Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Atheism's biggest lie?
92 Answers
Thinking about a different thread I wondered if a point deserved a question of it's own.
It is often said that religion causes wars, so can anyone please name a truly religious war in the last 200 years? Or even beyond that?
It is often said that religion causes wars, so can anyone please name a truly religious war in the last 200 years? Or even beyond that?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If any religion says that kill the believers of the other religion only due to what they believe in then that religion is a wrong religion most probably a man made religion or its real teachings have been invaded by few for their own benefit.
Suicide bombing (and someone else) said this earlier, what about Tamil Tigers. I think most probably the history of suicide bombing started from there. Is that due to the religion or due to political reasons, Muslims killing Muslims in Middle East (according to Naomi), is again political war, Shia backed up by Iran and Sunni�s by Saudi Arabia. Even all the other examples given have other motives than religion being the sole reason and many has already been explained by Octavius, Everton and few others. By the way why do the atheists not like when someone says that atheism is a faith as well just like other faith?
Suicide bombing (and someone else) said this earlier, what about Tamil Tigers. I think most probably the history of suicide bombing started from there. Is that due to the religion or due to political reasons, Muslims killing Muslims in Middle East (according to Naomi), is again political war, Shia backed up by Iran and Sunni�s by Saudi Arabia. Even all the other examples given have other motives than religion being the sole reason and many has already been explained by Octavius, Everton and few others. By the way why do the atheists not like when someone says that atheism is a faith as well just like other faith?
I suspect they feel their conscience is clear when they allow themselves to believe that religious people are to blame throughout the world and its history, for all the horrors ever recorded (or discovered through archaeology).
Whilst of course the atheists, apparently, did nothing.
Is this the big lie? Atheists rebuke religion the whole world over and do the old �finger-pointing� routine, yet in actuality do nothing to help or prevent contention/aggression, merely stir it up to further their cause?
Whilst of course the atheists, apparently, did nothing.
Is this the big lie? Atheists rebuke religion the whole world over and do the old �finger-pointing� routine, yet in actuality do nothing to help or prevent contention/aggression, merely stir it up to further their cause?
I know why they do not do anything about it. Because they are individual, lost souls. Unless they declare that atheism is a faith, bring all atheists on a single platform, find a place somewhere in the Brazilian rain forest and declare that every atheist in the world has to believe this as our centre of faith. Then and only then they may get together. People who believe in religion are at least together on one thing and they admit what they believe in.
-- answer removed --
Ludwig, We�d find reasons to kill each other anyway - even if it was to take your goat, your woman or your land - but without religion there would be a few less reasons. I like your idea that without religion our nature may be completely different. An interesting thought.
Octavius, You�re missing the point completely. We�ve already established that religion per se does not cause wars. I originally said that religion causes untold misery in this world, and that was the point that Everton asked me to clarify - hence my reference to Jehovah�s Witnesses. As for war, the examples I�ve given illustrate that religion plays a major role in many conflicts. In Bosnia the Albanians were Muslim, and that carried with it an agenda. In Northern Ireland, we had neighbour fighting neighbour, and religion was the dividing line between them. You may hazard a guess that suicide bombers would quite easily be brainwashed into doing the same thing in the name of another cause, but hazarding guesses, and talking about the Japanese Red Army, doesn�t address the issue. The fact is these suicide bombers are doing it in the name of religion.
And as for the holocaust and the troubles in the middle east - imagine that there never were any Jews, and there never was a �promised land�. Think about it.
Incidentally, your last offering, I felt, let you down. Way, way beneath you, Octavius.
Everton, I haven�t the foggiest idea what you�re talking about.
Octavius, You�re missing the point completely. We�ve already established that religion per se does not cause wars. I originally said that religion causes untold misery in this world, and that was the point that Everton asked me to clarify - hence my reference to Jehovah�s Witnesses. As for war, the examples I�ve given illustrate that religion plays a major role in many conflicts. In Bosnia the Albanians were Muslim, and that carried with it an agenda. In Northern Ireland, we had neighbour fighting neighbour, and religion was the dividing line between them. You may hazard a guess that suicide bombers would quite easily be brainwashed into doing the same thing in the name of another cause, but hazarding guesses, and talking about the Japanese Red Army, doesn�t address the issue. The fact is these suicide bombers are doing it in the name of religion.
