Y-Town Steelhound;1145081 wrote:Please quote where I said "the most deadly wars". War is war no matter the scale. But if you do want an extreme example, the holocaust was certainly an all-time atrocious act that had roots (before you say it, not completely rooted just had roots) in oppression of a specific race/religion.

While I agree any acts of violence are heinous. I never attributed "the most deadly wars" to you.

You said "most don't start wars over it." In terms of "groups" and/or "individuals" and their acts of violence. I simply pointed out that some of the most deadly wars were not started over "religion." While we may not see "scientists burning down churches," we have seen a group of people (Nazis) try to eradicate another group of people based on their religion (Judaism).

So, this whole "violence" claim to "religion" is unjust. Violence happens all over, to everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or religion/unreligious. There is JUST as much, if not more, violence that can be attributed to no-religion. That was the point of my post. Having broad sweeping generalizations like "Organized Religion however has done a lot of harm in this world/society for all of the good it proclaims to do" is somewhat misleading since most instances are not actually driven by "organized religion."

And I definitely agree with you here:

Nothing in this world should be above questioning.....not scientific fact nor religious faith.

OSH;1145092 wrote:While I agree any acts of violence are heinous. I never attributed "the most deadly wars" to you.

You said "most don't start wars over it." In terms of "groups" and/or "individuals" and their acts of violence. I simply pointed out that some of the most deadly wars were not started over "religion." While we may not see "scientists burning down churches," we have seen a group of people (Nazis) try to eradicate another group of people based on their religion (Judaism).

So, this whole "violence" claim to "religion" is unjust. Violence happens all over, to everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or religion/unreligious. There is JUST as much, if not more, violence that can be attributed to no-religion. That was the point of my post. Having broad sweeping generalizations like "Organized Religion however has done a lot of harm in this world/society for all of the good it proclaims to do" is somewhat misleading since most instances are not actually driven by "organized religion."

And I definitely agree with you here:

Attributing something to "no-religion" is not the same as attributing something to a lack of belief in god. This why people say "Oh well Stalin was atheist and he killed a bunch of people so atheism kills people". Stalin didn't kill those people because he was an atheist or in the name of atheism, he killed those people because he's a radical evil man.

OSH;1145076 wrote:The most deadly wars and atrocities in the history of the world aren't started by "religion."

Heck, here in the US...the Civil War and Revolutionary War...

What about World War I & II? What about Vietnam? Gulf War?

And those are just the most popular ones...

LOL you can take WW2 off this list

I don't want to sound insensitive, because I am not.

But these "religious" wars are vastly overblown. A lot of "organized religion" gets talked about in terms of conflicts in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and the US. For example: the Salem Witch Trials. That's definitely a black-eye...but in all reality, there were 25 people killed. Tragic, nonetheless. The Crusades are often brought up. There appears to be around 10,000 put to death and maybe another 100,000 who died in captivity of malnutrition or illness. Again, tragic. Shouldn't have happened. But the religion-free leaders of Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong murdered over 100 million together. There is no way that any "organized religion" touches the devastation caused by the "religion-free utopian" leaders.

Northern Ireland...not a religious war. Yes, yes, yes...it's between Catholics and Protestants. But it's political. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a "religious war" at heart. It's over land. One side wants the land that was given to them "by God." That conflict is self-determination and land more than "God v. gods" (or whatever one wants to say about it being over religion). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict would probably remain the same if neither side identified with a particular theology belief.

This "territorial battle" can even be said about the Crusades. The Christian Crusaders wanted the holiest of lands/sites. Why? They were taken from the Christians [200] years earlier by Muhammad and his jihad...I am sure it was done peaceful. The Christians went after what was once theirs. They did not go after the Muslim land/sites. Again, not saying it is right...but just pointing to the truths behind the actual reasons to the Crusades other than "religion v. religion." If the Christians did not wait 200 years from Muhammad's jihad to get the land back...who would have the black-eye then?

I do not condone any of these acts. No way. But the thing to take away from it all...none of these acts would really be considered Christ-like. Nothing done here aligns with ANY teachings of Jesus Christ. That is important to note. None of the wars were blessed or considered holy in the eyes of the Lord. Christianity isn't what a pope says, a preacher says, or some radical fundamentalist says...it's what Jesus Christ said and lived.

Stalin and Hitler both had mustaches too, are you implying that those who have mustaches are mass murderers? They didn't kill in the name of religion or because they were non-religious(although some say Hitler was a Christian), they killed because they were bad people.

That's the difference. How does it feel to support a religion that has killed 1 person in the name of the religion, much less millions upon millions dead just because someone doesn't believe in what you believe?

