|
|
|
|
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/28/2008 5:11:21 PM |
I indicate the contrary and submit that even as Albania's one-time leader defined the state, that no such thing exists nor has it yet existed, as no such entity as a state that has come into power purely for the purpose of promoting atheism or making atheism it's central guiding purpose has been created. From the Communist Manifest: "But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. (18) They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution." According to the writings of Karl Marx, these things are necessary for the people to realize "utopia." At the opposite end of the spectrum we have theocracies attempting to achieve "utopia" by making theism its central guiding purpose. If we can have one we can have the other irregardless of your opinion on the matter
Strawman.
Seems to me that Madfiddler is pointing out, correctly, that there has never been a body or state that has as it's main cause or "raison d'etre" to be atheistic, even in the case of Albania and how it was defined. There have been regimes where the state ideology was communism, with atheism as only one component of the entire ideology (you point this out as well in the above). Communism may include atheism as a component, but atheism does not include communism. I may be mistaken, but you seem to be equating atheism and communism, they are not the same. Madfiddler is asking about an atheist motivated state, not a communist motivated one. So again, which state has ever had at it's kernel, or as mentioned, raison d'etre, to be the advancement of atheism? I would say none. There has never been an atheististan..
They may derive them from an absolute source but not consider them absolute since there isn't a belief of an absolute Lawgiver.
There is no belief in a god, but lawgivers can be governments and/or leaders who can be the absolute source. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/28/2008 5:49:27 PM |
There is no belief in a god, but lawgivers can be governments and/or leaders who can be the absolute source.
But no atheist government/leader can claim absolute moral authority, it's just the nature of the belief (if you take my meaning). | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/28/2008 5:50:08 PM |
I did not suggest that the world would be a perfect place without religion. Just that it takes the problems we already have as a species and multiplies them. Stalin killed 20 million, because he believed they were a threat to the U.S.S.R. Not because of religion. The problems we already have as a species tends to multiply without religion.
An atheist could develop a nuclear weapon. Only a theist would believe that thermonuclear war is the final step before the glorious rapture. The A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were revenge for Pearl Harbour, and to show American might. Religion had nothing to do with it.
And as far as this whole thing about the atheist mass murderers.
For one, let's not forget that Stalin came to power by manipulating the servile population that the church created. Stalin came to power as a result of the Russian Revolution, which, if you know history, came about because of the abominable treatment of the Russian Tsars and the Nobles on the people, supported by the Russian Army, who were trained to be killers from the age of 12, and who frankly terrified the people, not because of the Church.
Second, for an atheist regime to desire the elimination of the church can only come from a despot. In other words, Stalin's sadism came from his own mind. There is no divine book telling him that what he is doing is OK. So if someone kills thousands on the basis of a "magic book", he is perfectly sane, but if someone kills millions to protect his country, he's insane?
Both atheists and theists have murdered, but only one group believed their atrocities to be sanctioned by god. It's damn hard for atheists to believe their atrocities are sanctioned by something they don't believe exists.
Don't tell me fathers in the Middle East would be participating in the honor killing of their daughters without religion. This has already been discussed on another thread
I am not a Muslim, but have many Muslim friends from many different parts of the world, none of them would consider such a thing a part of their religion.
This is not a crime caused by Islam, it's a crime committed by screwed up human beings. Msg 9 by late™, http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9102381.aspx
That is the conclusion of the posters, including the atheists. Please read the forums. You might learn something.
Don't tell me the hijackers of September 11th would have flown themselves into buildings unless they believed God would be on the other side. You mean you wouldn't, because you're a white American. These terrorists believe they have no choice but to do this, if they are to effect change, and it has changed things. Are you telling me that during WW I and WW II, when being in the front lines meant certain death and suicide, but that whoever was in the front lines had to mount the charge, because otherwise, it would have impossible to move the lines further in, and end the war, that you would have sat back and let your comrades-in-arms die for you? What kind of man are you?
Don't tell me that in 2008 we would be altering the genitals of our newborn baby boys unless we thought God wanted us to. Plenty of atheists have the snip in the states. The VAST majority of Jewish men have no problems about the fact they had the "snip", including myself. Plenty of Russians who had no belief in G-d whatsoever, who came over to Israel when the U.S.S.R. collapsed, had the "snip". Some weren't even Jewish. Next time, talk to people who've had it done, more than your ONE friend who never stops complaining about it.
Don't tell me Fred Phelps and his detestable family would protest the funerals of US soldiers with signs that say 'God Bless IED's' unless that kind of morality was plainly taught in the bible. This is what G-d has to say about those who torments widows and orphans, such as those who turn up at the funerals of US soldiers and say that they deseved to die in front of their wives and children:
Do not torment any widow or orphan. If you torment any one of them at all, that they cry out to me in anguish and pain, I will certainly hear his/her cry. My anger will be as if it was literally on fire, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will become widows and your children fatherless. Exodus 22:22-24
If there is ONE group of people that G-d REALLY has it in for, it's those who torment the widows and orphans. There is a special circle of Hell, reserved just for Fred Phelps, and his supporters.
Don't tell me there would be a frighteningly large amount of people pining to teach children junk science in the classroom without religion. What are you talking about? There are tons of people today who teach junk science, and most of them aren't religious. Heck, in my school, the religious teachers knew way more than the non-religious teachers.
Those things simply would not take place without religion. It's already happening, without religion. Your so-called civilised society is built on Christian principles that come from the Bible. The societies that still have warlords running around are the ones where the religions are much freer, and the values you espouse are being followed. But you keep self-invalidating, if that's what keeps you happy. That's called "Cognitive Dissonance", if you aren't up on science.
Don't be that daft, my friend. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/28/2008 6:10:12 PM | But no atheist government/leader can claim absolute moral authority, it's just the nature of the belief (if you take my meaning).
I would agree. My comment was concerning the source of laws. In regard to morality (morality does not necessarily derive from a god or a religious doctrine), would you say that it would be the society within the atheist state that determines morality, and thus those morals are reflected in the laws? As we know, there are some theocratic states that base their laws from religious text and what those texts ascribe as moral (sharia law comes to mind). Where would an atheistic state derive it's moral code? Ideology? Common consensus? Perhaps a mix of the two? | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/28/2008 7:12:46 PM |
Posted by A Fortiori
Communism may include atheism as a component, but atheism does not include communism. I may be mistaken, but you seem to be equating atheism and communism, they are not the same. Madfiddler is asking about an atheist motivated state, not a communist motivated one. So again, which state has ever had at it's kernel, or as mentioned, raison d'etre, to be the advancement of atheism? I would say none. There has never been an atheististan..
The point is that atheism is a necessary component for marxist Communism in the same way theism is a necessary part of a theocracy. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/28/2008 7:30:52 PM | Am I understanding the lean of many of these post correctly?
That killing people for religious reasons is wrong because many religions have anti killing morality context but killing in the name of non religion is ok because there is no morality context connected to non religion?
And that some are claiming that non religion does not kill in the name of non religion but non religion kills in the name of power, control, land, money, resource and many other reasons and it is expectable to kill for these reasons?
That the slaughter of say they American Indians would be wrong if it was done in the name of religion but is expectable if done in the name of conquest. The American Indians were not slaughtered for religious reasons though some may claim that they were slaughtered for their resources.
Just to throw in some religion into my questioning. If as what Bible instructed the Hebrews to do to those that they conquered in the land they were to inherit (destroy them all man, woman and child) there would be much less tension in the middle east these days. This applies to non religion as well unless non religion destroys religion man, woman and child there will always arise a religious movement to oppose the non religion leading to slaughter in the name of non religion and religion.
Even if non religion was to kill religion man, woman and child tomorrow or the next day there would be a faction that thought animals have rights or something or other causing a new strife among the peoples.
