Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

I don't think people , especially atheists with a particularly smug attitude towards people with faith in God, will ever grasp that conflicts are made by man, and whatever excuse man can find to engage them (with religion being an historical favourite, that much is true) is only argued to entice and achieve popular support. It's all about power.

Try again. As @mistersafeway pointed out there's at least two of us that have done so VERY recently in this very thread.

So much so that his party persecuted them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

Read up on religion in general in Nazi Germany. It's interesting. Like many states hoping to consolidate power, they generally aimed to subvert religions to their own uses. But they were very not atheist.

In particular, there's a short section on atheism in Nazi Germany. There's some motions towards the idea of accepting people without beliefs, but the general sentiment in the real world seems to be that they were neither trusted nor accepted in positions of power. Much like Russia and the USA today.

On October 13, 1933, Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess issued a decree stating: "No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all."[168] However, the regime strongly opposed "godless communism"[169][170] and all of Germany's freethinking (freigeist), atheist, and largely left-wing organizations were banned the same year.[171][172]

In a speech made during the negotiations for the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933, Hitler argued against secular schools, stating: "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."[173] One of the groups closed down by the Nazi regime was the German Freethinkers League. Christians appealed to Hitler to end anti-religious and anti-Church propaganda promulgated by Free Thinkers,[174] and within Hitler's Nazi Party some atheists were quite vocal in their anti-Christian views, especially Martin Bormann.[175] Heinrich Himmler, who himself was fascinated with Germanic paganism,[176] was a strong promoter of the gottgläubig movement and didn't allow atheists into the SS, arguing that their "refusal to acknowledge higher powers" would be a "potential source of indiscipline".[22]

 

[Hun200kmh]

@Famine neither Hitler's eugenism nor soviet union's criminalizing gays derived of religious belief. If you can't accept this and resort to the christian background of both Germany and Russia to justify any link between those policies and religion, there's nothing I can do about it.

@Imari I didn't "try" anything. And I certainly don't need to "try again" anything. Read what I wrote, agree or disagree, don't try to patronize me.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

@Famine neither Hitler's eugenism nor soviet union's criminalizing gays derived of religious belief. If you can't accept this and resort to the christian background of both Germany and Russia to justify any link between those policies and religion, there's nothing I can do about it.

I think it was more an argument against the assertion that Hitler was an atheist rather than ascribing his acts to Christianity

 

[mistersafeway]

I think it was more an argument against the assertion that Hitler was an atheist rather than ascribing his acts to Christianity

That's how I took it. I don't remember anyone saying that Hitler's ties to Catholicism were what caused what he did, he ran on a campaign of making Germany a powerful nation, then jumped straight into persecution of the Jews because they were the reason Germany was poor, not the war followed up by a brutal treaty that essentially forced Germany to give everything away. Political scapegoating is a really popular tactic, especially among stupid and insane candidates, and once the people agree to minor injustices it's only a matter of time before they'll agree to big ones or, as the story goes, they come for [group you don't care about] right up until they come for you and nobody's left to object.

 

[Famine]

@Famine neither Hitler's eugenism nor soviet union's criminalizing gays derived of religious belief.

Well they certainly weren't anything to do with atheism, as you bizarrely claimed...

Nazi Germany was a cult of personality - if it hadn't been, they would more likely have won. Hitler was brought up as a Christian but essentially came to the point where he determined he was a messiah in his own right and campaigned against organised religion. Before the war he outlawed atheism too, associating it with communism. He - rather wisely - chose not to go for core Christianity during the pre-war and conflict periods as sheer weight of numbers would have harmed his credibility (but planned to dismantle it after the war), but amongst the groups he targeted for persecution were Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies and Muslims, all of whom joined the Jews in concentration camps eventually. He had a lifelong fascination with the paranormal and occult, particularly of the reported magical powers of Jewish artefacts (like the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail) and things like Atlantis, the hollow Earth and reincarnation. Even the symbol of the Nazi party was a stolen Hindu logo...

Ultimately he deified himself as the leader of the Reich - as the leader of the workers' party there was to be no law but Hitler's and ultimately he was their god (gleichschaltung). It was what lead to the defeat in WW2 - Hitler was a fairly poor war tactician even when he was sane, but his generals did his bidding because he was the Fuhrer.