And as for the holocaust and the troubles in the middle east - imagine that there never were any Jews, and there never was a �promised land�. Think about it.
Incidentally, your last offering, I felt, let you down. Way, way beneath you, Octavius.
Everton, I haven�t the foggiest idea what you�re talking about.
Keyplus, Again I�ll say that we�ve already established that religion is not the sole cause of wars.
If any religion says that kill the believers of the other religion only due to what they believe in then that religion is a wrong religion most probably a man made religion or its real teachings have been invaded by few for their own benefit.
You�re clearly missing the point too. If religion didn�t exist at all, then there would be no religion to tell anyone to kill anyone - and if Shia and Sunni didn�t exist, there could be no conflict between them.
If you think atheism is a faith, tell me what atheists believe in - tell me what creed they follow - and anyway, if you think people contributing to this thread are wasting your time, why are you bothering to get involved?
I would say Keyplus, that whilst you insult others by calling them ignorant. I can guarantee that most of the people contributing here are a little more educated than you, since unlike you, they�ve taken the time to study that which is outside their normal sphere. Do please remember this is only a debate, and intelligent people don�t need to resort to personal insults to put their views across.
Mani, A bit of a generalisation, don�t you think?
If any religion says that kill the believers of the other religion only due to what they believe in then that religion is a wrong religion most probably a man made religion or its real teachings have been invaded by few for their own benefit.
You�re clearly missing the point too. If religion didn�t exist at all, then there would be no religion to tell anyone to kill anyone - and if Shia and Sunni didn�t exist, there could be no conflict between them.
If you think atheism is a faith, tell me what atheists believe in - tell me what creed they follow - and anyway, if you think people contributing to this thread are wasting your time, why are you bothering to get involved?
I would say Keyplus, that whilst you insult others by calling them ignorant. I can guarantee that most of the people contributing here are a little more educated than you, since unlike you, they�ve taken the time to study that which is outside their normal sphere. Do please remember this is only a debate, and intelligent people don�t need to resort to personal insults to put their views across.
Mani, A bit of a generalisation, don�t you think?
You are merely reiterating my point again naomi, regurgitating the oft said point that relgion plays a big part in conflict. It also pays a big part in peace, community, well-being and sense of purpose and hope for billions of people, not fogetting humanitarian contributions world wide.
So rather than trying to patronise me with condescencion, please answer what has atheism done for the world?
So rather than trying to patronise me with condescencion, please answer what has atheism done for the world?
You misunderstand me, Octavius. I�m not patronising you. I�m just surprised that you appear to have lost sight of the fact that this has become a discussion on a hypothetical subject, and have taken my suggestion that the world would be a better place without religion, personally. It�s only AB after all. Having said that, I would say that there�s no doubt that some people of religion have brought hope and a sense of purpose to others (my friend, a missionary, and one of the most gentle human beings it was ever my privilege to know, was hacked to death in what used to be Rhodesia, so I know something about the beautiful people of religion). However, this current discussion is about the role that religion plays in conflict. It isn�t a personal slight on anyone so no one need get their hackles up. It�s simply an interesting (well, I think so, at least) topic for debate.
Ludwig brought up another thought, which was basically, without the influence of religion, would we be the same people? After this, I'm not sure I dare go there!! The Cambridge Union this is not!!
Ludwig brought up another thought, which was basically, without the influence of religion, would we be the same people? After this, I'm not sure I dare go there!! The Cambridge Union this is not!!
Naomi, I cannot see anywhere that I have taken any argument personally, other than your little snipe at me, which was rather unbecoming. I am still waiting for your remarkable insight and evidence that would prove to me once and for all, that your assertion for a world completely without religion would be a much better place.
The current discussion, is not as you put it, it is about the claims of atheists against religion � and whether those claims are a fabricated lie to further their cause and justify their angst against anyone who pertains to have religious faith.