The only solution is tolerance of others, knowledge and respect of their beliefs and forgiveness of the ignorant. The reverse side of the coin is the complete extermination of those that do not believe as you do, and that does not work, try driving in rush hour traffic to find out how many people agree with the way you drive let alone your core beliefs. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/28/2008 7:34:05 PM |
Stalin killed 20 million, because he believed they were a threat to the U.S.S.R. Not because of religion. The problems we already have as a species tends to multiply without religion.
Wow, you really missed my point.
Did I say Stalin killed 20 million because of the church? No. I said he rose to power by taking advantage of the servility the church had hammered into generations of Russians.
The A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were revenge for Pearl Harbour, and to show American might. Religion had nothing to do with it.
Again missing the point.
For one, I never said that being an atheist is a moral pronouncement. An atheist can be a murderer, a fascist, etc.
Two, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't revenge.
I'd say that most people believe they were dropped to save mass American casualties in a ground assault.
Others would say they were dropped as a display of power to Russia.
But it's just foolish to say the US dropped nuclear weapons out of as simple a term as revenge.
So if someone kills thousands on the basis of a "magic book", he is perfectly sane, but if someone kills millions to protect his country, he's insane?
Should I continue to point out how much you miss the point or should it just be assumed from now on?
I am not saying that war is solely caused by religion. But it has directly caused countless atrocities, and the one thing I really cannot emphasize enough is how some things could ONLY be caused by religion.
Without the existence of religion, wars would indeed still be fought. But Israel and Palestine would have made peace long ago if it weren't for their religions, we'd be seeing no religious violence in Iraq, homosexuals wouldn't be persecuted here, and we wouldn't have to worry about a messianic death cult theocracy like Iran getting nuclear technology.
You see? Religion makes bad things worse in ways only it can.
It's damn hard for atheists to believe their atrocities are sanctioned by something they don't believe exists.
Keen observation. My point being that an atheist can be immoral, but of his own accord. A reverend can go on national television and blame homosexuals for terrorism and quote bible passages to back it up.
The point is that, if we're sticking to the big three monotheisms, the texts themselves are immoral.
Stop being a smartass when you aren't making sense.
It goes without saying that moderate Christians, Jews and Muslims exist. Nobody is suggesting that all religious people are psychos. Just that the texts themselves are inherently immoral and a LOT of people say that they follow them.
It seems self evident to me that any member of modern civilization who calls themselves religious has got to be knowingly or unknowingly ignoring a few parts of their holy book.
And don't for a second try and tell me that the violence done under the banner of Islam isn't coming directly from their religion.
Some examples
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)
Don't tell me they take that as a metaphor. It means what it says, it is incompatible with civilization and people truly believe it is the word of god.
You mean you wouldn't, because you're a white American.
No, I mean NOBODY would fly themselves into a building unless they believed they were going to be rewarded by god.
These terrorists believe they have no choice but to do this, if they are to effect change, and it has changed things.
So you're actually suggesting that the hijackers weren't motivated by religion?
It certainly is true that poor economic conditions help terrorism to breed, but nobody flies a plane full of innocent people into an office building to make a point unless they think there's a higher power willing them to.
Are you telling me that during WW I and WW II, when being in the front lines meant certain death and suicide, but that whoever was in the front lines had to mount the charge, because otherwise, it would have impossible to move the lines further in, and end the war, that you would have sat back and let your comrades-in-arms die for you?
COMPLETELY different.
The soldier is in open warfare. He is a uniformed soldier and he is fighting the same. He has an objective, to win the battle. He can certainly be aware of his poor odds of survival but he wants to live.
The radical Muslim is taking a plane full of unarmed civilian men, women and children and flying it into an office building. Not a military base, not a political landmark but a civilian office building. Furthermore, the whole idea is for the Muslim to die. It's half about the act for god, half about the holy reward afterwards.
What kind of man are you?
One with much better reading comprehension, debating skills and (likely) larger genitals than you. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/28/2008 11:53:28 PM | The point is that atheism is a necessary component for marxist Communism in the same way theism is a necessary part of a theocracy.
This is kind of verging on a tu quoque fallacy, if theocracy needs theism, then communism needs atheism. Of course to qualify as a theocracy, the regime must be theistic, this is the nature of theocracy. But what makes atheism such a necessary part of communism? I haven't seen anything as of yet that necessitates atheism in marxist communism.
From here:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004169/def_koma.html
1. Communism as a social movement.
In 1947 year Carl Marx founded Communist Union. However the first “real” communist party – Bolshevik Party (the one that ruled in Soviet Russia) originated few dozens of years later. Bolshevik Party was the most important of all communist parties, the head of the third International.
2. Communism as ideology.
Communist ideology had it’s basis in Marxism – Leninism. The ideology postulated equality, abolition of rulers and government, abandon of private property, justice. The communist society was believed to originate on a way of revolution. The revolution was believed to lead to transition stage between communist and capitalist country, the stage of proletariat rule called dictatorship of the proletariat.
3. Communism as a form of organization of society (in Marxist theory)
At the time, when society ruled by proletariat would be enough rich, at the time when capitalist class would no longer exist, society was believed to transform in communist one – egalitarian and justify. In that society would exist an order build on basis of intellect. According to Marxists communist society is the supreme, classless organization of society, following unavoidable breakdown of capitalist system.
At the same time communism rejects conception of freedom, law and democracy, existing in countries having democracy as a political system, proving their class origins.
No mention of the necessity to abolish religion and establish atheism.
In fact, China allows many religions to operate within it's communist society. China has been marxist/lenninist and even stalinist as well. Yet religion still exists there. As well, China and it's communism isn't about to crumble... far from it.. all this without the abolishing religion and necessitating atheism:
From here:
http://chineseculture.about.com/library/china/whitepaper/blsreligion.htm
-Buddhism has a history of 2,000 years in China. Currently China has 13,000-some Buddhist temples and about 200,000 Buddhist monks and nuns. Among them are 120,000 lamas and nuns, more than 1,700 Living Buddhas, and 3,000-some temples of Tibetan Buddhism and nearly 10,000 Bhiksu and senior monks and more than 1,600 temples of Pali Buddhism.
-Taoism, native to China, has a history of more than 1,700 years. China now has over 1,500 Taoist temples and more than 25,000 Taoist priests and nuns.
-Islam was introduced into China in the seventh century. Nowadays in China there are ten national minorities, including the Hui and Uygur, with a total population of 18 million, whose faith is Islam. Their 30,000-odd mosques are served by 40,000 Imams and Akhunds.
-Catholicism was introduced into China intermittently in the seventh century, but it had not spread widely until after the Opium War in 1840. At present, China has four million Catholics, 4,000 clergy and more than 4,600 churches and meeting houses.
-Protestantism was first brought to China in the early 19th century and spread widely after the Opium War. There are about 10 million Protestants, more than 18,000 clergy, more than 12,000 churches and 25,000-some meeting places throughout China.
Although atheism may be included in the marxist communist ideology, it isn't a necessary part, as China has shown, marxist, lenninist, and even stalinist communism can function without imposing atheism. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/29/2008 12:09:11 AM |
This is kind of verging on a tu quoque fallacy, if theocracy needs theism, then communism needs atheism. Of course to qualify as a theocracy, the regime must be theistic, this is the nature of theocracy.
No, indeed you are correct and verging is the gentle way to put it...as usual in this type of argument, we slipped over the brink from verging into what one of the mods (late, in rapier like jab of wit) has coined so deftly, "tu quoque of the playground fallacy"...to be redefined on the spot as needed as soon as the current argument begins to fail...followed by echoing cries of "neener neener neener."
 | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/29/2008 12:21:14 AM |
No, indeed you are correct and verging is the gentle way to put it...as usual in this type of argument, we slipped over the brink from verging into what one of the mods (late, in rapier like jab of wit) has coined so deftly, "tu quoque of the playground fallacy"...to be redefined on the spot as needed as soon as the current argument begins to fail...followed by echoing cries of "neener neener neener."