In essence Nazi Germany was against all organised religion but its own, and their horrors were not perpetrated by belief in God, Jehovah, Allah, Shiva, Wotan (Hitler rejected worship of the Germanic gods too), Gaia or atheism (or non-theism) as they hated them all. They were perpetrated by belief in Hitler - and Hitler believed whatever he wanted (including that he'd rule for 1,000 years).


As for Russia, it literally has a state religion called Russian Orthodoxy. All of the political leaders are orthodox and the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church has absolutely no problem with weighing in on praise for Putin or condemnation of Pussy Riot, so separating out Church and State is a proper Gordian Knot.

Now I'm not super-familiar with Russian Orthodoxy, but I believe that the religion uses the old and new testaments as a source, which - unlike Christianity - means it can use the admonitions of man laying with man from Leviticus as a guide to its stance on homosexuality (and tattoos, and buying a girl you just raped, amongst other things). Handily, Patriarch Kirill - the leader of the ROC, who was inaugurated with both Putin and Medvedev in attendance - can weigh in at this point with his opinions on gayness: "This is a very dangerous apocalyptic symptom, and we must do everything in our powers to ensure that sin is never sanctioned in Russia by state law, because that would mean that the nation has embarked on a path of self-destruction."

With the ROC's stance on homosexuality and the intertwined nature of the church and state in mind it would be impossible to outright state any concept that the current treatment of homosexuals in Russia has zero religious influence.


Nevertheless, as I first stated:

Whether it's that jerks become atheists or atheism makes one a jerk is something I don't know.

It's neither. Spend some time in a public-facing job and you'll soon come to realise that it's people who are jerks, regardless of what they believe in (or don't). Or what their skin colour is. Or their gender. Or who they like to bang. Or their wealth.

 

[Imari]

@Imari I didn't "try" anything. And I certainly don't need to "try again" anything. Read what I wrote, agree or disagree, don't try to patronize me.

The evidence is right here in this thread what what you wrote is incorrect. The only reason to patronize you would be if you can't see an error when it is pointed out to you. There's nothing wrong with being incorrect, only with being unable to accept it with dignity.

Then again, the whole point that you were making was that smug atheists aren't smart enough to be able to see that conflict is largely a human issue, one that tends to be masked by whatever handy "reasoning" justifies the action that people naturally want to take. I can hardly blame you for wanting to continue to feel superior to the "other", as one assumes that you're not an atheist yourself. It's also natural for people to label others who are different to themselves as lesser, again, using whatever handy "reasoning" might suit their purposes. Everyone wants to feel like they're special, or chosen.

Well, maybe not everyone, but I certainly feel that it's a fairly basic and common human reaction.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And it's the same with religion. It's at worst a tool that some misuse, either knowingly for their own purposes or simply because it aligns with their own goals. I dare say that most people of any belief (or lack of it) figure that out pretty quickly.

If you really believe that all atheists are unable to see something as clear as the fact that it's largely power driving the world, not religion, then I fear you have little to contribute to a reasonable conversation.

 

[Hun200kmh]

@Famine: Ok, we're fine. With two notes. First, my first post today was not about Hitler being an atheist or just another wacko that believed himself to be a deity. It was about coercion of others being made with or without a religion to back it up. That's why I mentioned eugenism. Second, and about the russians (to simplify) your replies are about the current regime, what I posted was about the Soviet Union and the communist regime.

Lastly, I never heard about the nazi cross coming from Hindu culture or religion, I had the idea that it was a greek symbol later adopted by the romans. This probably because there's a famous archaelogical site in Portugal where an ancient roman city was uncovered and many of its mosaic floors had this cross. I remembre visiting when I was a student, many MANY years ago

Here a Picture of a living room floor in a 2000 years old roman villa:

EDIT: @Imari I'd say there's plenty - let me correct to abundant, even overwhelming - of evidence in this thread about self-defined atheists blaming wars on religion. About the last paragraph, I really think your evaluation, and fear, about what value I can add to this discussion, is irrelevant, as it is my own evaluation about your attitude towards me. It's what we say that matters, not some kind of "policing" that comes close to "bullying", about how we write to the other. Fight the message if you will, not the Messenger.