Non-believers spreading their thought that there is no god is the same as believers spreading their belief that there is a God. (or whatever belief they are spreading)

thePITman;1145198 wrote:Non-believers spreading their thought that there is no god is the same as believers spreading their belief that there is a God. (or whatever belief they are spreading)

There is more than 2 options when it comes to beliefs. You can believe in no god, you can believe in a god, you can believe in multiple gods, and you can unconvinced either or anyway.

Nice try though.

sleeper;1145205 wrote:There is more than 2 options when it comes to beliefs. You can believe in no god, you can believe in a god, you can believe in multiple gods, and you can unconvinced either or anyway.

Nice try though.

That's why I put in parenthesis "(or whatever belief they are spreading)". In all circumstances, someone is spreading their belief (or lack thereof), whatever that may be.

Nice try thought.

thePITman;1145217 wrote:That's why I put in parenthesis "(or whatever belief they are spreading)". In all circumstances, someone is spreading their belief (or lack thereof), whatever that may be.

Nice try thought.

Equating a lack of belief as a belief is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. Do you have any idea how terrible your logic is?

sleeper;1145232 wrote:Equating a lack of belief as a belief is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. Do you have any idea how terrible your logic is?

Nothing will make you happy. LoL. Not believing in God could also be taken as having "no belief" in God, or believing in no God. So, I'm trying to cover all the bases and make everyone happy with my wording, but it's just not possible.

No matter how it is worded, you still neglect to address my original point that anyone spreading their belief is no different than anyone else spreading their belief. So it's funny watching people spread their beliefs by complaining about and criticizing other people who are spreading their (contrary) beliefs.

It's similar to politics - if you're a Democrat or Republican, you're entitled to your opinion and to voice your opinion and try to influence others of your opinion. In the same way, if you are of "x" religion, you are entitled to your opinion and to voice your opinion and try to influence others of your opinion. Sometimes people get equally as aggrivated when someone tries to convince them of one of the other, politics or religion. It is a never-ending battle, no matter what side you're on.

Oh wait... I didn't mention "Independent" or whatever other party may or may not exist. That means my point is no longer valid. :rolleyes:

So someone who spreads the belief not to use condoms and contract HIV is the same as someone who wants to spread the belief that you are going to want to have sex and to protect with a contraceptive. Great. Good to know.

Hey while you're pondering that, look up the word fraudulent, because that word describes your logic perfectly.

thePITman;1145237 wrote:No matter how it is worded, you still neglect to address my original point

This must be your first go around with sleeper...

Raw Dawgin' it;1145269 wrote:This must be your first go around with sleeper...

I guess so. It's not worth the effort. I've found that out. Back to the other threads and forums. LoL

Raw Dawgin' it;1145269 wrote:This must be your first go around with sleeper...

When your original point is a fraudulent cliche, there is nothing to address other than to call out the fraudulent cliche.

Oh, black people who complain about slavery are no better than the slave owners themselves.

People who believe the world is flat and try to spread that belief are no better than the people who believe the Earth is round.

And my favorite "People are allowed to believe whatever they want sleeper, why do you care?"

LOL

No shit, like I didn't already know that. Must be nice to avoid having a discussion about how fraudulent and cult like your beliefs are. Keep your head in the sand, maybe god will care one day when you wake up and realizes you've wasted your entire life believing in something that has never and will never be proven.

Only a weak unsuccesful individual cares that much about someone elses beliefs. The pain and bitterness of you failing in life is blatantly obvious.

rmolin73;1145281 wrote:Only a weak unsuccesful individual cares that much about someone elses beliefs. The pain and bitterness of you failing in life is blatantly obvious.

Right, because every great scientist, historian, leader, etc only cares about the status quo. Thank God not everyone has their head in the sand.

sleeper;1145271 wrote:When your original point is a fraudulent cliche, there is nothing to address other than to call out the fraudulent cliche.

sleeper;1145272 wrote:Oh, black people who complain about slavery are no better than the slave owners themselves.

sleeper;1145273 wrote:People who believe the world is flat and try to spread that belief are no better than the people who believe the Earth is round.

Called sarcasm bro. Was using his own fraud against him.

sleeper;1145283 wrote:Right, because every great scientist, historian, leader, etc only cares about the status quo. Thank God not everyone has their head in the sand.

What a joke. Thank God? How classic!

sleeper;1145286 wrote:Called sarcasm bro. Was using his own fraud against him.

It's called talking out your ass. You're great at it.

rmolin73;1145288 wrote:What a joke. Thank God? How classic!

It's an expression, don't get your panties in a bunch.

rmolin73;1145290 wrote:It's called talking out your ass. You're great at it.

If logic and reason, coupled with wit and intelligence, is "talking out of your ass", then I hope more people start talking out of there ass. That would eliminate god though.