is against anything period that political correctness mandates is what is unpopular. And instead of upholding the true virtues of Christianity, people are made to either revise their beliefs therein or be subjected to ridicule.

For example, the ol' UK. You can go on the telly and call yourself a Christian all day- but don't dare say something contrary to secular notions, or you're going to be called a bigot all the way from the stage to the door.
Protestant America might have been up in arms about JFK being Catholic or Obama and his, well, questionable Christian past, but consider what would have happened if either had said something not line with definitive secular ideas?

Secularism is a forceful conformity all it's own. It's no different then religion.

The idea that there's some kind on atheist conspiracy attacking religion is equally wrong. I can't think of any major media organisation that has an atheist agenda, the closest is probably the Guardian. You do occasionally get Dickie Dawkins spouting off on twitter and he is sometimes invited on TV shows to discuss atheism and religion. However, mainstream media is at best neutral on the subject, having no particular religious agenda to push, and at worst, religious. There aren't commies under the bed, the Ruskies are not trying to reclaim Alaska, and atheists are not out to persecute the religious.

Conspiracy implies secrecy. Being outspoken is pretty much the abandonment of conspiracy and the proclamation of an outright cold war. And that is exactly what is going today, it doesn't need to be self-prescribed for one to be a part of it. Every time one speaks or influences something in this recent day, they are perpetuating just that- a cold war: a war of propaganda and threatening obligations.

The media is neutral on worldviews because it is forced to be. They don't want to offend anybody, just like how atheists don't want religion to offend anybody, so they force any religious person on the media to make sure their religion doesn't.

I mean, are you starting to see the issue? Let's not get carried away with labels and namesakes that have no bearing on substance, we're living in a world where it's acceptable for someone to be called a follower of a religion, yet expected to not really even follow or rightfully reveal it's virtues.

That is the true face of atheist oppression against religion. It's not so easy to ridicule when it's put into such a clear perspective.

Atheists tend to be more historically informed than religious people. Which is the group of people that believes that the Earth is only 10,000 years old?

The Church probably has more information on pre-modern history then any other source on Earth. I'm not saying that because I'm religious, but because it's realistically the truth- she was basically the epicenter of world order since classical Rome and, being described as the very apostolic succession of St. Peter, pretty much knows everything about religion period.
It's sort of why I don't understand growing numbers of denominations within Protestantism, I mean, how far can one really fall from the tree?

But to your question, Catholicism has basically integrated evolution into it's belief. They teach it as humans being celebrants of God's creation, in the context that we were molded via evolution to be in His image and likeness.

Basically, the Church didn't fight much with Darwin. She rather just told the world that Genesis should not be taken literally. Which honestly, if the Church wasn't so paranoid about science being a rejection of Christianity in it's past, would have said a lot sooner because there was no real reason Genesis should have ever been taken literally in the first place. It was just taken for granted that it was because there was nothing to think otherwise.

Now with Protestants, there is always a debate on evolution and creation, and just like global warming, it tends to take a political slant. Many religious republicans believe the world is young, you see.

 

[Dionysos]

Sometimes I think we lose sight (/ have never had sight) of some basic observations about each other which would help us as human beings in any situation. We are all born different, in completely different places, circumstances, and bodies. This is all self-evident. As we grow up, we are taught certain things, we learn others indirectly, we may or may not question some, and we meet people, sometimes by chance, which also alters our outlook and opinions we form about the world. Bad or good things happen which shape us too. We all think differently, and in this we are all the same.

Force religion onto this in an intolerant ‘the lorde commands ye to cast out, etc etc’ sort of way and people are going to get hurt. People getting hurt is bad.

Good tolerance is an appreciation and acceptance of all people, and allowing all people the courtesy of living and being themselves even if they are different to you or hold different beliefs. It can come from an acknowledgement of the sentiments expressed in my first paragraph, perhaps.

If the Church, or even if God himself was to come down and tell us that victimising minority groups was the righteous way to act, then a group of people today might bravely stare at the face of God and say something like (or nothing like):

‘No. We have morally outgrown you, God. Do what you will with us, if you wish, but we shall not continue to be the monsters you want us to be. Some of us have improved. Our consciences are clear.’

And if God roars and the ground cracks open to reveal a slide to Hell, down there at least we’ll be reunited with many great minds and genuinely nice people who cared for other human beings. We’ll avoid the giant toad-monsters and forks as we discuss nice things together. We might even offer the hellbeasts a cup of tea and have a gentlemanly (or womanly, etc) chat. I’m sure they’d love a break since 99% of the human species (from the dawn of man upwards) may potentially be down there.