So as I have said (3 times) when all these �religious� horrors went on, what did the atheists do about it?
The current discussion, is not as you put it, it is about the claims of atheists against religion � and whether those claims are a fabricated lie to further their cause and justify their angst against anyone who pertains to have religious faith.
So as I have said (3 times) when all these �religious� horrors went on, what did the atheists do about it?
Octavius, As far as I can ascertain, the discussion has moved on from the original question, and we are now talking hypothetically about a world without religion. However, it appears you are not willing to consider that hypothesis - you are simply defending religion. I don't claim to have the remarkable insight you endow me with - and I've given my reasons for thinking that if religion had never existed the world would be a better place.
'What did atheists do about it?' You speak as though atheists are an organised group, and they're not, so as individuals there is little they could do about it.
I think this discussion has run its course. See you on another thread.
'What did atheists do about it?' You speak as though atheists are an organised group, and they're not, so as individuals there is little they could do about it.
I think this discussion has run its course. See you on another thread.
I have never claimed to be the most educated in the world. My education, my achievements and my goals are purely for me and to benefit the society and world with that. I am sure about how much academic education I have, and not many born here would even dream about. When you talk about taking the time to learn outside my normal sphere then I do not have to ask others what I should and should not study. If I want to learn how to swim, I would jump in the water instead of looking in the book that how I would be able to do that. I have never and will never insult anyone, just like normality you are quoting me out of context, All I said that there is repetition of answers and still few people keep on saying the same thing over and over again. What would you call them if not ignorant? Thick, rigid, immoveable, inflexible, obstinate, obdurate, unwavering, unbending or give me any other better word as my vocabulary is limited as English is not my first language and I have never claimed to be Shakespeare either, after all Shakespeare couldn�t have written five words of my language and look at me.
In the end I will hear your favourite dialogue, It�s only AB after all. But you know what Naomi. Everyone else here, and I mean every one takes it as only AB but you.
In the end I will hear your favourite dialogue, It�s only AB after all. But you know what Naomi. Everyone else here, and I mean every one takes it as only AB but you.
Imagine if there were no Jews, no holocaust. Is it the fault of Jews that by being Jewish they fueled the Holocaust? That is a confusing piece of reasoning.
Imagine if there were no Nazis persecuting Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, Protestants, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Socialists etal?
Imagine if there was no anti-semitism, then it would never of happened at all.
Imagine if there were no Nazis persecuting Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, Protestants, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Socialists etal?
Imagine if there was no anti-semitism, then it would never of happened at all.
The religionists always seem to have to contend with the old adage that 'great claims require great evidence' and I was really hoping that naomi's claim that a religion-free world would be a better place might have some substance, or at least basis, for such a claim to be made.
Alas, we appear to have been delivered the final say then fingers in the ears treatment, so we may never know. At least we are clear that atheists believe whilst the religious caused wars to begin and cease, they - for all intents and purposes stood by watching.
What a tragedy for humankind that they couln't have waded in with their moral flags and act as mediator instead of the proverbial stirrer of the mucky stuff.
Alas, we appear to have been delivered the final say then fingers in the ears treatment, so we may never know. At least we are clear that atheists believe whilst the religious caused wars to begin and cease, they - for all intents and purposes stood by watching.
What a tragedy for humankind that they couln't have waded in with their moral flags and act as mediator instead of the proverbial stirrer of the mucky stuff.
Sorry, everton, I don�t intend to hi-jack your site with this matter, but you and Octavius did raise it, so I think I�d better answer it.
You memory is at fault, Octavius. I didn�t give up R&S because I didn�t like the answers I got, but because I rarely got any! Time and again I debunked Theland�s mantra about nothing coming from nothing, ergo there must be a God. On every occasion he chose to ignore rather than answer and then repeated his illogic to every newcomer. I tried to start rational discussions such as asking what evidence people had for believing the Jesus story, and got nowhere. When I asked how a minor god of southern Israel, promoted to �God� only about 3000 years ago, had managed to create the universe 12,000 million years previously, and why he was then demoted, I got little response other than a feeble bleat about the universe not being that old anyway.