 

[Scaff]

@Famine: Ok, we're fine. With two notes. First, my first post today was not about Hitler being an atheist or just another wacko that believed himself to be a deity. It was about coercion of others being made with or without a religion to back it up. That's why I mentioned eugenism. Second, and about the russians (to simplify) your replies are about the current regime, what I posted was about the Soviet Union and the communist regime.

It read as examples of how atheist coercion existed, as such it certainly did come across in that manner.

Its also untrue to suggest that Hitler's ideal of racial purity was not at least partly motivated by religion, speaking on the subject in Mein Kampft he said (about any policy that didn't support Racial Purity) "To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."

As for Communist Russia, the Russian Orthodox church was reintroduced into the USSR by Stalin himself.

@Imari I'd say there's plenty - let me correct to abundant, even overwhelming - of evidence in this thread about self-defined atheists blaming wars on religion. About the last paragraph, I really think your evaluation, and fear, about what value I can add to this discussion, is irrelevant, as it is my own evaluation about your attitude towards me. It's what we say that matters, not some kind of "policing" that comes close to "bullying", about how we write to the other. Fight the message if you will, not the Messenger.

Are you saying that wars have not been fought over religion? I'm also not quite sure while the distinction needs to be made about atheists who are self-defined?

 

[mistersafeway]

I'm also not quite sure while the distinction needs to be made about atheists who are self-defined?

I can't believe I missed that...

 

[Hun200kmh]

@Scaff whatever Hitler wrote in his political manifesto to get votes from all parts of german society (something he succeeded to do as we know), eugenism as a policy in pre-war germany is a policy based in supposed scientific (and totally amoral) thinking. You only have to dig deeper in a search about this policy, where it came from and how it was implemented to understand that nothing of it had any religious backing, quite the contrary.

About the USSR, I'm not aware that Stalin had any religious belief, and indeed you don't say he had, so whatever he did to the Orthodox Church is irrelevant to this matter unless you argue that there is a link between that policy and the Orthodox Church, Christianity in general, or any other religious backing of the specific policy I mentioned

@Scaff and @mistersafeway "self-defined atheists" in the context of my phrase means that the people blaming wars on religion in this thread were all people that also defined themselves as atheists in this thread. I'm not sure what you are asking about this specific wording but that's probably a language barrier I'm facing now.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff whatever Hitler wrote in his political manifesto to get votes from all parts of german society (something he succeeded to do as we know), eugenism as a policy in pre-war germany is a policy based in supposed scientific (and totally amoral) thinking. You only have to dig deeper in a search about this policy, where it came from and how it was implemented to understand that nothing of it had any religious backing, quite the contrary.

About the USSR, I'm not aware that Stalin had any religious belief, and indeed you don't say he had, so whatever he did to the Orthodox Church is irrelevant to this matter unless you argue that there is a link between that policy and the Orthodox Church, Christianity in general, or any other religious backing of the specific policy I mentioned

@Scaff and @mistersafeway "self-defined atheists" in the context of my phrase means that the people blaming wars on religion in this thread were all people that also defined themselves as atheists in this thread. I'm not sure what you are asking about this specific wording but that's probably a language barrier I'm facing now.

You will note that I have not used either of these examples to claim that they are example of religion being used as a driving force, rather they have been used to refute your claim that they are examples of athiest coersion.

That Hitler however wrote it in a political manifesto I'd however irrelevant, that he didn't doesn't automatically make it simply a political ploy. He may well have been honest about a part of his motivation, and certainly that would be supported by his actions in ensuring that Germany was a thiest nation, just one with a church that was not a rival to the state.

 

[Famine]

eugenism as a policy in pre-war germany is a policy based in supposed scientific (and totally amoral) thinking.

Eugenics isn't 'scientific thinking', it's a philosophy. Scientific discoveries certainly enabled it - and vice versa (lots of advances in various areas of physiology were made by the Nazi philosophy of pretending non-Aryans were animals that could be experimented on at will) - but that's nothing new. Scientific discoveries can enable bliss and torment in equal measure, depending on the philosophies of the people that wield them.

