Anti-Atheist Conspiracy?

reply to post by jfj123


So what you are saying is that religion did not influence the people what so ever? I beg to differ, I mean United Way one of the biggest charities was founded by religious leaders. History

You guys said, if there was no religion then science would be very advanced. So I'm just wondering, would that not mean bigger, and more catastrophic weaponry? What would stop two leaders from using an advanced type of weapon to annihilate the each other? I mean if there was no religion, we would still have greed, poverty, different nations and bad influence.
It would not be so different then the world today, leaders can just manipulate a different reason for wars, conquer and domination.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Many parts of our infrastructure (in America) are already socialized: public schools, fire department, police as three examples. If they'd add health care to the list, and leave the rest of society the way it is, I'd be happy.

Social health care WOULD be nice, but where is the money going to come from? The money for 300 million people cared for from the gov doesn't just pop out of no where. It is likely that the system will be over dosed, and the standards thus lowered. Look at Cuba, they have social health care. Even with the few people they have, it has completely collapsed the people's health. Englans, and other socialized nations can say what they want, but when you ask a newCuban immagrant, that left Cuba just within the last 5 years, they will never state Social health care is good. I beg petty from the mods, so I will not post pictures of their health care's results, just Google it.

I, my self, take around 400-600 dollars a year for health care due to asthma and etc. That's small, and Times that by 300 million, and you get $180 billion. My family alone is around $5,000 .If we didn't go to Iraq, this wouldn't be alot. But because we have an ass for a president, our children will be paying for this war. Universal Health care would bankrupt us.

This leads to to Communism down the road. If everything is Socialized, people get lazy, then they don't work, then trade collapses, dictator takes over, executes massive numbers of lazy people to encourage others to work, but they don't, and so communism, once again, is established, doomed to collapse the nation, and then the people doomed rebel over it, and then rebuild.

It's just a 50 year period of hell we don't need.

You know, if Americans weren't fat, lazy, and for that matter, simply un responsive to work, then fine, but when we don't have to work, then we don't. As I said, it puts the brick work down for Communism, not establish it. Communism doesn't just happen, it takes forerunner events. One of which is socialization. Sure, some things must be socialized for the benefit of people, but not everything. You can see what socialization of schools have done. People can't even find a state. Just now are they finally taking action of that. Yea Bush, lets "educate our Childrens".




Looking at this map, you can see it is dependent on the nation's wealth and leadership. It works for some, but not all. The US is one of those not all, as we are in debt up to our eye balls.



[edit on 7-10-2007 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by jfj123

 

So what you are saying is that religion did not influence the people what so ever? I beg to differ, I mean United Way one of the biggest charities was founded by religious leaders. History

And if there was no such thing as religion, would those people still be good people who would have helped anyway? Probably.

Look, obviously religion has an influence on people to some extent and the more ardently one believes, the more problems are created by that belief (ie Salem Witch Trials, inquisition, the crusades, islamic terrorists, Third Reich, etc..)
How many atrocities were committed in the name of atheism?

You guys said, if there was no religion then science would be very advanced. So I'm just wondering, would that not mean bigger, and more catastrophic weaponry? What would stop two leaders from using an advanced type of weapon to annihilate the each other? I mean if there was no religion, we would still have greed, poverty, different nations and bad influence.
It would not be so different then the world today, leaders can just manipulate a different reason for wars, conquer and domination.

Here's just one example of how we could be further advanced then we currently are if there was no such thing as religion:

If there was no religion, then The Library at Alexandria never would have been burnt. The burning of the library was religiously motivated and caused a loss of the greatest depository of knowledge from the ancient world.

Originally posted by jfj123

If there was no religion, then The Library at Alexandria never would have been burnt. The burning of the library was religiously motivated and caused a loss of the greatest depository of knowledge from the ancient world.

Actually, it was because of Racism, but mainly to keep the people subjugated. I sure would never had welcomed the Muslim overlords if I knew my ancestors where so brilliant and strong. One of the first rules of conflict, if you plan to conquer the world, is to keep the people in line. Making them stupid is amongst one of the ways to do it. Seeing as the Muslims were the most brilliant of peoples in these times, advancing onto much more major things then the Europeans, I highly doubt they would burn the library just because of religion.

Some say Theodosius I did it. Very probable in my opinion. In which case, it was to keep the people stupid, as Christians also were attempting to conquer the world, leading to an eventual crusade. No sane man would destroy such good works. Unfortunately, most of the people back then were not sane at all, being engages with horrific wars.

reply to post by jfj123

How many atrocities were committed in the name of atheism?

None right?

"Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution"

Also the persecution by the soviet union in order to maintain an atheist state. Many of the churches were destroyed or turned into a warehouse, monasteries were often turned into prison camps. Stalin which was an atheist, used the church for patriotic propaganda, he appointed KGB officers as priests.
Enver Hoxha who killed religious people, converted all their worship sanctuaries, and claimed Albania to be an Atheist state.

Sorry I do not have time to list more I will come back and add more.

reply to post by Equinox99


Both sides did their number on Life. It's not a proper argument if your calling someone a murderer when you both got blood on your hands.

Originally posted by Equinox99
None right?

"Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution"

not committed in the name of atheism, actually those were committed in the name of secularism within a democratic institution and had nothing to do with the religion of individuals, but with the separation of church and state.

Also the persecution by the soviet union in order to maintain an atheist state. Many of the churches were destroyed or turned into a warehouse, monasteries were often turned into prison camps. Stalin which was an atheist, used the church for patriotic propaganda, he appointed KGB officers as priests.

soviet russia participated in state worship, not atheists.

Enver Hoxha who killed religious people, converted all their worship sanctuaries, and claimed Albania to be an Atheist state.

ok, you have one...

Sorry I do not have time to list more I will come back and add more.

you've only listed one.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Both sides did their number on Life. It's not a proper argument if your calling someone a murderer when you both got blood on your hands.

but atheism isn't inherently intolerant or murderous... it's not really inherently anything. it's a lack of a single belief, it has no predisposition towards anything.

religion, on the other hand, has a predisposition towards intolerance, genocide, and murder. just read the religious texts.

Originally posted by Gorman91

Originally posted by jfj123

If there was no religion, then The Library at Alexandria never would have been burnt. The burning of the library was religiously motivated and caused a loss of the greatest depository of knowledge from the ancient world.

Actually, it was because of Racism, but mainly to keep the people subjugated. I sure would never had welcomed the Muslim overlords if I knew my ancestors where so brilliant and strong. One of the first rules of conflict, if you plan to conquer the world, is to keep the people in line. Making them stupid is amongst one of the ways to do it. Seeing as the Muslims were the most brilliant of peoples in these times, advancing onto much more major things then the Europeans, I highly doubt they would burn the library just because of religion.

Some say Theodosius I did it. Very probable in my opinion. In which case, it was to keep the people stupid, as Christians also were attempting to conquer the world, leading to an eventual crusade. No sane man would destroy such good works. Unfortunately, most of the people back then were not sane at all, being engages with horrific wars.

No, actually it was religiously motivated.

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by jfj123

 

How many atrocities were committed in the name of atheism?

None right?

"Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution"

Also the persecution by the soviet union in order to maintain an atheist state. Many of the churches were destroyed or turned into a warehouse, monasteries were often turned into prison camps. Stalin which was an atheist, used the church for patriotic propaganda, he appointed KGB officers as priests.
Enver Hoxha who killed religious people, converted all their worship sanctuaries, and claimed Albania to be an Atheist state.

Sorry I do not have time to list more I will come back and add more.

Did I say NONE?
If you're going to list all the atrocities done in the name of atheism, (not communism as it's not the same thing), then please list all atrocities done in the name of religion, as a side by side comparison.

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's just one example of how we could be further advanced then we currently are if there was no such thing as religion:

If there was no religion, then The Library at Alexandria never would have been burnt. The burning of the library was religiously motivated and caused a loss of the greatest depository of knowledge from the ancient world.

Another one is in astronomy. crucifing anyone who though Earth wasn't in the center of the universe. This went on for 1400 years! Copernicus even had to pubish his work on how wrong the church was after he died because he was afraid to get killed.

1400 years wasted by the church and their stupid beliefs.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Why should you be able to bunch several faiths into one bag called Christians, but I not to atheists? You are treating a two way street as a one way and are going to get hit. Stop being a hypocrite. You think the bought Popes at the time were any different then Stalin?

reply to post by jfj123


Why would the most knowledgeable people at the time burn a center of knowledge for purely religious reasons? That makes no sense at all. That along with the fact that no one knows who actually burned it (anyone from Caesar to Muslim invaders). How should we know why it was burned if we know not who actually did the burning?

reply to post by AncientVoid


Actually, before the corruption of the church by the Romans, Catholics demanded you believe in other worlds as to make God all powerful. Not sure if this made people assume the Earth was round, but it sure was one of the first words on foreign planets, which could lead to the assumption of the Earth being round.

