Hindu's to Christians in India: "convert or die"

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I believe that communists recognized the religions of their country as a challenge to absolute power over the people. That is why they all embraced atheism and pushed it on the people through educational retraining and sever oppression of people of faith.

So the motivation wasn't atheism itself, it was a way to try to keep the power out of anyone else's hands but themselves. That makes a lot more sense than saying atheism was the cause; because it wasn't.

The idea that a blond hair blued eye white man is the superior race and by nature would rise to the top is not an opinion Hitler came to all by himself. Darwin introduced the question by writing the book titled "The origin of species and race".

Pure baloney. Darwin didn't even write a book with that name. The full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Even in the title it's obvious that race, in the context in Darwin's work, doesn't have anything to do with humanity's concept of race (skin colour, etc) but is being used as a synonym for species. As in two different races of birds, one with bigger beaks. EDIT2: If you'd read the book you too that humanity is barely even mentioned.

And to say Hitler based his view on that book is laughable since the implications of the science of evolution is far far different than what Hitler was after. Saying Darwin inspired Hitler is like saying Newton inspired Hitler because Hitler used Newton's theories to drop bombs on people.

EDIT: Darwin was attacked by his (then much more racist as everyone was then) peers because of the implications of his theory meant that there was no difference between black and white people. Which flies against the idea that Darwin inspired Hitler; only a gross misunderstanding of evolution could be used to inspire Hitler.

His theory was that animals as well as humans evolved from lower forms.

Wrong, the theory is that all life has a common ancestor. "Lower" implies inferior which is a subjective judgment that doesn't have any place in the science.

Hitler seen blacks as well as Poles and Jews as inferior races who were holding back human's natural progression. He treated these groups as less than human because he seen them as below his race on the evolutionary scale.

So he got the science wrong, he ignored the actual science and twisted the idea to fit what he wanted to do. You go on to refute his supposed religious ties in the same way, so you can't accept one and reject the other.

That is why Atheists are always trying to silence Christian public expression.

Lol, who's trying to silence public expression? Show me examples of this.

My hope is when the evolution doesn't come like you anticipate that atheist's don't try to help it along like Hitler and those communist nations did.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I believe that communists recognized the religions of their country as a challenge to absolute power over the people. That is why they all embraced atheism and pushed it on the people through educational retraining and sever oppression of people of faith.

Correct, religion is a challenge to absolute power over people. In order to control the people, they are forced to remove the influence of religion. But the justification for the removal of religion in communism, as a utopia, is that religion creates a caste. A section of people who hold themselves different to those who do not believe the same as them. Remove that in all forms and people are all the same. Utopian communism and the socialism that you quote are different things.

Morals are derived by our own world view of things which includes perceptions we receive through the religious books I read and the garbage you read. Collective morality is derived by collective experience and dialogue. That is why Atheists are always trying to silence Christian public expression. How are Atheists trying to silence Christian public expression? By not wanting Intelligent Design taught in schools? Christians are also always trying to push their beliefs on people who aren't interested in their perspective of the world. How is that any different? Case and point in the bolded section above. You reference his books as GARBAGE when your books could just as easily be classified as such since it's truth is justified only by faith.


If you want a challenge try rising above your deep seated hatred and overwhelming pride. Pot-Kettle-Black

People are entitled to a different view of the world. Because someone disagrees with all aspects of your moral code does not mean that they are immoral or should be condemned for their beliefs. A good example of religious intolerance was the Quebec family pulling their children out of a school because they discussed other faiths. When does this way of thinking go so far as to create extreme factions that are willing to murder others because they believe so strongly that they are doing God's work by slaying these heathen non-believers.

I personally hold the idea that thinking I'm created in the image of God is incredibly vain. I understand how people can think that, but it still comes off to me as vanity in the worst way. Does that mean that I think people of faith are immoral, wrong, or should be put to death? No, but I do think that there are some people, who are so staunchly connected to their faith and reject the ability to adapt because it isn't contained in a book based on oral teachings that has the possibility of being edited somewhere along the way after finally being written down several decades (or even hundreds of years) after the original author professed them, are putting too much in the hands of the unexplained and aren't viewing reality.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

You cannot group religious people together and argue they, as a 'collective', have caused more wars. You simply cannot do that.

Right on!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It looks like people have piled all over you for your answers here, so I'll keep this short and sweet.

You cannot group atheists together and argue they, as a 'collective', have caused more wars. You simply cannot do that. Religious wars are religious because they are guided by a 'higher power'. Atheists are not. There...Is...No...Common...Thread.

Christianity based on the history found in its Holy book was not politically active and it never calls for armed conflict to proprogate it's message. The phrase "Whosoever will may come" comes to mind. The Catholic church and later many of the Protestant churches were on occasion hijacked by a power hungry political leader and used to justify bloodshed. That doesn't mean that the Christian faith was the source of the conflict. The source was greed for power. These churches just became useful tools. My Christian heritage doesn't comes down through the Catholic or Protestant churches. The Ani-baptists never associated with them. But I don't see the Catholic and the Protestant belief systems as the cause of these conflicts. They were complicit but, the source of these wars was greed. Atheism as a faith position has and is also used by people hungry for power. There are many Christians and other people of faith sitting in Chinese prisons today and many being killed because of the atheistic dogma that religion is the cause of all the ills in this world.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Right on!

Haha, I meant 'atheist' actually. My bad.

EDIT: Ahhh I see what you did there! Sneaky.