Personally, if God does exist, I imagine he is not like that, and I hope he is not like that. If he is, we’re doomed to hate each other. I put my blame, not on God (who may or may not exist – I know nothing), but on Man’s use of God, etc.

I’m not anti-religious at all. I recognise the therapeutic benefits of belief, and it can act as a moral compass (as can a philosophical system). However, there comes a time when people realise that certain aspects of religions, or perhaps their side-effects (or where people have maliciously manipulated concepts), are harmful. Unless we work on fixing them, which leads to reforming (perhaps more realistically in a personal sense, such as recognising that other people exist with different opinions, and that they aren’t evil or naughty devil-worshipers for being born into their own lives).

It’s not so much about going against the established righteous way in an aggressive no-prisoners let's party and be deliberately morally repugnant sort of way, but about improving and developing as a species. Particularly considering how globally linked a lot of us are today.
It’s easy to blame modern development, and people who lack faith, for the wrongs of the world, since religions like to think of themselves as guiding the people. I can understand this. This is not always the case, however.

Well, that's sort of presumptuous. The earliest literary history goes back to the Sumerians, who believed in alien forces (angels and demons) and a monotheistic belief; God.
You don't really know what they witnessed or why they believed in these things, but one thing you should know is that their god, the earliest god known to exist in human history, is the same god that Abraham would eventually be sought after.
In other words, it's the same God that people believe in today.

On the antiquity of God (as in the Abrahamic God or the ancestor of this concept, etc), this is not at all certain and is heavily debated by religious scholars. I concede that I don’t know much about the debates, but I know enough about them to know that it is not confirmed or even widely held that the God of our day (or even the days of the formation of the Bible) was one of Sumerian monotheism previously.

Sumerian religion was complex, including many deities. It was polytheistic. The mythology of the Near East (including Sumer) itself is interesting in including many stories which are very similar to stories which would appear in the Bible (and other mythologies and poems in the ancient world), under different names, etc, and being undoubtedly polytheistic (particularly the flood story).

Among scholars who have tried to dig into the history of God himself, there are some who claim to trace him in an early form as one of many gods, in the Canaanite pantheon, etc. Perhaps as he developed he even had a wife, Asherah, who may have been a goddess equivalent of Ishtar / Inanna / and so on, but was later dropped (or even edited out of the Bible according to some – a theory).

The truth is, we do not know. Us mortals do not have all of the answers, and 99.9% of the evidence has crumbled into dust. We are far, far, far removed. Regardless, there were many, many gods before the emergence of the deity we know as God, and in other parts of the world unaffected by / unaware of followers of God, many cults to many gods continued to / began to thrive.

To Christians / etc who would claim the gods of antiquity (or present) are false, and that the only true god is God himself, this attitude has become one of the great problems with religion. Who is to say what is right or what is wrong, considering that all people born into a community that believes otherwise is going to (by nature) believe otherwise? That leads to a belief of favouritism, in that only a select number of people know 'the truth', and this leads to intolerance, and arrogance.

 

[Ultimaja]

God is the Logos, or Logic; the ultimate principle.

Which makes it impossible for one to rightfully call Him 'evil'- being the Logos, He alone created the very idea of good and evil, what is right and wrong. Because of man's limited perspective, some have a hard time seeing it.

Atheists will commonly open up a Bible and say "hey look, He supports slavery and genocide". They will define what is righteous by their own limitation to know and see what God sees.
When you are dealing with an entity that lives outside the flow of time, existing in all stages of time simultaneously (omniscient), being limitless in power (omnipotent), the very notion that it's even possible to know a better righteousness goes right out the window.

Monotheism carries a much more potent god then those in polytheism.

On the antiquity of God (as in the Abrahamic God or the ancestor of this concept, etc), this is not at all certain and is heavily debated by religious scholars. I concede that I don’t know much about the debates, but I know enough about them to know that it is not confirmed or even widely held that the God of our day (or even the days of the formation of the Bible) was one of Sumerian monotheism previously.

Many things trace to to Babylonia and Assyria, which by extension trace to the Sumerians by the ancient's own recognizance of them.
The demon Pazuzu, for example, is among one of them, and pops up in Judaism and Islamic lore.