When you, Octavius, (or was it Clanad?) said you were bored with my repeatedly comparing the idea of God with those of Santa and the Tooth Fairy I promised that I would stop it if you could show why my comparison was invalid. There was no response. And so on�
What was obvious was that one cannot have a proper debate with religionists because they don�t deal in the necessary currency : fact, evidence, logic and reason.
But since R&S is a religious site, where people are entitled to be as irrational as they like, it seemed only right that I should stop being a nuisance and shove off. I was plainly at the wrong party.
When 123everton asked his unfriendly question here instead of on R&S (on the wrong side of Stanley Park, so to speak) I should have ignored it. Will I ever learn?
You memory is at fault, Octavius. I didn�t give up R&S because I didn�t like the answers I got, but because I rarely got any! Time and again I debunked Theland�s mantra about nothing coming from nothing, ergo there must be a God. On every occasion he chose to ignore rather than answer and then repeated his illogic to every newcomer. I tried to start rational discussions such as asking what evidence people had for believing the Jesus story, and got nowhere. When I asked how a minor god of southern Israel, promoted to �God� only about 3000 years ago, had managed to create the universe 12,000 million years previously, and why he was then demoted, I got little response other than a feeble bleat about the universe not being that old anyway.
When you, Octavius, (or was it Clanad?) said you were bored with my repeatedly comparing the idea of God with those of Santa and the Tooth Fairy I promised that I would stop it if you could show why my comparison was invalid. There was no response. And so on�
What was obvious was that one cannot have a proper debate with religionists because they don�t deal in the necessary currency : fact, evidence, logic and reason.
But since R&S is a religious site, where people are entitled to be as irrational as they like, it seemed only right that I should stop being a nuisance and shove off. I was plainly at the wrong party.
When 123everton asked his unfriendly question here instead of on R&S (on the wrong side of Stanley Park, so to speak) I should have ignored it. Will I ever learn?
Chakka, I can certainly say that you did receive lots of answers to your hypotheses � from both sides of the great divide. I would assume by your reassertion above that there was no response in all reality therefore, just means that you didn�t receive an answer you liked, or that accorded with your own beliefs/non beliefs/prejudices.
That is different from no answer at all. In your eyes it might have been the wrong answer but you would only keep asking the same question as if to assert the question has no answer. I think we concluded that if you couldn�t accept any of the answers as given then your questions and inferences were virtually pointless.
That is different from no answer at all. In your eyes it might have been the wrong answer but you would only keep asking the same question as if to assert the question has no answer. I think we concluded that if you couldn�t accept any of the answers as given then your questions and inferences were virtually pointless.
Well I've actually asked for the necessary currency : fact, evidence, logic and reason.
So far we've had none beyond 17th century, hence the rather huffy responses, opinions which have not even been validated with the slightest hint of anecdotal evidence (this from someone who waxes lyrical avbout proof and only one truth) vague apophryical stories of no real value dressed up as opinion in an attempt to find stronger ground interspersed with various desires to take bats and balls home and accusations of setting some sort of creationist trap.
Atheists are very touchy people when they don't get their own way, history teaches us this fact.
Speaking as a "creotard" I feel it's fair to say that the unfriendly tones in this thread are pale in significance to that of other posts/poster's.
P.S.
I actually live on the right side of Stanley Park, and unlike the Koppites I live near to it! LOL
So far we've had none beyond 17th century, hence the rather huffy responses, opinions which have not even been validated with the slightest hint of anecdotal evidence (this from someone who waxes lyrical avbout proof and only one truth) vague apophryical stories of no real value dressed up as opinion in an attempt to find stronger ground interspersed with various desires to take bats and balls home and accusations of setting some sort of creationist trap.
Atheists are very touchy people when they don't get their own way, history teaches us this fact.
Speaking as a "creotard" I feel it's fair to say that the unfriendly tones in this thread are pale in significance to that of other posts/poster's.
P.S.
I actually live on the right side of Stanley Park, and unlike the Koppites I live near to it! LOL
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.