The irony is that rather than intelligently making a point or counterpoint, you simply said that. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 2/29/2008 2:57:49 PM |
Did I say Stalin killed 20 million because of the church? No. I said he rose to power by taking advantage of the servility the church had hammered into generations of Russians. Actually, they were afraid of the Russian army. Did you know that the Russian army was ordered to advance by as much as 30 km a day, at a minimum, and if they didn't, they would all be shot? So they did. They lost a ridiculous number of soldiers, but they did. Being in the Russian Army meant you would do what you were told, no matter how twisted and sick it was, because the punishment for disobeying a superior officer was usually death, and a painful one at that, with no court martial. It was done on the spot by your own squad. So you didn't disobey anyone who controlled the Russian Army, and neither did the soldiers in the Russian Army, and that was the Tsar. The Tsar's power base was the same as the Roman Emperors', military power.
But even so, they were not servile. You don't survive a Russian winter by being servile. If you are servile, and you are forced to live as Russians have had to, through one year, you aren't alive anymore. You really don't want to know how hard these guys are.
For one, I never said that being an atheist is a moral pronouncement. An atheist can be a murderer, a fascist, etc. By claiming that religion has multiplied issues, you imply a lack of religion would vastly decrease the number of those issues. So you are implying that anyone who has a lack of religion, such as an atheist, would be far less likely to commit any of those issues, than a person who has an attachment to religion, such as a religious person. Hence, you are claiming that religious people are far more likely to commit murder than an atheist. Hence you are claiming that most murderers are religious people, and the more religious the person, the more of a murderer they will be. Hence, 99% of extremely religious people are serial killers, and 99% of serial killers are extremely religious. Even if you took all the serial killers in America who are religious, that would still be a tiny minority of all the religious people in America. Even if you took all the serial killers in America, the majority would not be classed as extremely religious, because they don't thank G-d at each meal, and they don't all go to Church every sunday without fail. Even if you took all the islamic fundamentalists today, they would be outnumbered by the mobsters in America and the armies of the warlords right throughout Asia.
Two, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't revenge. Let's get something straight: Half of London was bombed into oblivion. It was so dangerous that most of the children in London were evacuated, and were not able to see their parents for years. Coventry was bombed almost into oblivion, so much so that there are only a few roads that survived out of the whole city. This is something that has marked and changed the British people from then on, because everyone who was under 16 during 1940-1945 was evacuated, and has issues with being away from their parents at a young age. But British people don't constantly mention it. We don't make films like Americans do about Pearl Harbour. We don't bother discussing it in anywhere near as much as Americans mention Pearl Harbour. You Americans are obsessed with Pearl Harbour. Face it.
I'd say that most people believe they were dropped to save mass American casualties in a ground assault. Don't tell me that if there was no Pearl Harbour that the Americans would have chosen to lose their superior advantage of a surprise attack by an A-bomb, when the major wars in the Middle East, in Africa, in Western Europe and in Eastern Europe had already been won, and the war in the Far East was only a matter of months away. It would be like nuking Vietnam, just to end the conflict quicker. You didn't do that.
Others would say they were dropped as a display of power to Russia. Yeah. Right. 6 months later, the Americans launch their first nuclear-powered sub. 6 months after that, so do the Russians. So in a year, the Russians have a nuclear sub and a nuclear reactor, and they already had missiles, which means they already have the capability to make nuclear missiles. Some display of power to a nation that gains the advantage in a year.
But it's just foolish to say the US dropped nuclear weapons out of as simple a term as revenge. Why? Historians say that the British carpet-bombed Dresden in retaliation for the bombings of Coventry and half of London. There are plenty of cases of revenge taken against the Native American Indians by Union Soldiers. There are plenty of cases of revenge taken by Confederate soldiers against the ravages of the Union soldiers. Why do you live in denial?
I am not saying that war is solely caused by religion. But it has directly caused countless atrocities, and the one thing I really cannot emphasize enough is how some things could ONLY be caused by religion. Like what? Thumbscrews? The Iron Maiden? Fire Ships? All used without any reason for religion.
Without the existence of religion, wars would indeed still be fought. But Israel and Palestine would have made peace long ago if it weren't for their religions, we'd be seeing no religious violence in Iraq, homosexuals wouldn't be persecuted here, and we wouldn't have to worry about a messianic death cult theocracy like Iran getting nuclear technology. Now you are showing your ignorance. Arabs and Jews have got on for many years. There has been anti-Semitism in Muslim lands, but before 1948, there was nowhere near the kind of anti-Semitism found in Europe.
The British requested the help of the Arabs against the Ottomans, who were allies with the Germans, during World War I, through T.E.Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia. The offer was that if the Arabs revolted against the Ottomans, then the Arabs would be given their own single state, which was to stretch from Aleppo in Syria, to Aden in Yemen. The British then did a U-turn and didn't give the Arabs indepdendence at all. On top, they gave Israel to the Jews, and didn't even bother to let the Arabs know. At least the Ottomans were a multi-cultural empire. Now, the Arabs would be the outsiders in a Jewish state. On top, they started moving the Jews into Areas populated by Arabs. On top, they called Allenby's taking of Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks, "the end of the Crusades", as if the Crusades had been going on for hundreds of years, and the British had taken Jerusalem from the Arab Muslims, not the Turks, and that the Arabs lost the Crusades, when they won them. It was a massive slap in the face to the Arabs. It showed the Arabs that the British never had any interest in keeping their promises. They got mad. But the British kept well away from the Arabs, unless they were heavily armed. The Arabs were majorly p*ssed off, and ended up losing their tempers and in such a hotbed of unrest, things got violent, and the Jews became the nearest group for someone to take their anger out on. The Jews complained many times to the British about these unprovoked attacks, and how it was the job of the British to police Israel and Palestine under their own Mandate. The British chose to ignore this, and basically kept away from the attacks on the Jews, only coming to arrest the survivors, the way the UK Police were reknowned for doing for many years in the UK. So there is a historical precedent for this turning a blind eye to violence on their own turf.
This ended up with the Arabs attacking Jews out of sheer frustration, and Jews defending themselves out of sheer desperation, because the law (the British authority) was an a**.
Then the British put the non-religious European Jews in charge of Israel. Remember, the Jews had gotten on with the Arabs. But that was the Jews living in Muslim lands. Thanks to the animosity of European countries to Muslim countries, there was very little connection between European Jews and Jews in Muslim lands, and they diverged culturally, in quite a substantial way. On top, the non-religious Zionists were put in charge, and the leaders in Muslim leaders were all religious. Only the Ottoman Empire and modern-day Turkey claimed to be secular states. All that, when the majority of religious Jews were not in favour of establishing their own state, and the majority of Jews just wanted to "live and let live", wherever they were.
Then, they organised the UN to give Israel its independence, by giving it a narrow strip of land, that went from the north of the south of Palestine, that made it almost impossible to defend. Then, on the day after Israel's declaration of independence, they cleared out. The exact opposite of what they did in Iraq.
The equivalent of that, would be for the North to tell the Texans in 1830 that if the Texans revolted against the Mexicans, that the North would guarantee them their independence, then once the Texans revolted and beat the Mexicans, for the North to declare that the Alamo was won by the North, and then to declare that Texas would be a state belonging to the Yankees, and then to put a group of atheists who had never had any dealings with Southerners for over a hundred years in charge of Texas, and then to declare that those Yankees were to be given a narrow strip of land stretching right across Texas, which would include Dallas and Houston, and then clear out. You are just asking for war.