I'd also reject the concept that eugenics was amoral (without morals). As practiced by the Nazis, eugenics was immoral (against morals) but facets of it are in fact wholly moral, and variations and advances on the techniques are used today to prevent birth defects. We just do it before birth, whereas the jackbooted - who had their own definition of what a birth defect was - liked to do it at pretty much any time, weeding out 'undesirable' traits from the breeding population by killing and sterilising people.

 

[Imari]

EDIT: @Imari I'd say there's plenty - let me correct to abundant, even overwhelming - of evidence in this thread about self-defined atheists blaming wars on religion. About the last paragraph, I really think your evaluation, and fear, about what value I can add to this discussion, is irrelevant, as it is my own evaluation about your attitude towards me. It's what we say that matters, not some kind of "policing" that comes close to "bullying", about how we write to the other. Fight the message if you will, not the Messenger.

You made a sweeping generalisation about ALL atheists. I don't disagree that some atheists behave that way. Possibly even many. But to paint every atheist with the same brush as though we're all just different faces on the same person is terrible.

Is it fair if I label all Christians in this thread as blindly illogical bigots? Because there's some in here that are, but it sure as sausages ain't all of them.

I took issue with you labelling an entire group. I expected you to back off and say that you didn't mean all atheists, like a kind, sensible person who didn't mean to offend every atheist in the thread. But you're apparently fine with it, despite there being evidence (that you even admit that you're aware of) that all atheists are not like that.

How does someone communicate sensibly with someone who is willing to ignore personal positions and assign you the traits of the worst members of a group that you happen to bear some relation to? Seriously, if you're willing to label me as ignorant of how religion and power work together despite me demonstrating otherwise before you even stuck your two cents in, what am I to think of you?

Are you just a hater?
Do you have some sort of grudge?
Should I even waste my time knowing that you'll ignore what I'm saying?

Tell me, how do I deal with someone who is willing to ignore what I say and label me with things that I have never done?

P.S. You should probably also know that "fear" has more than one meaning. It doesn't always mean scared.

@Scaff and @mistersafeway "self-defined atheists" in the context of my phrase means that the people blaming wars on religion in this thread were all people that also defined themselves as atheists in this thread. I'm not sure what you are asking about this specific wording but that's probably a language barrier I'm facing now.

They're picking it because it's redundant.

All atheists are self-defined, because there is no central atheist authority to regulate who is and isn't an atheist. The only way anyone ever becomes an atheist is by declaring themselves one. Simply saying "atheist" has exactly the same meaning.

The only time it's different is when people use phrases like "self-defined" or "so-called" to mean that the people aren't really whatever they claim to be. But I doubt that's what you meant here.

 

[xyloscissor]

Religion is an integral part of society, attempting to isolate it as a main reasoning for war is not helpful, in fact it's probably counter productive. It's no less correct to blame war simply on human nature. I have a very hard time believing Hitler did what he did either for god or against god, in other words no religious motivation at all. One could chalk up his cult following to a people desiring a more prosperous life, especially when you consider the backlash of WW1.

Killing in the name of god or against the name of god are both irrational behaviors that society should not tolerate, as for playing a blame game? Equally not tolerable. It's easier to blame some past wars on the religious vs the non because "my god is right" has been used as an excuse however the motivation behind it is more complex than that. What are the motivations behind what is happening in Israel? We have atheists backing Islamic terrorists against a Jewish democracy.(I'm going to call the UN an atheist organization and won't back out of that). It seems absurd to me to blame that mess on religion.

We can do a better job and it has nothing to do with god or religion, all in my humble opinion of course

 

[Imari]

(I'm going to call the UN an atheist organization and won't back out of that).

Hold up. The UN is a non-religious organisation, not an atheist one. They subscribe to no particular belief of lack of one. There's a word for this; they are a secular organisation.

 

[xyloscissor]

Hold up. The UN is a non-religious organisation, not an atheist one. They subscribe to no particular belief of lack of one. There's a word for this; they are a secular organisation.