 

[Dionysos]

God is the Logos, or Logic; the ultimate principle.

Which makes it impossible for one to rightfully call Him 'evil'- being the Logos, He alone created the very idea of good and evil, what is right and wrong. Because of man's limited perspective, some have a hard time seeing it.

Atheists will commonly open up a Bible and say "hey look, He supports slavery and genocide". They will define what is righteous by their own limitation to know and see what God sees.
When you are dealing with an entity that lives outside the flow of time, existing in all stages of time simultaneously (omniscient), being limitless in power (omnipotent), the very notion that it's even possible to know a better righteousness goes right out the window.

Not only atheists could say that. I’m not an atheist either.

Agnostics and many religious people doubt and criticise the morality of some sections of a number of religious texts. Because the world is changing and, whilst the terrible afflictions of man (intolerance, violence, murder, etc) do remain, a reassuring number of people are against these things. And since the world is more connected today (travel-wise, communications-wise, and with the internet, etc, etc), people are in better positions to meet, and learn from, people who were born into very different circumstances than themselves, worldwide, and some people think that being born into these different lives and thinking differently is no crime or sin.

I can understand the counter-argument that God’s morals are unfathomable to man, and perhaps if he was today to call for genocide and slavery and inequality then perhaps we’ll never understand his reasoning, and it would be our failure as mere humans. However, I may be naïve, but I hope that most people on this earth today are much better than that now. Not all, but most. Or, if not most, at least a significantly larger portion of the earth’s population than in earth’s more brutal historical periods. Even though they can and do still happen, more people will be against these things than for it today. Then there is also the consideration that what is recorded in the Bible is man-written, and not directly recorded from the tongue of God (although there will be some to contest that). Therefore, who would truly know what God wanted in the first place? There’s a lot of trust involved, not just regarding God, but the man-scribed book itself. Trust and faith in positive things may be a good and healthy thing, but to also put trust in the aspects which leads to harm, hatred, and death?

These arguments that god wills such and such and we simply don’t understand why could be quite dangerous, and acting on these grounds can lead to horrific acts.

If God is Logic, and he doesn’t consider to explain his reasoning to all people, and if God’s Logos is harmful to our species or the planet, then that makes him a tyrant. But we do not know what God really wills, if he exists. We can individually believe that he wills certain things, and have faith in a variety of things connected to him, but we do not know.

Therefore I am unprepared to commit horrific acts, or hate people for the opinions they hold, or the lives they have been born into, just to adhere to what some people (not all) say God desires.

In absence of knowledge of God’s will, I think it is better for humans to do right by each other, and reduce harm. Not all people want this, and this inevitably complicates things for the rest of us, but still.

Many things trace to to Babylonia and Assyria, which by extension trace to the Sumerians by the ancient's own recognizance of them.
The demon Pazuzu, for example, is among one of them, and pops up in Judaism and Islamic lore.

Cultural transference, most plausibly. But not the concept of the sole and only God, and the God of the Bible itself.

Generally much ancient mythology and poetic ideas and narratives stemmed from the earliest Near East. A lot of Greek mythology also lends itself to be considered as an appropriation of earlier Near Eastern mythologies (i.e, compare and contrast Hesiod’s Theogony with the Babylonian Enuma Elis and Hittite / Hurrian Song of Kumarbi, etc, and the narrative similarities are fascinating).

These links are interesting, but the thing about mythological and religious appropriation is that the cultures who embrace a concept from another culture tend to reinvent them to fit their own society’s values and outlook and fit them within other, local, narratives and mythic cycles. Also, over time, all of these ideas evolve and intermingle with other ideas.

This is presumably somewhat less fluid after written canonical holy texts such as the Bible are created, but alterations, translations, and culture-relative interpretations of such texts continued also, as well as various localised religious-themed tales outside of the Bible itself.

So if we want to entertain the idea that God has been transmitted from Sumerian religion, as being the same God as the God of the Bible, then we’re sidestepping the changes over time. There was not a pure and linear transference. Gods and their characteristics and associated stories change from time to time, and culture to culture. The Biblical God is not the same as the Sumerian deities, even if his concept evolved or merged with certain ideas before being immortalised in the form we know him in the Bible. (Or if God does exist in the Biblical form, perhaps the Sumerians and many other ancient cultures misinterpreted what they saw, and that is why they did not witness the same God in a Biblical sense - but as for if this is or isn't true, it is impossible for me know).