The Arabs didn't do all this. The Jews didn't do all this. The British did all this, helped by the French and the Russians. Learn the history of the region.
You see? Religion makes bad things worse in ways only it can. You see? Corrupt government makes bad things worse in ways only it can.
Keen observation. My point being that an atheist can be immoral, but of his own accord. A reverend can go on national television and blame homosexuals for terrorism and quote bible passages to back it up. Atheists are immoral all the time, claiming that we are all animals, and that evolution promotes the success of the most selfish animal. Such people even blame women for being raped, because "humans are animals", and "men are biologically programmed to spread their seed", and it is the womans' problem to make sure that she is not alone with a man. There are no Biblical quotes that blame homosexuals for terrorism. There are only mis-quotes and downright lies that do this. A reverend can only go on national television and blame homosexuals for terrorism, because there is no definite requirement for people to tell the truth on TV. Most people who believe this, believe the reverend because they are used to accepting the claims of national public figures who go on TV, such as politicians, and by extension they accept reverends as well, because TV does not distinguish between political leaders and evangelists. Also, most people have not read the Bible well enough to realise that this guy is lying, and TV stations have no responsibility to present any form or the truth, or to take responsibility for what happens as a result of their broadcasts.
I'll give you an example. A few years ago, a newspaper, I think it was Italian, published extremely vitriolic false cartoons about Mohammed and Islam. The Muslims exploded. They bombed the building of the newspaper, and a few embassies. But no-one blamed the newspaper. They blamed the Muslims.
If an ex of yours spread a rumour that you a paedophile, and your house was fire-bombed, and your whole family died in that fire, no-one would hold your ex accountable. Free speech.
It goes without saying that moderate Christians, Jews and Muslims exist. Nobody is suggesting that all religious people are psychos. You can't have read the thread. I quoted the poster who holds the same views as you. Yet even he said that religion wasn't the cause.
Just that the texts themselves are inherently immoral and a LOT of people say that they follow them. Such texts are nearly always quoted out of context. Also, one quote about one religion is nearly always used as an excuse to claim that ALL religions are immoral. Both of those actions are completely mis-representational, and therefore completely immoral, according to most people.
It seems self evident to me that any member of modern civilization who calls themselves religious has got to be knowingly or unknowingly ignoring a few parts of their holy book. It seems self evident to me that any member of modern civilization who says that religion is immoral has got to be knowingly or unknowingly ignoring a few parts of their holy book.
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-) Bad move, mate. I looked this up. I am not a Muslim, nor do I know Arabic. So I would have great problems in translating from the original, which means that I am reliant on translations, which as you know, are prone to being translated incorrectly. But here is a source I thought you might find interesting:
Verse 2:190
Yusuf Ali: Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.
Zohurul Hoque: And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight with you, but do not transgress. Certainly Allah does not love the aggressors.
T. J. Irving: Fight those who fight against you along God's way, yet do not initiate hostilities; God does not love aggressors.
T.U. Hilali-M. Khan: And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36)].
M. Pickthall: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
M.H. Shakir: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
Verse 2:191
Yusuf Ali: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
Zohurul Hoque: And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for, persecution is worse than killing. But do not fight with them near the Sacred Masjid unless they fight with you therein; but if they fight with you, then fight with them. Such is the reward of the Unbelievers.
T. J. Irving: Kill them wherever you may catch them, and expel the from anywhere they may have expelled you. Sedition is more serious than killing! Yet do not fight them at the Hallowed Mosque unless the fight you there. If they should fight you, then fight them back; such is the reward for disbelievers.
T.U. Hilali-M. Khan: And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
M. Pickthall: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
M.H. Shakir: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
Verse 2:192
Yusuf Ali: But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Zohurul Hoque: But if they desist, then Allah is indeed most Forgiving, most Rewarding.
T. J. Irving: However if they stop, God will be forgiving, Merciful.
T.U. Hilali-M. Khan: But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
M. Pickthall: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
M.H. Shakir: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Verse 2:193
Yusuf Ali: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
Zohurul Hoque: And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostilities except against the unjust.
T. J. Irving: Fight them until there is no more subversion and [all] religion belongs to God. If they stop, let there be no [more] hostility except toward wrongdoers.
T.U. Hilali-M. Khan: And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
M. Pickthall: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
M.H. Shakir: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. http://www.qurantoday.com/BaqSec24.htm
That's from the Surah Al Baqarah, Chapter 2, Verse 190-193. The very same thing you referenced. Notice that alll of the translations bear some relation to the one you quoted, but give a completely different viewpoint.
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-) I cannot quote from the same source, because that source doesn't list Chapter 4. But here is another source:
[4:103] Once you complete your Contact Prayer (Salat), you shall remember GOD while standing, sitting, or lying down. Once the war is over, you shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat); the Contact Prayers (Salat) are decreed for the believers at specific times.
[4:104] Do not waver in pursuing the enemy. If you suffer, they also suffer. However, you expect from GOD what they never expect. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise. http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm
It is obvious that your research is geared to mis-represent the Koran. What is clear is that you are not alone in this mis-representation.
No, I mean NOBODY would fly themselves into a building unless they believed they were going to be rewarded by god. So when the Japanese Kamikaze pilots flew into aircraft carriers, they believed that they would be rewarded by G-d, and not because it was their duty? I suppose that you are going to that when Randy Quaid flew into the big alien ship in "Independence Day", everyone who watched that film believed that he did it to be rewarded by G-d, and not to save the world? No? But according to you, no-one would do such a thing unless they believed they would be rewarded by G-d. So how could they believe it of a character in a film, if they believe that no-one would ever do that in a million years?
So you're actually suggesting that the hijackers weren't motivated by religion? Bin Laden has gone on a video, saying that he wants Americans to stop meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs. Where are Americans in the Middle East? In Iraq. Why is that a problem? Because has lots of oil, and most of it is being sold at a very cheap price to Americans. That's theft, of the one thing that can help rebuild their country and save the lives of the poor and dying. That's murder.
It certainly is true that poor economic conditions help terrorism to breed, but nobody flies a plane full of innocent people into an office building to make a point unless they think there's a higher power willing them to. According to your argument, if you were doing it for G-d, but absolutely no point would be made, then it would still be a reason. No-one flies a plane full of innocent people into an office building to make a point unless it's to make that point. Stop taking what's not yours. Stop taking the very thing that can save the lives of their family, friends, and people.
The soldier is in open warfare. He is a uniformed soldier and he is fighting the same. The soldier is in open warfare, even if the war is the point of the battle is genocide, or money, or power, or to take land away fron innocent people.
He can certainly be aware of his poor odds of survival but he wants to live. On the front line, your odds of surviving in World War I was ridiculously low, so low that you could not bet on living. He may want to live, but the only way would be to run and desert your comrades. It's called self-sacrifice.
The radical Muslim is taking a plane full of unarmed civilian men, women and children and flying it into an office building. Not a military base, not a political landmark but a civilian office building. The Muslim is going after the civilians because the American military don't launch forces into places like Iraq unless they have vastly superior odds. The American military has not fought a war on equal terms since World War II. They don't want to, because they might lose. But fighting on unequal terms, is like fighting with a gun or a knife against an unarmed man. In law, that's assault with excessive violence. If the man dies, it's murder, in the first-degree. So what do you do when you are fighting for the lives of your people, to not have the thing that can provide them with food and shelter be taken away from them, and the person taking it away, always makes sure he has unimaginable odds against you? You attack him at his weakest point. You are in a WAR. Bush has said that you are in a War Against Terrorism, and a War against Iraq. The only reason why you haven't been drafted is because they don't need that many troops. If they really needed half of America to serve, you'd be drafted. So you're a reservist. Moreover, anyone who supports the soldiers in this war of theft, is helping those soldiers. That puts them in the category of providing resources, such as the supply troops and radio operators in war. That makes all Americans combatants of one form or another.
