No one ever started a war over Wicca

[GorillaTheater]

I don't think anything is fought over religion really. If you look deeper into the history of things, especially in the middle east, you can see religion spreads down along already well built social fault lines. The people who want to be different from their neighbor adopt different religions. It's not like Islam came to a village with nothing but a peaceful history, half of the village decided to be Shia and the other half Sunni and they've been at war ever since. It doesn't work exactly that way. It's more complicated. Way easy for an outsider to see religion as the problem though.

 

I agree with this. In my view, it comes down to people being tribal (regardless of whether religion is in the mix of factors that define their tribe), and there existing the "right" conditions to unleash on the other tribe.

 

The Turks didn't unleash on the Armenians over religion, they unleashed because the Armenians were different, not seen as particularly loyal to the Ottoman regime, and, most importantly in my view, were seen to dominate too much of the economy. Same thing with the Germans and Jews, the Hutu and Tutsis, Stalin and the Kuloks (sp?), etc.

 

I think economic reasons were also behind the Germans' genocide of the Roma (which I hope nobody would be crazy enough to blame on religion). Not only were the Roma seen as "suhuman" because of their non-European roots, but they also had the extreme misfortune of being seen as economic parasites (a view which continues in much of Europe today).

[carhill]

I recall the Catholic propaganda about the Crusades inspiring the beginnings of my rebellion against the dogma I was being educated in daily. I'm pretty sure most historians would agree that 200 year period was mostly death by religion, with political shifts and a few land grabs thrown in. Only human.

[M30USA]

I recall the Catholic propaganda about the Crusades inspiring the beginnings of my rebellion against the dogma I was being educated in daily. I'm pretty sure most historians would agree that 200 year period was mostly death by religion, with political shifts and a few land grabs thrown in. Only human.

 

Not to downplay the death of even a single human, but has anyone looked into the actual amount of deaths caused by the Crusades and compared them to atheist-driven wars? You might be shocked by the way the Crusades seem minuscule in comparison. And considering the Crusades are always mentioned as an example of the woes of religion, I find it pretty sad that we've lost perspective on the far worse woes of atheism.

[GorillaTheater]

More than anything, the crusades are examples of absolute bungling and ineptness (with one exception or two). Yes, religion had an important role, as did the desire to employ warlike nobles, preferably far away.

 

Now the Muslim conquests of Iberia and the Balkans, those were the product of sound military principles. And examples of one tribe wanting the land of another tribe.

[GorillaTheater]

You address not a single point that completely dismantles your argument and continue bleating on and on about this, when any rational person knows it's nonsense.

 

Also, with regard to Hitler, has anyone here read Mein Kampf?

 

Hitler's Christianity

 

Just little bits and pieces. I've read Mein Kampf. Hitler was a fanatic. A god driven crusader hell bent on destroying an entire sect of people. To deny his christian radicalism is to deny history.

 

You're overplaying the religious angle. It certainly doesn't explain why Hitler was also hell bent on eradicating Slavs (especially the RC Poles and Czechs) or the Roma.

[M30USA]

Hitler was an occultist. Religious? Yes. Christian? Not unless you think his mad desire to own and wield the spear which pierced Jesus' side means he's Christian. He also is quoted as saying that the Law of God from the Old Testament is a disease which plagues mankind.

 

Secondly, the statistic I cited about less than 1% of war/political deaths in 20th century being caused by religious nations INCLUDED Hitler's nazi Germany as religious. That should shock you. Even with his millions of kills and all other religious kills, they still don't break the 1% mark.

[pureinheart]

Hey Robert,

 

Thanks for starting this thread, I've learned a lot and used to believe that religion was the prime motivator for war.

 

One motivator I'd like to put out there is sibling rivalry, illustrated by Ishmael and Isacc, sons of Abraham.

 

Isacc the father of the Jewish nation and Ishmael the father of the Arab nation- as we know, the tensions continue to this day.

[AlexDP]

Not to downplay the death of even a single human, but has anyone looked into the actual amount of deaths caused by the Crusades and compared them to atheist-driven wars? You might be shocked by the way the Crusades seem minuscule in comparison. And considering the Crusades are always mentioned as an example of the woes of religion, I find it pretty sad that we've lost perspective on the far worse woes of atheism.

 

You name me ONE PERSON who has died, specifically because of atheism.

[pureinheart]

Atheism is a philosophical worldview. In the strict definition, it's not a political system. However, it has been said by great minds on both sides of the table that when you have a nation of atheists, the end result will be communism. You might have heard the phrase, "Communism is government without God". Isn't it funny that as America grows farther and farther away from God that we resemble communism (and economic patterns of socialism) more and more? This is not coincidence.