[photon]

Wow, you make a reasonable argument that greed and other things are the cause of some evils and Christianity is the vehicle used, and then turn around and ignore that and accuse atheism of the same thing. Your paragraph refutes itself.

What is this atheistic dogma? What writings are used as its source?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Haha, I meant 'atheist' actually. My bad.

EDIT: Ahhh I see what you did there! Sneaky.

Well, I agree with your original quote too....just wanted to spin it a different way.

[cyclone3483]

I think Athiesm could be viewed as a lack of faith rather than a faith in that it is the complete absence of a faith (if that makes sense ). Regardless, that is all just semantics.

Atheism, Christianity, Islam, etc. do not cause wars, people do. Religion (or lack thereof) is a crutch, a tool, used to gather the masses under the political leader's banner and mobilize them to do the will of the leadership. People have the ability to oppose their government and do what is right in their own eyes, but often they are 'persuaded' (i.e. heavy duty propoganda, threatened with death, excommunication, banishment, torture, jail, whatever) to go along with leadership.

Unfortunately, religion is often viewed as the cause because it is a often a rallying point, but it is a crutch nonetheless.

[Azure]

You know, I have a hard time believing that Stalin did what he did, or Hitler did what he did, or Mao did what he did.....because they were atheists.

Just like I have a hard time believing that the Christians throughout the years who slaughtered anyone who disagreed with them were 'really' Christians, and not just a bunch of screwed up people who used religion to gain dominance over a group of people.

But, I do agree that there HAVE been religious people who take religion in a literal way, and kill people because of that.

[photon]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

I think Athiesm could be viewed as a lack of faith rather than a faith in that it is the complete absence of a faith (if that makes sense ).

You're too reasonable, you're obviously lost and not in the right thread.

Atheism is a faith in the same way as not having a moustache is a faith.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia all killed millions in the name of politics. They all subscribed to atheistic faith.

There's no such thing as "atheistic faith."

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by kermitology

People are entitled to a different view of the world. Because someone disagrees with all aspects of your moral code does not mean that they are immoral or should be condemned for their beliefs. A good example of religious intolerance was the Quebec family pulling their children out of a school because they discussed other faiths. When does this way of thinking go so far as to create extreme factions that are willing to murder others because they believe so strongly that they are doing God's work by slaying these heathen non-believers.

I acknowledged that Hitler, Communists, and even Thor had a moral position. It was just in conflict with mine. For me a law which outlawed abortion would be moral. For Thor and others it would be immoral. Me finding something moral doesn't exclude you from finding something immoral and vise versa.

Your example of religious intolerance is a poor one. This Quebec family was wise to pull their children out of that school. It is impossible to teach religious positions without bias. It is not the States responsibility to provide the bias. I don't know how you can see that the absence of the States interference will lead to these children to killing heathens. I know a few devote Catholics and have never felt at risk around them.

Originally Posted by kermitology

I personally hold the idea that thinking I'm created in the image of God is incredibly vain. I understand how people can think that, but it still comes off to me as vanity in the worst way. Does that mean that I think people of faith are immoral, wrong, or should be put to death? No, but I do think that there are some people, who are so staunchly connected to their faith and reject the ability to adapt because it isn't contained in a book based on oral teachings that has the possibility of being edited somewhere along the way after finally being written down several decades (or even hundreds of years) after the original author professed them, are putting too much in the hands of the unexplained and aren't viewing reality.

I don't know of anyone who believes that humans being created in the image of God equates to any of us being equal in substance. The same book that that says that clearly shows mankind as fallen creatures.

My or someone else's inability to adapt from the tenants of their Holy Book should only be a problem if that book instructs them to harm their fellow man. The times in history when Christians have wrongly taken up arms for religious reasons are the times when their leadership has lead them away from the instructions and values of the Bible. Adaptation is not necessarily
a good thing.

At the end of your paragraph you throw out some of your personal doubts about the accuracy of the Bible we have today. I don't agree but, this is probably not the place to start comparing manuscript evidence. Something that large in scope would need its own thread.

[GGG]

I don't believe one can say that religeon has caused wars. A more fair statement is that religeon has been used as a means of control in order to furthur political agendas. I also don't think it is correct to say athiesm has casued wars. A more fair statement is that social and economic persuassion has been used as a means of control in order to further political agendas.

If the trend of more people choosing not to believe continues there will be fewer occurences of religeon being used as a means of control and an increase in the socioeconomic methods being used to obtain and concentrate power.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The times in history when Christians have wrongly taken up arms for religious reasons are the times when their leadership has lead them away from the instructions and values of the Bible.

Except when those wars are actually IN the Bible and it's at God's direction.

[Lithium]

I got kicked out of a Chapter's once for moving all the bible's to the fiction section.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't believe one can say that religeon has caused wars. A more fair statement is that religeon has been used as a means of control in order to furthur political agendas. I also don't think it is correct to say athiesm has casued wars. A more fair statement is that social and economic persuassion has been used as a means of control in order to further political agendas.

If the trend of more people choosing not to believe continues there will be fewer occurences of religeon being used as a means of control and an increase in the socioeconomic methods being used to obtain and concentrate power.

Exactly. Both are just methods people use to gain dominance over others.

[Muta]

Mao had a mustache. It was just hidden behind the Iron Curtain, that's all.

[cyclone3483]

Originally Posted by Lithium

I got kicked out of a Chapter's once for moving all the bible's to the fiction section.

I find that offensive and not the least bit funny IMHO

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

I find that offensive and not the least bit funny IMHO

you know what opinions are like.....

[cyclone3483]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

you know what opinions are like.....

ya, even morons (like Lithium) have one