The Iraqis are fighting for their lives. If you believe different, go and explain it to them.
Furthermore, the whole idea is for the Muslim to die. It's half about the act for god, half about the holy reward afterwards. So then why do Islamic terrorists protest they don't want to die, after their suicide bombs have been disabled? It's obvious that terrorists don't want to lose their life. But they are fighting a bully, who has more weapons and more technological advances and is using that against them. When they can fight one-on-one, they do, and they did. But then the Americans avoided that, and used their vast technology of guns and bombs against them. So they used bombs. But then Americans got wise to that too. The only weapon they have left is their own lives. If you force people to do atrocity, or lose their life, some will lose their life, some will do atrocity. But if you force people to do atrocity, or lose the lives of their family, most will do atrocity.
Start learning history. You will hate being an American, and a descendant of Europeans, when you realise what Europe and American have done in this world. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 1:37:55 AM | Actually, they were afraid of the Russian army. Did you know that the Russian army was ordered to advance by as much as 30 km a day, at a minimum, and if they didn't, they would all be shot? So they did. They lost a ridiculous number of soldiers, but they did. Being in the Russian Army meant you would do what you were told, no matter how twisted and sick it was, because the punishment for disobeying a superior officer was usually death, and a painful one at that, with no court martial. It was done on the spot by your own squad. So you didn't disobey anyone who controlled the Russian Army, and neither did the soldiers in the Russian Army, and that was the Tsar. The Tsar's power base was the same as the Roman Emperors', military power.
Well I must concede your point that armies are an important part of totalitarianism but I dare say you missed mine.
But even so, they were not servile. You don't survive a Russian winter by being servile. If you are servile, and you are forced to live as Russians have had to, through one year, you aren't alive anymore. You really don't want to know how hard these guys are.
Despite what you suggest, meteorology does not affect cultural credulity.
By claiming that religion has multiplied issues, you imply a lack of religion would vastly decrease the number of those issues.
Yes I do.
I really think you still are not understanding my point about how religion makes things worse. You think you've clinched the argument by pointing out that *gasp* murder, theft and perjury would still exist without religion. Of course they would.
Because without religion far less people would believe homosexuality is immoral, there would be no Fred Phelps protesting soldiers funerals, no holy wars against small countries printing cartoons, etc.
So you are implying that anyone who has a lack of religion, such as an atheist, would be far less likely to commit any of those issues, than a person who has an attachment to religion, such as a religious person.
Not in the way you're suggesting, no.
I'm not saying that an atheist is less or more likely to commit a murder than a religious person (assuming we're talking about everyday, normal people here).
But a religious person, again allowing the assumption that they really believe it, can be preached something vile in the name of god. I'll use my above example of homosexuality. What truly believing Christian can look at
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
and not see it for what it is? It isn't a metaphor, it's an attack on homosexuality. The otherwise tolerant Christian has been manipulated by religion to view homosexuals as dirty, something that could never happen to an atheist.
Which makes the rest of that rant null.
Two, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't revenge. Let's get something straight: Half of London was bombed into oblivion. It was so dangerous that most of the children in London were evacuated, and were not able to see their parents for years. Coventry was bombed almost into oblivion, so much so that there are only a few roads that survived out of the whole city. This is something that has marked and changed the British people from then on, because everyone who was under 16 during 1940-1945 was evacuated, and has issues with being away from their parents at a young age. But British people don't constantly mention it. We don't make films like Americans do about Pearl Harbour. We don't bother discussing it in anywhere near as much as Americans mention Pearl Harbour. You Americans are obsessed with Pearl Harbour. Face it.
What the hell does the bombing of London have to do with the United States dropping bombs on Japan? If you wanted to attack what you perceive as American obsession with Pearl Harbor you should have posted it in a relevant thread.
Don't tell me that if there was no Pearl Harbour that the Americans would have chosen to lose their superior advantage of a surprise attack by an A-bomb, when the major wars in the Middle East, in Africa, in Western Europe and in Eastern Europe had already been won, and the war in the Far East was only a matter of months away. It would be like nuking Vietnam, just to end the conflict quicker. You didn't do that.
A theoretical 'what-if' universe where Pearl Harbor never happened does not concern me, nor does it have anything to do, again, with what actually happened.
Yeah. Right. 6 months later, the Americans launch their first nuclear-powered sub. 6 months after that, so do the Russians. So in a year, the Russians have a nuclear sub and a nuclear reactor, and they already had missiles, which means they already have the capability to make nuclear missiles. Some display of power to a nation that gains the advantage in a year.
What're you talking about? The bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 and the Soviets didn't test their first nuclear weapon in 1949.
But it's just foolish to say the US dropped nuclear weapons out of as simple a term as revenge. Why?
Because it's so incredibly childish and flippant. A country that would unleash two nuclear weapons out of simple, blunt revenge would never have lasted long enough to develop into a world power in the first place.
I am not saying that war is solely caused by religion. But it has directly caused countless atrocities, and the one thing I really cannot emphasize enough is how some things could ONLY be caused by religion. Like what? Thumbscrews? The Iron Maiden? Fire Ships? All used without any reason for religion.
Again the vapid observation that something bad exists outside of religion.
Without the existence of religion, wars would indeed still be fought. But Israel and Palestine would have made peace long ago if it weren't for their religions, we'd be seeing no religious violence in Iraq, homosexuals wouldn't be persecuted here, and we wouldn't have to worry about a messianic death cult theocracy like Iran getting nuclear technology. Now you are showing your ignorance. Arabs and Jews have got on for many years. There has been anti-Semitism in Muslim lands, but before 1948, there was nowhere near the kind of anti-Semitism found in Europe.
The British requested the help of the Arabs against the Ottomans, who were allies with the Germans, during World War I, through T.E.Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia. The offer was that if the Arabs revolted against the Ottomans, then the Arabs would be given their own single state, which was to stretch from Aleppo in Syria, to Aden in Yemen. The British then did a U-turn and didn't give the Arabs indepdendence at all. On top, they gave Israel to the Jews, and didn't even bother to let the Arabs know. At least the Ottomans were a multi-cultural empire. Now, the Arabs would be the outsiders in a Jewish state. On top, they started moving the Jews into Areas populated by Arabs. On top, they called Allenby's taking of Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks, "the end of the Crusades", as if the Crusades had been going on for hundreds of years, and the British had taken Jerusalem from the Arab Muslims, not the Turks, and that the Arabs lost the Crusades, when they won them. It was a massive slap in the face to the Arabs. It showed the Arabs that the British never had any interest in keeping their promises. They got mad. But the British kept well away from the Arabs, unless they were heavily armed. The Arabs were majorly p*ssed off, and ended up losing their tempers and in such a hotbed of unrest, things got violent, and the Jews became the nearest group for someone to take their anger out on. The Jews complained many times to the British about these unprovoked attacks, and how it was the job of the British to police Israel and Palestine under their own Mandate. The British chose to ignore this, and basically kept away from the attacks on the Jews, only coming to arrest the survivors, the way the UK Police were reknowned for doing for many years in the UK. So there is a historical precedent for this turning a blind eye to violence on their own turf.
This ended up with the Arabs attacking Jews out of sheer frustration, and Jews defending themselves out of sheer desperation, because the law (the British authority) was an a**.
Then the British put the non-religious European Jews in charge of Israel. Remember, the Jews had gotten on with the Arabs. But that was the Jews living in Muslim lands. Thanks to the animosity of European countries to Muslim countries, there was very little connection between European Jews and Jews in Muslim lands, and they diverged culturally, in quite a substantial way. On top, the non-religious Zionists were put in charge, and the leaders in Muslim leaders were all religious. Only the Ottoman Empire and modern-day Turkey claimed to be secular states. All that, when the majority of religious Jews were not in favour of establishing their own state, and the majority of Jews just wanted to "live and let live", wherever they were.