The United States is a secular nation, let's not go down that road of parsing all the various words associated with atheism please. I won't even buy that the UN is neutral in any way. There is a reason I said I wouldn't back out of that, if you wish to change what I said from "an atheist organization" to "a secular one" that's fine with me.

You see how quick you don't wish for me to blame anything on atheism?

 

[Danoff]

Religion is an integral part of society, attempting to isolate it as a main reasoning for war is not helpful, in fact it's probably counter productive. It's no less correct to blame war simply on human nature. I have a very hard time believing Hitler did what he did either for god or against god, in other words no religious motivation at all. One could chalk up his cult following to a people desiring a more prosperous life, especially when you consider the backlash of WW1.

Killing in the name of god or against the name of god are both irrational behaviors that society should not tolerate, as for playing a blame game? Equally not tolerable. It's easier to blame some past wars on the religious vs the non because "my god is right" has been used as an excuse however the motivation behind it is more complex than that. What are the motivations behind what is happening in Israel? We have atheists backing Islamic terrorists against a Jewish democracy.(I'm going to call the UN an atheist organization and won't back out of that). It seems absurd to me to blame that mess on religion.

We can do a better job and it has nothing to do with god or religion, all in my humble opinion of course

It's true that there are many motivating factors for war - including grabbing natural resources, desire for power, treaty violations, and even fear. But one of the things you need for war, especially a bloody war, is a dehumanization of the other side, such that it's ok to kill the folks on the other side. One side can usually claim that they're being attacked, and so the other side is full of inhuman monsters who are trying to kill them. But, especially for offensive purposes, it's easier to cast the other side as disfavored by god - especially if you can point to a book condemning them to eternal torture by an unimpeachable perfect moral authority.

Religion then has been consistently extremely effective at motivating bloodshed, and it's no surprise. When your entire social and moral fiber is wrapped up in something that depicts foreigners (who worship a different god, or who behave differently) as worthy of everlasting torture for their sins, it's a lot easier to skewer them.

 

[Imari]

The United States is a secular nation, let's not go down that road of parsing all the various words associated with atheism please. I won't even buy that the UN is neutral in any way. There is a reason I said I wouldn't back out of that, if you wish to change what I said from "an atheist organization" to "a secular one" that's fine with me.

You see how quick you don't wish for me to blame anything on atheism?

If you want to look at it like that, sure.

I'd look at it in the sense that you should only blame groups for things that they are actually to blame for. Which is a revolutionary idea, but I think it's starting to catch on.

Had you decided to blame Christians for the KKK I would have jumped on that as well. I don't expect you to believe that, but I tend to subscribe to the idea that people should be treated fairly, even if you happen to disagree with their opinion. It just so happens that we're in a little phase here of people jumping on the train to slag off atheists as a whole without considering what that means. If I'm to be the one to stand up and point out the error, so be it. If you choose to point and laugh at that, then the more fool you.

Blame whatever you like on atheism. Just make sure that it was actually done in the name of atheism first.

And if you don't see the difference between atheist and secular, then I don't see the point in teaching you. Get a dictionary.

 

[xyloscissor]

@Danoff,

Education is the most powerful weapon against that sort of thing. Just in general and in this day and age would you say your statement is true for say; today's kids that died in Iraq?

It just so happens that we're in a little phase here of people jumping on the train to slag off atheists as a whole without considering what that means. If I'm to be the one to stand up and point out the error, so be it. If you choose to point and laugh at that, then the more fool you.

Perhaps you didn't understand the point I was making in that post, how much clearer can I say that blame game is lame on both sides.

Fool to me? I don't think so, I think you found it offensive to have the shoe on the other foot, I'm a Christian and I don't go around killing in the name of god or to be more to the point, ever taking away another's rights at all. If I was called to war I would serve and it would have nothing to do with my faith.

It just so happens that we're in a little phase here of people jumping on the train to slag off atheists as a whole without considering what that means. If I'm to be the one to stand up and point out the error, so be it. If you choose to point and laugh at that, then the more fool you.

And if you don't see the difference between atheist and secular, then I don't see the point in teaching you. Get a dictionary.