 

This makes sense. I do know of a few Atheists that are straight up conservatives in every sense of the word.

 

I've always considered Atheism a belief system, believing there is no God or any god.

[M30USA]

You name me ONE PERSON who has died, specifically because of atheism.

 

Go to China, Vietnam, Japan, or N Korea and look at some monuments. Oh wait they probably don't have any since they are rewriting history just like you're tying to do now.

[pureinheart]

Not to downplay the death of even a single human, but has anyone looked into the actual amount of deaths caused by the Crusades and compared them to atheist-driven wars? You might be shocked by the way the Crusades seem minuscule in comparison. And considering the Crusades are always mentioned as an example of the woes of religion, I find it pretty sad that we've lost perspective on the far worse woes of atheism.

 

Another untruth that I'm learning in this thread. The demonising of the Crusades in this context- more secular indoctrination that I'm coming out of:(

[M30USA]

Another untruth that I'm learning in this thread. The demonising of the Crusades in this context- more secular indoctrination that I'm coming out of:(

 

If you want a visual comparison of the crusade death toll compared to, say, Mao Ze Dong of China, here you go:

 

(Every • represents 100,000 deaths.)

 

Mao Ze Dong (75 million):

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

 

Crusades (200 thousand):

••

[AlexDP]

Go to China, Vietnam, Japan, or N Korea and look at some monuments. Oh wait they probably don't have any since they are rewriting history just like you're tying to do now.

 

I ask you: name me ONE PERSON who was killed in the name of atheism. You're claiming millions, if not billions. Surely you can come up with ONE?

[pureinheart]

If you want a visual comparison of the crusade death toll compared to, say, Mao Ze Dong of China, here you go:

 

(Every • represents 100,000 deaths.)

 

Mao Ze Dong (75 million):

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

 

Crusades (200 thousand):

••

 

Nothing like facts to break secular indoctrination eh! That is if one wants to break free from the deceptions.

 

That is an undeniable visual! Thank you:D

[AlexDP]

Nothing like facts to break secular indoctrination eh! That is if one wants to break free from the deceptions.

 

That is an undeniable visual! Thank you:D

 

It is also a blatant misrepresentation, just because he's trying to make a point:

 

1. There weren't as many people back then. The only way to compare them, if you wanted to, is to compare percentages.

 

2. Mao had, at best, an occult ideology and had become the main figure of what can only be seen as a cult of personality. In fact it was so much a cult of personality that Wikipedia lists Mao as an example of the word! People in China had to study the work and life of Mao. Kind of like how you study Jebus, wouldn't you say?

 

3. Mao did not kill in the name of atheism. He killed in the name of the Chinese people, in the name of a greater ideal, in the name of science and in the name of art. He did not kill in the name of atheism. No one ever does. Because, quite frankly, it is damn near impossible to kill over what is essentially void of any true meaning.

[M30USA]

1. There weren't as many people back then. The only way to compare them, if you wanted to, is to compare percentages.

 

Then compare them with percentages. Care to do the honors?

 

(Don't forget to include Stalin, Lenin, Leopold II, Chang Kai-Shek, and Ho Chi Minh in the grand totals.)

 

2. Mao had, at best, an occult ideology and had become the main figure of what can only be seen as a cult of personality. In fact it was so much a cult of personality that Wikipedia lists Mao as an example of the word! People in China had to study the work and life of Mao. Kind of like how you study Jebus, wouldn't you say?

 

You could say this regarding any atheist. Atheists have philosophies (albeit without God) and people study them (if they are famous).

 

3. Mao did not kill in the name of atheism. He killed in the name of the Chinese people, in the name of a greater ideal, in the name of science and in the name of art.

 

The same can be said for Lucifer. He has his own "greater ideal".

Edited May 8, 2013 by M30USA

[Madman81]

Atheism is a philosophical worldview. In the strict definition, it's not a political system. However, it has been said by great minds on both sides of the table that when you have a nation of atheists, the end result will be communism. You might have heard the phrase, "Communism is government without God". Isn't it funny that as America grows farther and farther away from God that we resemble communism (and economic patterns of socialism) more and more? This is not coincidence.

If you think that America, or any reasonable conception of the current government's "intended" America, resemble communism, you haven't a clue what communism actually is.