Then, they organised the UN to give Israel its independence, by giving it a narrow strip of land, that went from the north of the south of Palestine, that made it almost impossible to defend. Then, on the day after Israel's declaration of independence, they cleared out. The exact opposite of what they did in Iraq.
The equivalent of that, would be for the North to tell the Texans in 1830 that if the Texans revolted against the Mexicans, that the North would guarantee them their independence, then once the Texans revolted and beat the Mexicans, for the North to declare that the Alamo was won by the North, and then to declare that Texas would be a state belonging to the Yankees, and then to put a group of atheists who had never had any dealings with Southerners for over a hundred years in charge of Texas, and then to declare that those Yankees were to be given a narrow strip of land stretching right across Texas, which would include Dallas and Houston, and then clear out. You are just asking for war.
The Arabs didn't do all this. The Jews didn't do all this. The British did all this, helped by the French and the Russians. Learn the history of the region.
None of what you said contradicts my assertion that religion has made the conflict worse.
Let me first get this out of the way: don't for a second expect anybody with a brain to believe that Muslims and Jews fighting each other has nothing to do with religion.
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)
Amongst others. Those verses are not my opinion, they're not a point of view, they are factually canon in the Islamic faith.
Second of all I never said that the sole source of strife between Palestine and Israel was religion. Just that without religion peace would have been made by now. Don't ignore the teensy, tiny detail of Jerusalem being claimed by both religions.
You see? Religion makes bad things worse in ways only it can.
You see? Corrupt government makes bad things worse in ways only it can.
The big difference being corruption is something we frown upon and generally fight against wherever possible. Nobody is suggesting that some kinds of corruption are OK.
Atheists are immoral all the time, claiming that we are all animals
That isn't an immoral claim, it's a factual observation.
and that evolution promotes the success of the most selfish animal
Quite the opposite. The human species wouldn't have survived without its ingrained solidarity.
Such people even blame women for being raped, because "humans are animals", and "men are biologically programmed to spread their seed", and it is the womans' problem to make sure that she is not alone with a man
You know very well that that is not an atheist belief.
There are no Biblical quotes that blame homosexuals for terrorism.
And yet religion has allowed crackpot reverends to go on national TV and fool people into believing otherwise.
There are only mis-quotes and downright lies that do this.
Well the bible doesn't blame homosexuality for terrorism but it certainly calls it an abomination.
A reverend can only go on national television and blame homosexuals for terrorism, because there is no definite requirement for people to tell the truth on TV.
You're missing it, the vital point isn't the lie it's how many people believe the lie to be the word of god thanks to religion.
Most people who believe this, believe the reverend because they are used to accepting the claims of national public figures who go on TV, such as politicians, and by extension they accept reverends as well, because TV does not distinguish between political leaders and evangelists.
I would strongly disagree with that. Nobody who is going to buy into Jerry Falwell's BS is just a casual fan, they're a dyed in the wool Christian.
Also, most people have not read the Bible well enough to realise that this guy is lying, and TV stations have no responsibility to present any form or the truth, or to take responsibility for what happens as a result of their broadcasts.
He isn't lying, though. I am sure that every time he spewed something hateful he could find scripture to support it.
I'll give you an example. A few years ago, a newspaper, I think it was Italian, published extremely vitriolic false cartoons about Mohammed and Islam. The Muslims exploded. They bombed the building of the newspaper, and a few embassies. But no-one blamed the newspaper. They blamed the Muslims.
As they damn well should have! I assume you're talking about the incident in Denmark.
For one, the cartoons were certainly nothing to get offended by, let alone protest.
Violence and jihad are unacceptable responses to political satire and no free society should tolerate it. We don't suspend our freedom of speech for a group of barbarians. And if it takes our troops to defeat that kind of mentality then we should be very proud.
Such texts are nearly always quoted out of context.
That doesn't mean I can't give you plenty of in context verses that are less than admirable.
Also, one quote about one religion is nearly always used as an excuse to claim that ALL religions are immoral.
Of course supplying something shameful from the Christian bible doesn't affect Judaism, for example. Each religion has its own small details to point out.
But on a larger scale all religions have one thing in common, and that is that they ask us to give up our ability to reason.
It seems self evident to me that any member of modern civilization who calls themselves religious has got to be knowingly or unknowingly ignoring a few parts of their holy book.
It seems self evident to me that any member of modern civilization who says that religion is immoral has got to be knowingly or unknowingly ignoring a few parts of their holy book.
Your witless parroting is growing quite tiresome.
And your point has no ground to stand on.
My assertion is that anybody who thinks their holy book only contains 'thou shalt not kill' is missing lots of other parts, and that is very important to point out if somebody is calling it the word of god.
Your assertion seems to be that anybody who says that the modern day holy books only contain immorality is missing lots of other parts, and that is true.
But do you continue to miss the point? If somebody is going to tell me that the bible is the word of god then it doesn't matter how many 'love thy neighbor's and 'blessed are the meek's there are because it only takes one 'a priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death' to discredit the whole thing.
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
Bad move, mate. I looked this up. I am not a Muslim, nor do I know Arabic. So I would have great problems in translating from the original, which means that I am reliant on translations, which as you know, are prone to being translated incorrectly.
The debate over the true interpretation of the texts would remain a harmless archeological one without the belief in god behind it.
It is obvious that your research is geared to mis-represent the Koran. What is clear is that you are not alone in this mis-representation.
You're impossibly sure of yourself, friend.
One thing we can agree on is that there are multiple translations of the Koran. Who are you and I to say which is the definitive version? Just as I cannot claim one to be more legitimate than the other, nor can you call any of the viewpoints definitively wrong.
So when the Japanese Kamikaze pilots flew into aircraft carriers, they believed that they would be rewarded by G-d, and not because it was their duty?
The Japanese in World War II believed Hirohito to be divine, they were dying for their god.
I suppose that you are going to that when Randy Quaid flew into the big alien ship in "Independence Day", everyone who watched that film believed that he did it to be rewarded by G-d, and not to save the world? No?
 Brilliant, Independence Day in religious debate!
Randy Quaid's decision was a calculated sacrifice. He made the mental connection that his one death would save others, most importantly his children. That is not at all the same as car bombing a night club to kill 20 infidels for leaving the house without their husbands.
Bin Laden has gone on a video, saying that he wants Americans to stop meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs.
bin Laden is an Islamic fascist, why would we ever show him any concession of diplomacy?
Where are Americans in the Middle East? In Iraq.
We weren't in Iraq in 2001 and he still seemed to have a bit of a problem.
Why is that a problem? Because has lots of oil, and most of it is being sold at a very cheap price to Americans.
Are you kidding? Believe me, Americans are not rolling around in cheap oil.
That's theft, of the one thing that can help rebuild their country and save the lives of the poor and dying.
US (and other) troops are in the country as we speak guarding the first democratically elected president of Iraq. I dare say that election would never have taken place without US and British troops, so don't suggest that humanitarian aid is not important.
According to your argument, if you were doing it for G-d, but absolutely no point would be made, then it would still be a reason. No-one flies a plane full of innocent people into an office building to make a point unless it's to make that point.
What? Please clarify.
On the front line, your odds of surviving in World War I was ridiculously low, so low that you could not bet on living. He may want to live, but the only way would be to run and desert your comrades. It's called self-sacrifice.
Again, fighting in a war against an aggressive nation is not something that requires god. You're defending your country and everything you hold dear. An atheist can fight a war to defend his mother, his wife, his children, his way of life.
An atheist cannot hijack a plane and fly it into a building full of innocent people, which ancient bronze age Palestinian demagogues accuse of being infidels, in order to hopefully be met by god and given some virgins after the necessary physical immolation.