How is that playing the ball? I know the difference and I don't need an education from you, I consider the UN the way I do and that will not change.

 

[Scaff]

Religion is an integral part of society, attempting to isolate it as a main reasoning for war is not helpful, in fact it's probably counter productive. It's no less correct to blame war simply on human nature. I have a very hard time believing Hitler did what he did either for god or against god, in other words no religious motivation at all. One could chalk up his cult following to a people desiring a more prosperous life, especially when you consider the backlash of WW1.

I'm not aware that anyone has said that religion was the only factor involved, however to dismiss it totally as you have done (and despite Hitler's own words) is rather hypocritical given the point you are attempting to make.

Killing in the name of god or against the name of god are both irrational behaviors that society should not tolerate, as for playing a blame game? Equally not tolerable. It's easier to blame some past wars on the religious vs the non because "my god is right" has been used as an excuse however the motivation behind it is more complex than that. What are the motivations behind what is happening in Israel?

Many and varied and they include, but are not limited to, religion.

We have atheists backing Islamic terrorists against a Jewish democracy.(I'm going to call the UN an atheist organization and won't back out of that). It seems absurd to me to blame that mess on religion.

So your going to say something you can't prove and refuse to change you mind no matter what evidence may be shown to illustrate you're wrong?

Sounds a bit fundamentalist to me.

We can do a better job and it has nothing to do with god or religion, all in my humble opinion of course

But you would much rather religion was given a free pass and will make stuff up to try and ensure that? OK.

The United States is a secular nation, let's not go down that road of parsing all the various words associated with atheism please. I won't even buy that the UN is neutral in any way. There is a reason I said I wouldn't back out of that, if you wish to change what I said from "an atheist organization" to "a secular one" that's fine with me.

Atheist =/= Secular.

If you don't understand the difference (and its a big one) then quite frankly you undermine your entire diatribe.

You see how quick you don't wish for me to blame anything on atheism?

A rather ironic standpoint to make given your clear attempt to absolve religion of any accountability at all.

 

[Imari]

Fool to me? I don't think so, I think you found it offensive to have the shoe on the other foot, I'm a Christian and I don't go around killing in the name of god or to be more to the point, ever taking away another's rights at all. If I was called to war I would serve and it would have nothing to do with my faith.

Quite. So it would be pretty wrong for me to call the army a Christian organisation invading innocent countries for political interests. And so I wouldn't, because the army is the army and does what it's told, and any religious overtones to it's actions are the result of the particular people in charge, not Christianity as a whole.

But hey, the UN is an atheist organisation supporting terrorism. Sounds great. Totally fair.

How is that playing the ball? I know the difference and I don't need an education from you, I consider the UN the way I do and that will not change.

You clearly don't know the difference, or you wouldn't be calling the UN an atheist organisation. You can say you know, but with that sentence you demonstrated otherwise.

But you're right, you don't need an education from me. Because you're not interested in what's correct or true, only in joining @Hun200kmh as painting atheists as ignorant, bloodthirsty terrorists who are coming to get you.

Actually, we all used to be communists. This is just our new plot to take over the country. We thought by changing the name you'd be taken by surprise. But you must have known that already, that's why you're both onto us so quickly. Dang.

 

[Scaff]

Oh look, those bloody atheists at the UN having a multi-faith prayer and meditation room designed with the input of the worlds faiths in its HQ since it was constructed.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/dag/meditationroom.htm

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff,

Education is the most powerful weapon against that sort of thing. Just in general and in this day and age would you say your statement is true for say; today's kids that died in Iraq?

Which statement? The part about wars being easily motivated by religion? The Iraq conflicts weren't directly motivated by religion either time, no (at least not that I know of). Why do you ask?

 

[xyloscissor]

But hey, the UN is an atheist organisation supporting terrorism. Sounds great. Totally fair.

While I'm all in favor of this, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55881#.WGQaw9QwjUI, if it's what you are worried about it's not. I look directly at the leaders, past and present starting out with Hiss.