 

It's worth noting that many of your Founding Fathers were deists, that is, they believed that observation of the natural world is sufficient to prove the existence of God, but disagreed with organized religion and had difficulty with miracles, the holy trinity, etc.

 

Plus the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President (and Founding Father) John Adams in 1796 and unanimously ratified by the Senate the following year, stated as follows:

 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

"In God We Trust" wasn't on US coins until 1864, and wasn't an official motto until 1956.

 

So you're saying the Founding Fathers were communists...?

[M30USA]

If you think that America, or any reasonable conception of the current government's "intended" America, resemble communism, you haven't a clue what communism actually is.

 

It's worth noting that many of your Founding Fathers were deists, that is, they believed that observation of the natural world is sufficient to prove the existence of God, but disagreed with organized religion and had difficulty with miracles, the holy trinity, etc.

 

Plus the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President (and Founding Father) John Adams in 1796 and unanimously ratified by the Senate the following year, stated as follows:

 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

"In God We Trust" wasn't on US coins until 1864, and wasn't an official motto until 1956.

 

So you're saying the Founding Fathers were communists...?

 

I don't necessarily defend our founding fathers anymore. I will admit they were deists. I have also confirmed beyond any shadow of doubt that George Washington, and arguably many more, were Freemasons. If you've heard this rumor, it's definitely factual. But either way, desists and Freemasons are classified as religious. In fact in order to be entered into freemasonry, you must proclaim belief in A god--ANY god.

[gaius]

The Turks didn't unleash on the Armenians over religion, they unleashed because the Armenians were different, not seen as particularly loyal to the Ottoman regime, and, most importantly in my view, were seen to dominate too much of the economy. Same thing with the Germans and Jews, the Hutu and Tutsis, Stalin and the Kuloks (sp?), etc.

 

I think economic reasons were also behind the Germans' genocide of the Roma (which I hope nobody would be crazy enough to blame on religion). Not only were the Roma seen as "suhuman" because of their non-European roots, but they also had the extreme misfortune of being seen as economic parasites (a view which continues in much of Europe today).

Indeed. People bring up the crusades as an example of religion running amok, but it really was just the descendants of the Romans fighting the descendants of the Parthians/Sassanids over the same land they always fought over. Since way before Christianity/Islam were even a seed in their mother's womb. When the original Wicca was running wild.

 

Christianity really is just a slightly altered offshoot of Judaism, and Islam is a slightly altered copy of Christianity. The Christians wanted the benefits monotheism brought so they copied Judaism but made it their own, because they didn't want to be in the same tribe with the Jews. Same with the Muslims when it comes to Christianity. That's how things really work. All about the tribe. Not much about religion.

[pie2]

No one ever started a war over Wicca.

 

Wiccans may not have the political clout to start major wars, but I think Wiccans start personal battles with others, just like anyone else. Battles based on pride, arrogance, envy etc. And that same sinful nature that exists in Wiccans (imo), is exactly the same thing that starts major political wars. Wiccans just do it on a much smaller scale. This is in NO WAY to shame Wiccans. I have the same tendencies within me, and I think we all do.

 

An interesting point. And it gets to the heart of the matter of why so many people are becoming strongly anti-religious. I was once very religious but have to admit that the logic is inescapable for me as well. Religion seems to be more about war and invading the private lives of others, than peace and love. In some ways, "religion" is becoming a symbol for what is worst about us, not best.

 

That's sad. Can you think of any positive contributions that a religious person/group has made to your community or life?

[Robert Z]

Wiccans may not have the political clout to start major wars, but I think Wiccans start personal battles with others, just like anyone else. Battles based on pride, arrogance, envy etc. And that same sinful nature that exists in Wiccans (imo), is exactly the same thing that starts major political wars. Wiccans just do it on a much smaller scale. This is in NO WAY to shame Wiccans. I have the same tendencies within me, and I think we all do.

 

Yeah, I did consider the point that perhaps no wars have been fought because you only have a handful of wiccans! But I understood the point of the bumper sticker. It was a direct slam on religion.

 

That's sad. Can you think of any positive contributions that a religious person/group has made to your community or life?

 

Sure, and I can think of a thousand ways I wasted my life because of religion. But that's just me. Even I have been shocked by the vile and contempt I find with regards to religion. Whether it be opposition to the right to die, or the right for adults to make their own choices, or to have equal rights in spite of sexual preference, or the distortion of science with religious mumbo jumbo, or the backing of the likes of Sarah Palin, or blind hatred of Muslims, or trying to flood schools with religious doctrine... where "intelligent design" is taught as if it qualified as anything more than total nonsense, global warming is treated like a liberal agenda when in fact the science is driven by science, where we would be led to believe that dinosaurs walked with humans, and evolution is just a theory...or Catholic priests doing their altar boys... and always steadfast support for the most unchristian people in politics...