The Muslim is going after the civilians because the American military don't launch forces into places like Iraq unless they have vastly superior odds. The American military has not fought a war on equal terms since World War II. They don't want to, because they might lose.
Are you serious? What halfway competent army would forego the incredible tactical advantage of superior troop levels? What absolutely idiotic playground logic.
But fighting on unequal terms, is like fighting with a gun or a knife against an unarmed man. In law, that's assault with excessive violence. If the man dies, it's murder, in the first-degree. So what do you do when you are fighting for the lives of your people, to not have the thing that can provide them with food and shelter be taken away from them, and the person taking it away, always makes sure he has unimaginable odds against you? You attack him at his weakest point. You are in a WAR.
Let me make it clear to you right now that absolutely nothing you can or will ever say could ever in my mind justify the murder of innocent people. Killing innocent men, women and children is wrong and it always will be.
Bush has said that you are in a War Against Terrorism, and a War against Iraq.
Wrong, we are not in a war against Iraq, that war is over. Now we're fighting alongside the democratically elected government of Iraq to allow the Iraqi people a chance against religious extremism.
The only reason why you haven't been drafted is because they don't need that many troops. If they really needed half of America to serve, you'd be drafted. So you're a reservist.
How sickening, your logic. Do you have any morals that you stand up for?
The Iraqis are fighting for their lives.
They absolutely are, and not against US soldiers.
Furthermore, the whole idea is for the Muslim to die. It's half about the act for god, half about the holy reward afterwards. So then why do Islamic terrorists protest they don't want to die, after their suicide bombs have been disabled?
Clarify what kind of scenario you mean.
But they are fighting a bully, who has more weapons and more technological advances and is using that against them.
Oh right, big bad superpower denouncing the culture of honor killings.
You will hate being an American, and a descendant of Europeans, when you realise what Europe and American have done in this world.
I am simultaneously well aware of European atrocities and immeasurably proud to be part of that same civilization in which all people have equal rights, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and other virtues that radical Islam seeks to wipe out. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 163 | |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 3:42:26 AM | Some good points Harvey.
The problem is that religion gives clerics with radical ideas and no idea of the real state of the world authority. Look at our own Archbishop of Canterbury, the mans an idiot.
Israel has caused a huge amount of problems in the world. Maybe its right to blame the British for giving it to the Jews. But it was pressure from the vast financial resources of the Jewish run film industry that did it. Hollywood is a Jewish organisation and they do a lot of lobbying and put a lot of pressure on American politicians, that why Israel has so much American military equipment.
In a way its a tribal thing, like football. With Islam the local cleric puts out a fatwa on someone and every idiot in the vicinity goes after the guy. Its that kind of power thats being abused, and its that that needs putting an end to. Religion could be a huge force for doing good, thats what it pretends to be. In reality its a vehicle for bigotry, racism, sexism and every kind of abuse known to man. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 6:50:28 AM |
An atheist cannot hijack a plane and fly it into a building full of innocent people, which ancient bronze age Palestinian demagogues accuse of being infidels, in order to hopefully be met by god and given some virgins after the necessary physical immolation.
umm.... the report on the terrorists on the planes in 911 was that they were primarily Arabian, not Palestinian. They weren't Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian or Yemeni. They were from Saudi Arabia. Supposedly one of our allies (?). Still not sure what Iraq had to do with the whole thing.
The problem with the Iraqi thing is that it is a political, strategic and economic war that has been cleverly turned into a clash of religions and ideology (east vs west- christian vs muslim) which isn't the case at all. And truly only a dumbass would buy into it (propaganda)... or someone who doesn't have the time, or inclination to actually research it. This is a prime example of the power-hungry manipulating the masses with religion. You can't really blame religion for it, but you can blame the lack of critical thinking and self-responsibility fanatical religion seems to uphold. And this is on BOTH sides. So... I can understand where people get the idea that religion causes all these horrible problems we have... and I can understand the quote, "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and such concepts. Because there is a grain of truth in it... religion is used, by those in power (any power, whether that be a small community or a nation) to manipulate and control people. Personal religion could never do that but once it gets organized then it IS dangerous...and by the very lack of censure and outrage by the religious masses I see here in the west of their own power-hungry manipulative and usually very politically involved spokespersons I wonder if it isn't "religion" that isn't the bad influence at all. I realize it isn't that simple...the same way I realize that the average muslim family in the middle-east is probably just as horrified by the misuse of what, to them, is a loving and peaceful religion, as those average folks here are. (Islam and Christianity are FAR more alike than different)
I don't see "religion" or personal spirituality as the problem here really though. Organized religion..hell yes...but even more so is the marriage of religion and politics. Look at this thread...it has gone from discussing if religion is the evil in the world to political and ideological debate...using religion as the basis. The current state of unrest and crappy foreign policy in the US is DIRECTLY related to the use of religion in their politics...something the founders were aware of and tried so hard to keep out of their new system of governance.
The difference between communism and religiously based capitalism (it isn't democracy) is very small indeed...just two sides of the same coin. ANYTIME a position is polarized these issues will surface. Ideologically it's reactionary. And a reaction is not an action at all and holds no real authenticity of it's own. Therefore it is not a solution.
It's funny, but I don't even KNOW the religion of my Prime Minister.. it isn't an issue here in Canada. Just an aside.
JMO
Peace | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 8:51:20 AM | There are alot of....(quote/unquote) 'religions' in the world...Satan is in control
of them. BUT....there's only ONE true Chistianity....key word Christ. There is one
true faith and that is from God the Father and Jesus, His Son!!! | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 166 | |
| |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 9:11:14 AM | There are alot of....(quote/unquote) 'religions' in the world...Satan is in control
of them. BUT....there's only ONE true Chistianity....key word Christ. There is one
true faith and that is from God the Father and Jesus, His Son!!!
Yikes...!
" (Is) Religion is the True EVIL in the world (?)"
I don't know if religion is the True EVIL in the world, but it sure is the source of many unnecessary evils in my opinion.
JMHO
| |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 9:46:37 AM | Message #166
there's only ONE true Chistianity
And pray do tell which true christianity are you referring to??? There are so many variations on a christian theme....it's a little difficult to work out which is the one true Christianity and which are the ones that are fraudulent, heretical...and under control of Satan and his demonic legions......
There is only one true scotsman.....and I am he....Och Aye  | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 9:54:39 AM |
The problem is that religion gives clerics with radical ideas and no idea of the real state of the world authority. Look at our own Archbishop of Canterbury, the mans an idiot.
Indeed he is.
With Islam the local cleric puts out a fatwa on someone and every idiot in the vicinity goes after the guy. Its that kind of power thats being abused, and its that that needs putting an end to. Religion could be a huge force for doing good, thats what it pretends to be. In reality its a vehicle for bigotry, racism, sexism and every kind of abuse known to man.
My larger point is that nothing GOOD comes exclusively from religion. Again, name me one moral act performed by a believer that couldn't be performed by an unbeliever. So religion has no right to claim exclusivity in this area.
But name something bad that COULD ONLY come from faith, that no rational atheist would ever dream of thinking/doing.
Religion causes more bad than good.
umm.... the report on the terrorists on the planes in 911 was that they were primarily Arabian, not Palestinian. They weren't Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian or Yemeni. They were from Saudi Arabia. Supposedly one of our allies (?). Still not sure what Iraq had to do with the whole thing.
Nationality is irrelevant. John Walker Lindh is from California, didn't stop him from joining up with the Taliban.
The problem with the Iraqi thing is that it is a political, strategic and economic war that has been cleverly turned into a clash of religions and ideology (east vs west- christian vs muslim) which isn't the case at all.
I don't watch major news channels very often so if that is how the war is now being presented I won't disagree with your assessment.