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Why should you be able to bunch several faiths into one bag called Christians, but I not to atheists? You are treating a two way street as a one way and are going to get hit. Stop being a hypocrite. You think the bought Popes at the time were any different then Stalin?

because communism wasn't atheistic, it was state-worship. if the catholic church had been pope-worship you could exclude them from the list, but the fact remains that the pope was only a leader. stalin was also worshiped.

atheism is a lack of belief and a lack of worship, you're throwing non-atheists into the same bag as atheists.

the popes still used theologically sound christianity to work their evils, that's the huge difference.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


yes, but communism/marxism used atheism as a tool to turn people into insane, unquestioning, hierarchical automatons.

While I dont endorse religion, at least it provided orientation other than "the state", at least it provided a rebellious soul.

One example: Without catholisism, the people of poland would have been forced into even worse conditions than they were. The catholic church was the only force in Poland which the communists were afraid of and wouldnt touch. Would they have tried to, the people would have started rioting. Their pope was allowed to visit poland and speak out against communism in a communist country. So, while I dont like catholism in general, I acknowledge the good it has caused in that given context.

The problem I have with atheists is that most often not only God is denounced but also the entire possibility of spirituality.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


On the contrary, People worshiped the Pope like Jesus. That's kind of what led to the reformation and Protestant break off. Get your history right. Once again you are taking the same thing and calling it different.

Stalin= Worshiped as God of atheists and used atheism as a tool to work the mases. Spread of Communism used as tool to get more people, strength, and monopolize his madness. Wanted more blood

Bought Italian Popes in the Middle Ages = Worshiped as Jesus 2.0 and used his power as a tool to work the masses. Crusades were a result for need to monopolize the Asian trade routes. Wanted more money.

They are the same, and like wise, the people they said they were should not be blamed for their actions. STOP GENERALIZING. I never would accuse you as an atheist of being responsible for the deaths of so many, yet you continue to blame every Christian in the world for the deaths of so many by the hand of the corrupt and bought papacy.

You are a hypocrite, congratulation, you win the Hypocritical award.

For Astounding resolve to think the same thing is different, and continual acceptance of ignorance.



Please forgive my sarcasm madness, but I couldn't resist.

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Gorman91]

Grammar fixes

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Gorman91]

Why would the most knowledgeable people at the time burn a center of knowledge for purely religious reasons? That makes no sense at all. That along with the fact that no one knows who actually burned it (anyone from Caesar to Muslim invaders). How should we know why it was burned if we know not who actually did the burning?

Why would religious people not want facts taught in school today ?
Why would religious people torture and kill people because they thought they were witches?
Why did the inquisition happen?
ETC...

The reason is their religion becomes the absolute, most important thing to them and they cannot accept anything that says they may be wrong. They must not be wrong and do whatever it takes to make sure they are not. If it means burning some scrolls, they would do it. Remember, I'm referring to religious fanatics, not your normal every day religious person.

Originally posted by jfj123


Why would religious people not want facts taught in school today ?
Why would religious people torture and kill people because they thought they were witches?
Why did the inquisition happen?
ETC...

Sadly in a nut shell, Christians. My fellow faithful have many times been led astray. Is it just me, or do Europeans simply follow anyone who calls themselves their leader? This seems purely a European thing, and once in a while another group will do it.

The main reason is simply they are close minded. The only good thing about this is when you finally DO have an open minded leader, the people mindlessly accept it as truth. I'd bet money that if Pope John Paul II or Paul VI was Pope during the Protestant break off, you'd see it still as one religion today.

I actually read an article recently that stated

"Pope Benedict 'believes in evolution"

Thats a bit open minded and I appreciate the fact that he can come around even a bit to see there is more then just faith.

reply to post by jfj123


Power can manipulate people quite easily. The Inquisition? Yes it was wrong, it was very wrong, but to call that war in the name of Christianity is wrong as well.
Those leaders manipulated religion, and lead many people astray. This just shows you how blind people really are. I will keep my religion, but I will never lay a hand on anyone. If religion can influence war, then surely atheism can as well. I guess it all comes down to who holds this power, and how they use it.

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by jfj123

 

Power can manipulate people quite easily. The Inquisition? Yes it was wrong, it was very wrong, but to call that war in the name of Christianity is wrong as well.
Those leaders manipulated religion, and lead many people astray. This just shows you how blind people really are. I will keep my religion, but I will never lay a hand on anyone. If religion can influence war, then surely atheism can as well. I guess it all comes down to who holds this power, and how they use it.

The thing that must be remembered is that atheism is not a comparable belief to religion. In fact atheism is not a belief but a lack of belief. So comparing atheism and religion is not like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and elephants so, assuming that atheism will be corrupt like religions have become corrupt (not all religions or religious people are corrupt) would not be a fair thing to say. Just my opinion.