The Bible

Well, what you describe certainly does happen. But, I don't believe that is an example of energy converting to matter or vice versa. And, the possibility of that conversion is the point. The additional energy of an electron in an excited state is different from the energy that would be released if the electron were to be converted to energy .

Remember that e = m (with Einstein even showing the conversion factor - the square of the speed of light).

 

More people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history.

Alan Watts

 

Where did you hear that nonsense?

 

We patriots always win the debates in this forum because we are more informed and more honest than the right wingers. Watts views are well established and historically accurate.

 

But we are going into something other than what I understood you to be saying, which was about "vacuum energy" as you put it. What we're now talking about is not the energy of a vacuum ("vacuum energy") but constant conversions of energy to particles and then back to energy and all happening here and there in the vacuum of space.

 

That's hilarious.

State-imposed atheism was a defining feature of brutal 20th century regimes led by Stalin, Tito, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot among others, which resulted in the suffering and murder of millions.

On top of that you also have power and territory that far outweigh religion in conflicts.

 

"Vacuum energy" doesn't come from me. As shown in that wiki link, it's a common understanding of physicists concerning vacuums.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Particles coming in and out of existence in a vacuum is a demonstration of vacuum energy.

I think we were talking about the nature of space and whether the "big bang" was an explosion of matter into space or an expansion of space-time. Space is a near perfect vacuum, but it can't be considered a vacancy ready to receive and explosion simply because we don't see physical objects there. The vacuum itself has energy, and as per the discussion above that is just as good as having matter.

 

How many times have I heard that. The 20th century was one of at least 140 past centuries of known civilisation. Some lost forever. Here's 10.

Göbekli Tepe (10,000 - 8,000 BC)
Çatalhöyük (7500 - 5600 BC)
Mehrgarh (7000- 2600 BC)
Mesopotamians (5300 - 539 BC)
Ancient Egyptians (3150 - 332 BC)
Minoans (3500 - 1100 BC)
Chinese (1700 BC)
Tiwanaku (1500 BC - AD 1200)
Olmecs (1500 - 400 BC)
Romans (753 BC - AD 476)

Now tell me. Who were religious? What gods did they worship? Were they religious bigots who used force in the name of their gods. Who were atheists? Dod they put down any religion or religious persons. Even the tolerant attitude of the Romans toward religion didn't stop them persecuting groups like the Druids. Though, contrary to belief, they didn't wipe them out. Some Druids were intelligent teachers of their day and the Romans utilised their abilities.

So really, for any to claim religion or atheism has killed more people than the other, we just don't know. ;

 

Its not even close.

Non secular deaths far, far outweigh any created in the name of a religion.

Look at any event of mass taking of lives (which is where your numbers of deaths will come from) and very few have anything at all to do with religion.

Basically you have Charlemagne and the Crusades as your two big ones.

That's it and that really wasn't a lot of people.

In fact if you look at the Spanish Inquisition only around 100 people were actually killed.

Now compare these events to something like the Mongol Conquests which took around 70 million lives and tell us again how religion accounts for more deaths.

 

Firstly, I didn't give you the chart and I'm not discussing numbers. All your figures and the other sides figures are simply known ? figures. There are a thousand different figures that could be given if we could go back in time to the beginning of civilisation. And where you get the figures for the Spanish Inquisition from, I don't know. The Inquisition extended across Europe and to say just 100 people died is ludicrous. Figures given in a Vatican study give 30,000 in Germany, 300 in Lichtenstein etc.

You really ought to read up about Temujin (Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khan was actually his title. It means 'universal Ruler'). He was an animist, not atheist, and his followers consisted of Christians, Muslims and even Buddhists. He allowed freedom of religion to all his conquered people. Similar to the Romans earlier.
No one knows the number of people that the Mongols killed. Their claims are always suspect as are those of many victors in the past. Even today we argue about how many Jews were killed by the Nazi's.

If you know what happened 10,000 years ago, the historians would love to hear from you. We don't even know anything about Japan, North and South America, Australia and other 'newly' discovered lands prior to certain dates.