But however it is being presented it doesn't change the legitimate reasons to be there.
This is a prime example of the power-hungry manipulating the masses with religion. You can't really blame religion for it, but you can blame the lack of critical thinking and self-responsibility fanatical religion seems to uphold.
I would disagree that our reason for going to war was religion. In fact, I'll flat out call that assertion wrong.
But for a second let me take your statement as truth. The power hungry manipulating the masses with religion....don't say that and then expect me to not point out another flaw of the institution. It is religions fault for inculcating people to be servile and accepting of the churches decree.
And this is on BOTH sides. So... I can understand where people get the idea that religion causes all these horrible problems we have... and I can understand the quote, "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and such concepts. Because there is a grain of truth in it... religion is used, by those in power (any power, whether that be a small community or a nation) to manipulate and control people.
Not just people in power.
Look at this thread...it has gone from discussing if religion is the evil in the world to political and ideological debate...using religion as the basis.
Because they're intertwined. People are doing evil things in the name of religion, and they are our enemies.
The current state of unrest and crappy foreign policy in the US is DIRECTLY related to the use of religion in their politics...something the founders were aware of and tried so hard to keep out of their new system of governance.
Oh my ass. Explain to me how we went to war because we're a Christian nation. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 11:29:12 AM | Ravenstar said:
It's funny, but I don't even KNOW the religion of my Prime Minister.. it isn't an issue here in Canada. Just an aside.
The Prime Minister of Canada belongs to an evangelical Protestant denomination called the "Christian and Missionary Alliance". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_and_Missionary_Alliance
Now you know!  | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 12:23:16 PM | Jacobus...thanks.
Nationality is irrelevant. John Walker Lindh is from California, didn't stop him from joining up with the Taliban. No it is NOT irrelevant... that fact of the matter is that no Iraqi was involved in 911...and the fact is that the terrorists WERE Arabian...a country, although islamic, is one of the wests Allies, or so they say.(they sure spend a lot of time at the Whitehouse) Of course it's relevant...and we weren't fighting the Taliban (that's Afghanistan and Iran, not Iraq) It's Al Quaeda that took responisibility for 911. The Taliban could care less about us (except as an example to hold up about "western decadence")...they are a fanatical, fundamentalist group trying to make their countries islamic fundamental theocracies(remember the Ayatollah?)... Al Quaeda is a worldwide terrorist group responding (right or wrong) to the economic and cultural influence of the west.. they also support Palestine, if I am correct. Iraq was a secular country that was NOT involved in either the Taliban nor Al Quaeda (there may have been some individuals.. who knows, but none have surfaced) Saddam was a despot, for sure...and he was PUT THERE by the US many moons ago, but he did not tolerate any factions that were a threat to his regime... and that would include the Taliban.
I don't watch news on TV very often(I have better sources), but right from day one (yes, 911) this whole conflict was propagandized as an ideological conflict. Remeber Bush's "Axis of Evil".. what the hell is that if not inflammatory religious jargon?
The problem with the Iraqi thing is that it is a political, strategic and economic war that has been cleverly turned into a clash of religions and ideology (east vs west- christian vs muslim) which isn't the case at all.
I don't watch major news channels very often so if that is how the war is now being presented I won't disagree with your assessment.
But however it is being presented it doesn't change the legitimate reasons to be there. What legitimate reasons are there for the invasion of a Sovereign country against the will of the UN? A country that was NOT involved in 911?
This is a prime example of the power-hungry manipulating the masses with religion. You can't really blame religion for it, but you can blame the lack of critical thinking and self-responsibility fanatical religion seems to uphold.
I would disagree that our reason for going to war was religion. In fact, I'll flat out call that assertion wrong.
But for a second let me take your statement as truth. The power hungry manipulating the masses with religion....don't say that and then expect me to not point out another flaw of the institution. It is religions fault for inculcating people to be servile and accepting of the churches decree.
You don't read very well...that's what I said.
And this is on BOTH sides. So... I can understand where people get the idea that religion causes all these horrible problems we have... and I can understand the quote, "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and such concepts. Because there is a grain of truth in it... religion is used, by those in power (any power, whether that be a small community or a nation) to manipulate and control people.
Not just people in power. People in power...whether a minister or a President are the ones who make POLICY.. they are the ones who people listen to and get their dumbass ideas from. Without some kind of authority or power there can be no influence or manipulation.
Look at this thread...it has gone from discussing if religion is the evil in the world to political and ideological debate...using religion as the basis.
Because they're intertwined. People are doing evil things in the name of religion, and they are our enemies. People are our enemies? Which people? ALL religious people? People (namely those in power) are doing evil things and using religion as a justification for their own greed and ego...yes. I concur. But "religion" is not making them do this.. it's just helping them to feel justified.. it's a psychological defense mechanism whereby they don't have to be accountable for their greed.
The current state of unrest and crappy foreign policy in the US is DIRECTLY related to the use of religion in their politics...something the founders were aware of and tried so hard to keep out of their new system of governance.
Oh my ass. Explain to me how we went to war because we're a Christian nation. The current administration hyped up it's desire to take control of Iraq(which was in the works BEFORE 911) by playing on the fears of their people and by turning it into a religious and ideological conflict..which it is not..it is a bald move to secure oil and position themselves strategically in the Middle East... I suspect to protect Israel and keep many countries there from making alliances with the EU by fostering unrest (remember that Turkey is up for EU membership, but Britain is NOT a member...hmmmmm). The US is NOT a "christian nation"...not if you define it by the Constitution. Supposedly there is freedom of religion there and separation of church and state... and that is allegedly protected by law.
I'm not defending religion... I think the world would be better off without organized religion myself... but it isn't "religion" per se, in it's pure form that is the problem.. it's human greed and fear and lack of social and personal responsibility. Spiritual infantilism. Religion is a mask a lot of this hides behind. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 2:32:01 PM |
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
and not see it for what it is? It isn't a metaphor, it's an attack on homosexuality. The otherwise tolerant Christian has been manipulated by religion to view homosexuals as dirty, something that could never happen to an atheist.
Which makes the rest of that rant null.
The bible is talking about anal intercourse - not exactly good clean sex is it? | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 173 | |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 2:39:01 PM | I dont know .. plenty of people of all denominations enjoy it ... And thats what a lot of homosexual men do .. anal sex .. In this day and age we need to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs and sexuality ... This thread is like a shooting gallery for Christians .. Bring out another lion this ones full ....  | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 2:52:19 PM | My larger point is that nothing GOOD comes exclusively from religion. Again, name me one moral act performed by a believer that couldn't be performed by an unbeliever. Soreligion has no right to claim exclusivity in this area
It's not about whether they could Harvey, but about whether they did. Why don't you list the charitable organizations founded and operated by atheists that feed and clothe the poor or help them out in other ways. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 175 | |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 2:56:49 PM | [ quote]
Mathura Ahira, a sex worker in Orissa learns about STD's through an Oxfam funded program. Credit: Crispin Hughes/Oxfam Oxfam International is an international confederation, comprised of 13 independent non-government organizations dedicated to fighting poverty and related injustice around the world. Our mission is a just world without poverty and our goal is to enable people to exercise their rights and manage their own lives.
History of Oxfam International
Oxfam International was founded in 1995, formed by the group of like-minded independent non-government organizations, who wanted to work together internationally to achieve greater impact in reducing poverty by their collective efforts. The name “Oxfam” comes from the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, founded in Britain during the second world war in 1942. This group of Oxford citizens campaigned for grain ships to be sent through the allied naval blockade to provide relief for women and children in enemy-occupied Greece.
Nothing religious about them ...
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2006/10/report_us_tax_l.html
An interesting link about how secular charities are penalised comapred to religious ones. | |
|
|
| Page 7 of 33
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 |
|
Home
login 