 

no, I don't have much positive to say about religion any more. And I find that many people have stronger feelings that I do for any number of the reasons listed above.

 

Fixing a neighborhood doesn't compensate for the damage done to this country.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Robert Z

[pie2]

Yeah, I did consider the point that perhaps no wars have been fought because you only have a handful of wiccans! But I understood the point of the bumper sticker. It was a direct slam on religion.

 

But Wicca is a religion . I don't see the bumper sticker as a direct slam on "religion". To me it says, "The Wiccan religion isn't evil like other religions, because we don't start wars".

 

I think you read into it what you wanted though, maybe because you have such a bone to pick with religion? Which is your right. But I think you do your argument a favor if you fairly represent both sides. So, I'm glad that you can at least recognize that religion has caused some good in the world.

Edited May 9, 2013 by pie2

[AlexDP]

Then compare them with percentages. Care to do the honors?

 

(Don't forget to include Stalin, Lenin, Leopold II, Chang Kai-Shek, and Ho Chi Minh in the grand totals.)

 

 

 

You could say this regarding any atheist. Atheists have philosophies (albeit without God) and people study them (if they are famous).

 

 

 

The same can be said for Lucifer. He has his own "greater ideal".

 

I'm afraid you'll have to do the honors as you're the one who is claiming stuff. Obviously you will have to present the proof.

 

First things first: I don't think you quite realise who Ho Chi Minh was. Look him up and really think about what the USA were doing in the same period of time.

 

Atheists have philosophies and kill in the name of those philosophies. They do not kill in the name of atheism, because atheism as such is not a philosophy. You can't kill people in the name of something that does not exist. Your idea of a world order cannot be founded on nothing. Atheists always believe in other things.

 

Now you're comparing Mao with Lucifer, which means you are contradicting yourself. Lucifer is a religious figure. And so is Mao. Which was my point. Thank you for agreeing with me. I guess that we can now close this thread as you have admitted that people do not kill in the name of atheism. Thank you.

[M30USA]

I'm afraid you'll have to do the honors as you're the one who is claiming stuff. Obviously you will have to present the proof.

 

First things first: I don't think you quite realise who Ho Chi Minh was. Look him up and really think about what the USA were doing in the same period of time.

 

Atheists have philosophies and kill in the name of those philosophies. They do not kill in the name of atheism, because atheism as such is not a philosophy. You can't kill people in the name of something that does not exist. Your idea of a world order cannot be founded on nothing. Atheists always believe in other things.

 

Now you're comparing Mao with Lucifer, which means you are contradicting yourself. Lucifer is a religious figure. And so is Mao. Which was my point. Thank you for agreeing with me. I guess that we can now close this thread as you have admitted that people do not kill in the name of atheism. Thank you.

 

According to your criteria, what ruler/nation was atheist? You seem to be lumping every nation--by some stretch--into the religious category. So can you name any atheist rulers/nations?

 

Even if you name one atheist ruler, I bet you will then use the argument: "Well, the ruler was atheist, but the nation wasn't." Therefore you will push all atheist rulers/nations off the radar and prove your point, seeing what you want to see.

Edited May 9, 2013 by M30USA

[Eve]

As I say to my now grown children - a twat is a twat, no matter what they choose to call themselves.

 

Killing in ones own name or in the name of God isn't too cool an idea - not very sociable... although sometimes I can kind of understand a bit of killing, in a sort of wrong way.

 

Hence, I have decided I don't give a **** anymore about such debates. Mostly it is obvious who the crazies are in this world.

 

If they are hardcore atheist, (to my understanding as a Christian) they are going to get even more of a shock come Judgement Day, lol... but both camps of bad will be equally as screwed.

 

That's enough for me. In the interim there is the Law of the land, which should reflect basics which we all agree on. This has been done in most parts of the world to some level. Dodgy in parts but we have a legal system and all should agree that the countless deaths of REAL people used so callously in this thread to argue a point are really crimes against humanity.

 

.. but the genisis of evil in people to kill comes usually from bad desires, jealousy, group conformity, illness and dodgy ideas created usually to get something not currently in possession. All a person needs to do is listen to the reasoning behind actions.

 

Hence I would conclude that it is the same evil you are arguing about.

 

Take care,

Eve x