 

Which was my disagreement with Mr. Truth who said religion has been the cause of the most deaths.

You should have posted this in response to his statement, not mine.

 

Ok. Well I find all this quite interesting and I want to thank you for bringing it to my attention. This conversation ensures that I will keep my ears open to any news or discussion of the subject in the future.

 

But you quoted me. And I said you were both wrong. There is no way of knowing either. Read my edited post to see the stupidity of believing everything you're told.

 

I'll have to keep up on this, too.

 

Every bit of the above true. BUT the positive influences of the Bible in history is not any proof of the actual existence of Gid

 

This is preposterous nonsense. And where did you get the idea that the Mongol's were not religious ?

20 times 70 million = 1.4 Billion. Since there were not 1.4 Billion on the planet (not even close) in the 13th century - something is wrong with your 70 million statistic.

 

The Mongols did not wage a religious war.

It was a war for territory.

Just like Alexander or Napoleon.

 

Napoleon was fighting in large part on basis of fighting religious nut jobs of the day. Not sure why the Mongols were fighting and am pretty sure that you do not know either.

Regardless - The 1000 years of horror under Christianity was responsible for a whole lot of death.

Getting into a dick measuring contest over "who killed more" is silliness. Just because folks killed on the basis of Christianity or other religions may be less than those killed on the basis of other reasons ... does not absolve Christianity of this inherent evil.

 

True but the post I was responding to said directly that religion has been the cause of the most deaths.

That was the only statement I was contradicting.

I proved that it was false so now we can move on to other things.

And Napoleon didn't fight for any reason other than that's who he was, there was never a cause...he was an egomaniac with a serious god complex.

And he was good.

He was Trump times ten.

 

Where did you get that from.

There certainly was a cause. Napoleon saved France from its enemies within and without. He resisted the Royalist sympathisers attempt in Parliament to get a monarchy back He got back land lost in previous wars.

Napoleon was indifferent to religion but believed the people should have it. The Revolution, and massacre of 'high' society had been condemned by Rome and had split the Church from Rome when the Church became 'nationalised' . Napoleon restored that link by request to the Pope. .

He wasn't perfect but attempts by some to make him a villain as Stalin or Hitler are completely wrong. In fact he actually aided the Jews who were often in ghettos.

Modern France has been built on Napoleonic institutions. : the Napoleonic Code. The system of prefect administration. The financial system. The Banque de France. The Judicial system. The Military academies.

Not bad for an egomaniac

I proved that it was false so now we can move on to other things.

What have you proved? Your quote about the Inquisition was laughable. No-one can possibly know the figures on either side - unless they have a time machine and a calculator.

 

That's a simplistic view. First of all, you're off by more than a factor of 10 on what happened in Spain during the multiple inquisitions there. Beyond that, Spain was not the only place where similar inquisitions were held during that general timee frame.

Perhaps more importantly, deaths due to religion needs to include those cases where actions were taken on the principle that the religion of the actors made those actors believe their own interests were more important than the lives they killed.

The Mongols may not have taken their action based purely on hate for other religions, but it seems unlikely that they didn't see their own religion as placing themselves above others to the extent that the lives of others mattered little.

Israel may not be trying to kill all Muslims, but their regard for their own religion clearly justifies (in their own minds) crimes against humanity that all nations see as heinous. In fact, their own law considers non-Jews as having fewer rights - even rights of property by those who are ciitiizens of Israel!

 

Fine, 1000 people were killed during the Spanish Inquisitions

that is a bad five minutes in the American Civil War or equal to one charge in WW1.

 

You should not talk about things you know nothing about - as if you do. Napoleon hated the power of the Church and he hated theocracy. If it were not for Napoleon we might well still be burning witches.

 

Following your logic you can tie every human death to religion in some way.

That is funny.

"We slaughtered the Indians and they had a different religion so those were religious deaths".

Please

 

Napoleon did not go to war over religion.

Its not me that needs to study history.