Supporting terrorism? Well what is this to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334, how can the UN support a group of people over another without supporting that people's leaders? I guess you could call it indirect and also more a humanitarian deal but in reality they are supporting the terrorists, what happens if Israel pulls out? I guess the missiles stop flying and we all live happily ever after.

My point is still the same, it's not religion or atheism causing the problems. Contributing factors of course but like I said, it's all part of a much larger thing called human nature.

There are reasons secular nations work btw, it has to do with small unobtrusive governments who do not force religion on anyone not the other way around. The UN is designed to be the largest government of all time being as such I'm not holding my breath they can be secular, it sounds all fine and dandy I just don't believe it.

Let's all join a world religion, that is what I think is being attempted and in that definition it's no religion at all. Haven't we seen that on large state levels already?

@Danoff

I asked because I think the world can learn from the past. Oops the tag went in the wrong place, sorry.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff

I asked because I think the world can learn from the past. Oops the tag went in the wrong place, sorry.

I'm a bit lost. Are you saying that the Iraq conflicts were not directly motivated by religion because people learned from the past?

 

[xyloscissor]

I'm a bit lost. Are you saying that the Iraq conflicts were not directly motivated by religion because people learned from the past?

No, I'm saying the U.S. troops were not bamboozled into fighting in the name of god.

 

[Danoff]

No, I'm saying the U.S. troops were not bamboozled into fighting in the name of god.

...because they learned from the past? What was the "learn from the past" comment about? And why are you pointing out that US troops were sent for reasons other than god?

 

[xyloscissor]

...because they learned from the past? What was the "learn from the past" comment about? And why are you pointing out that US troops were sent for reasons other than god?

My goodness, don't you think that at least Americans have learned from the past not to fight in the name of god? Maybe not but I do. I'm pointing it out because it's obvious to me that war had nothing to do with religion.

The lack of education is most likely a big factor in why the sects go at each other, most likely for most of the region which is why I said what I did.

 

[Imari]

While I'm all in favor of this, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55881#.WGQaw9QwjUI, if it's what you are worried about it's not. I look directly at the leaders, past and present starting out with Hiss.

Funny. So they've just elevated atheism to an equal level with other faiths, but they've been a terrorist supporting atheist organisation all along?

I think you're getting tripped up in your own rhetoric.

Supporting terrorism? Well what is this to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334, how can the UN support a group of people over another without supporting that people's leaders? I guess you could call it indirect and also more a humanitarian deal but in reality they are supporting the terrorists, what happens if Israel pulls out? I guess the missiles stop flying and we all live happily ever after.

You're right, I forgot that Palestine is just chock full of terrorists. Israel is just sweet little old ladies trying to build holiday homes, and the nasty terrorists are in there slaughtering and raping.



The reality is that both Israel and Palestine are like a couple of children that won't stop bickering over the last slice of cake. And they're both so stubborn and arrogant that they'd happily blow each other up to get it. As far as I know they'd both nuke the whole lot into the ground just so that the other couldn't have it.

The UN, your atheist terrorist supporting organisation, exists to stop that. If they can. Which seems like a good idea to me, try and get these countries to put down the missiles and nukes, take a step back and realise that maybe they can act like adults and come to a compromise.

Funny how Israel is a country and Palestine technically still isn't though, huh? How did that happen? Was it the atheist terrorist supporting organisation? Seems like they're not doing a great job of supporting their terrorists. They should get right on that.

My point is still the same, it's not religion or atheism causing the problems.

Apart from the atheist organisations supporting terrorists?

My goodness, don't you think that at least Americans have learned from the past not to fight in the name of god? Maybe not but I do. I'm pointing it out because it's obvious to me that war had nothing to do with religion.

When was the last time American troops went to war in the name of God?

 

[Danoff]

My goodness, don't you think that at least Americans have learned from the past not to fight in the name of god?

In kindof a squinty-eyed I'm-trying-hard-to-see-it separation of church and state kinda way, sure. We learned from the past about mixing religion and politics.

I'm pointing it out because it's obvious to me that war had nothing to do with religion.

I don't remember saying that all wars are caused by religion, so giving me a counter-example doesn't serve a lot of point. What I said was that religion is a convenient dehumanizing mechanism that has propagated war throughout human history.