We'd Be Better Off Without Religion

A hateful post creates division. Period. And that was a divisive hateful post.

 

we have one member that constantly denigrates and disrespects the Christians choice of God by referring to their God as a genocidal homophobic misogynist PRICK which on the asinine scale of 1 - 10 is roughly 100.

 

Found those rare Democrat Christians, did ya?

 

I've never found religion to be particularly divisive or even a measurable factor for the most part. The most divisive matters in my life have come from the intrusion of baser human instincts such as bullying, selfishness, envy, jealousy, lust, trespass/unforgiveness, revenge, covetousness, betrayal, etc. Ironically these human faults are what Christianity teaches us that we should banish from our hearts and motivations. I think it's a mistake to then link religion to the division by virtue of Christianity's call to brotherhood to a populace already sworn to division and committed to war. But there is no corral for evil when the power of choice gives it invite. So I suppose we are stuck with the drama and the exacting of justice. Basic human kindness need not be a segue to a divisive sermon. But neither peace a bar against our betterment or to the exclusion of miracles. We are not paintings or photos frozen in time. We live and breathe, filled with wonder. Choose well and believe. It is all anyone has. But to know is even better.

 

That's not we see at all. It's exactly like I put it. Most people hide their sins. It's just a fact.

 

The guy is a sinner trying to blame others for his missteps. Your statement is Exhibit A in support of this.

 

Do you? go ahead, in the 20th century, how many were killed in the name of Christ? I read an article that says in the 20th Century, 26 million Christians were killed for being Christian and from 33 AD. to 1900, 14 million Christians have been killed - https://www.christianity.com/church...ne/1901-2000/modern-persecution-11630665.html

As far as time periods like the Crusades, no one knows how many were killed. And, to say that the American Indians were killed in the name or because of Christianity is fallacious. People try to say Hitler was Christian but the reasons for killing Jews isn't because he was Christians. Any historian worth anything knows this. So, go ahead and let me know if you cant prove anything.

 

Can you list some of those "sins" that most people hide?

 

Adultery, murder, all manner of sexual sins...To not have to deal with the punishments like excommunication, disfellowship, they condemn the Church, Gospel and Christ. It's quite common.

 

Typical WOK nonsense. Man up! He spoke clearly and wisely.

 

In Post #8 the comment was:

Since that comment indicates specific knowledge as to who did what and when I thought that you would have access to information regarding how many people were killed by other groups. If your links don't provide that information it could be because they are just pulling numbers out of the air and therefore they shouldn't be taken seriously.

You can take the easy way out and just say that only 1 person was killed by Christians. After all, the God character got really ticked off when his henchmen didn't exterminate everyone as he commanded them to do.

https://thebricktestament.com/judges/punishment_for_incomplete_genocide/jg02_01a.html 5 pictures

https://thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/instructions_for_genocide/dt05_01p07_01.html 6 pictures, the First Commandment

edit typo

 

I knew you could not come up with anything. Atheists are the worst killers of all time by far.

 

I finally watched Hitchen's talk and it is biased as any Christian speaking against atheism. Taking worse case examples of any of man's social constructs like capitalism, socialism, marriage and on and on, one can support an argument that these constructs need to be done away with. But that is not a balanced view, it is more just rhetorical bullying.

His examples do have a pattern. The evils of the religious that he brings up are all supported by conservative members of a religion. Maybe conservatism is the true reason for the divisiveness and conflict. Inflexibility, mistrust of outsiders and a focus on their negative attributes, not questioning the power structure or social norms, moral judgement tends to be black or white, are all conservative attributes. Maybe that is the true problem because the overwhelming majority of the religious are good people who seem to need their religion or it would be discarded.

 

Religious twits kill people who don't believe in their imaginary buddies.

 

It has certainly happened like in the Salem Witch Trials. But, always at a small scale. Ireland fighting is more about land than anything about religion. No, atheist tyrants are by far the worst genocidal maniacs.

 

If you say so.

 

100 million in the 20th century. I would say so and be accurate. Then, there are all the ones during the dark ages. Ghangis Khan and a few others.

 

Doubt you can support this claim - and no .. crying 100 - million doesn't cut it .. as for most of human history there was not 100 million on the planet - not that you would do such a thing .. but .. just sayin.

 

Don't know if you just speed read through posts or not but the 100 million deaths by atheist tyrants had to do with the 20th century in which there were billions alive. China had a billion people during Mao's killing of 50-60 million or about 6% of his citizens, mostly poor and religious. Stalin wiped out the Ukraine of about 20 to 30 million who were Jewish and of other religions and beliefs, poor and a weight on the economy. Hitler killed 10 million Jews and others. He was more of the occult believing in aliens from another planet that were Ayrian white large people. He really wasn't Christian.
Genghis Khan (not his born name) was written about in this paper - https://carolinaasiacenter.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8684/2018/11/Genghis-Khan-.pdf
"While it’s impossible to know for sure how many people perished during the Mongol conquests, many historians put the number at somewhere around 40 million. Censuses from the Middle Ages show that the population of China plummeted by tens of millions during the Khan’s lifetime, and scholars estimate that he may have killed a full three-fourths of modern-day Iran’s population during his war with the Khwarezmid Empire. All told, the Mongols’ attacks may have reduced the entire world population by as much as 11 percent."
So, in the 1200's, there were about 375 million people in the world. He was spiritual and he actually gave religious freedom to many faiths of the time including Christianity.

 

Genghis Khan was not an atheist.

 

Nope, he wasn't completely. He was more spiritual than a member of a religion thought. He also ordered freedom of religion as well. People were allowed to believe and practice and exercise their religion.

 

Genghis Khan was very good for the environment. He gave the world some breathing room. BTW, his army ranged from 150,000 to about 240,000 men. That shows that a small dedicated, highly motivated force can always conquer large empires. We see that happening right now.

 

You can't end religion or religious thinking. It will always be with us. If the current organized religions fade, new ones will rise to replace them.

We can see this with the rising religion of the "woke". We see dogma that is not to be questioned, virtue signalling above all. Politicians have even coopted it to sell themselves, just like religions of old.

 

I do admit to sometimes speed reading through posts .. especially when one is engaging in a trope that I have heard many times .. and thi sis one of them.

The whole argument is fallacy from the get go - as while "some" of the folks you mention may have been atheists - they were not killing folks on the basis of atheism.

Hitler I don't think was an atheist - Khan was not an atheist - nor the Mongols - nor the Huns - and you mention this.

Aetheism is modern. If we go back in history - a whole lot of folks were killed on the basis of relious belief... not so many on account of atheism prior to the "enlightenment".

 

Shold we not separate the good from the evil ? - and does this not - by definition - always create a divide.

Your big fallacy however comes in claming that 1) all posts that create division are hateful - proven false as above

and 2) your claim that the post was hateful - is just name calling - as you give no "valid" support - just the circular fallacy which is rooted in the false claim that all speach that creates a divide is "Hateful"

Does religion not create divides ? does it not try to separate good from evil..

Ahh what a tangled discombobulated web we weave - when with fallacy one doeth lead. Irionic thing about this twisted logic is you end up claiming that religion is hateful