What life would be like if the majority of people where atheists

[DarkWizard12]

That's a very good point. I should laugh at someone who tells me I am going to hell. Thanks for the reality check. :2wave:

I'm so glad you find endless torture by fire so entertaining! :mrgreen: You'll fit right in!

 

[Gibberish]

I'm so glad you find endless torture by fire so entertaining! :mrgreen: You'll fit right in!

Did you just call aps "hot"?

 

[scourge99]

Stalin was an atheist, as was Hitler.

:bs

You are one for two. Try again.

 

[Jerry]

:bs

You are one for two. Try again.

That's a good start; I like how you use a smelly and a baseless claim to troll an emotive response out of your opponent. I suggest you now take your first draft and add a counter point or two, toss in some supporting data and perhaps a counter request for your opponents supporting data. Keep the smile, though.

 

[scourge99]

this argument is rested on the premise that a lot of men are one extended dry spell away from kiddie ****ing, and that the kiddie ****ing priests were actually dumb enough to believe that ****ing kids was somehow biblically acceptable while marriage is not. I've had a lot of problems with the Catholics in my day, they believe some things I find to be very theologically weak, but never anything that dumb.

I think the moral of the story is that suppressing instincts and emotions is difficult if not impossible for some. The Vatican is learning this the hard way thanks to US courts and something known as "punitive damages".

You conveniently ignore the other non-religious factors which influence this, an adult of trust left for extended periods alone with individual children in a system which did not punish child molestation, but just shifted the kiddie ****ers around. But no, it's just because they believed it was more sinful to jack off than **** kids :roll:

Are you still looking for a single silver bullet? Both explanations are factors that shouldn't be ignored.

 

[scourge99]

That's a good start; I like how you use a smelly and a baseless claim to troll an emotive response out of your opponent. I suggest you now take your first draft and add a counter point or two, toss in some supporting data and perhaps a counter request for your opponents supporting data. Keep the smile, though.

Go Google "Hitler religion".

Hitler religion - Google Search

Try to be unbiased... i know thats hard for you.

 

[Jerry]

Go Google "Hitler religion".

Hitler religion - Google Search

Try to be unbiased... i know thats hard for you.

You argue that Hitler was a Catholic......

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday: The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night: The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday: Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953

If you will note, your quotes end in the year mine begin. Perhaps he was a Christian in the beginning, but he was not a Christian by the time of the death camps.

Hitler was already during horrible things to the Jews pre 1941. Maybe you are correct then. That he lost his faith in Christainity during the war. But did he lose his faith in higher being/s? Probably not. I know he dabbled in the occult in the later years, he believed the German people were chosen by higher providence etc. Unlike Stalin, Hitler was a man of faith.

The rest of the members of the Nazi party however, were they all non Christain? I certainly don't think so.

There are good/bad religious people.
There are good/bad athesist people.
Both use the same basis of moral principles of secular values.
The only difference is the religious group pick a few out of many rules from their holy book that differ from secular values.

In the bible lying and murder are consider equal sins. All Ten commandments are considered equal and the bible suggest otherwise. But hardly any religious person would say lying is the same evil as murder, this is the effect of secular morality.
The basis of all human morality is non religious.

It is hard, thank you for reconizing my strugle.

Out of the kindness of my cold, black heart, I will graciously allow you to change your argument away from 'Hitler was a Christian' to any variant of 'Hitler had some kind of belief system' you proffer to forward.

I am pleased to see that you have now elected to include links. It’s nice to know my tutelage is being followed to the best of your ability, and I applaud your efforts.

 

[Cephus]

And I explained to you that that's inductive reasoning devoid of logical content.

No, you stated it. You claimed it. You never demonstrated it. But I suppose I should be used to that from you by now. :roll:

 

[DarkWizard12]

Did you just call aps "hot"?

*Be an ethicalist, be an ethicalist, be an ethicalist....*

F--- it, no.

 

[Cephus]

The reason you're not willing to answer the question "Why are they suicide bombers while almost all religious people aren't?" because it gives you an answer other than the one you want.

I'm more curious why you keep ignoring the fact that virtually *ALL* suicide bombers *ARE* religious. Since we're trying to examine what would happen in a world without religion, bringing up the fact that most religious people aren't suicide bombers is irrelevant. The fact is, if you get rid of all religion, you get rid of pretty much all the reasons anyone would strap a bomb to their back. Whatever point you're arguing, it isn't what this thread is about.

 

[Jerry]

I'm more curious why you keep ignoring the fact that virtually *ALL* suicide bombers *ARE* religious. Since we're trying to examine what would happen in a world without religion, bringing up the fact that most religious people aren't suicide bombers is irrelevant. The fact is, if you get rid of all religion, you get rid of pretty much all the reasons anyone would strap a bomb to their back. Whatever point you're arguing, it isn't what this thread is about.

The lack of religion didn't stop Stalin.

IMO violence is a human condition, that religion is merely the most convenient excuse to build a rational to enact that violence on, and that the removal of religion, even if that were possible, would only force folks to come up with other rationales....like 'the white man stole our land' or '******s are an inferior race'....

 

[VTA]

I'm more curious why you keep ignoring the fact that virtually *ALL* suicide bombers *ARE* religious. Since we're trying to examine what would happen in a world without religion, bringing up the fact that most religious people aren't suicide bombers is irrelevant. The fact is, if you get rid of all religion, you get rid of pretty much all the reasons anyone would strap a bomb to their back. Whatever point you're arguing, it isn't what this thread is about.

Well, from following this thread the point is what you brought it be, i.e. without religion there'd be less of this and that. as you'd asserted.

Again, blaming religion as cause is short-sighted and a bit naive. Man is creative in his ability to be destructive and if it were not religion as impetus, it'd most certainly be something else.

We can easily claim that without money, there'd be no crime, as nothing impells man to wrong other's like material greed. But that'd be short sighted too.

Man is responsible for man. Whether or not a God exists, man is a self determining being. From the good we do (God get's no glory and man is lauded for his accomplishments) to the bad we do, (God is to blame, so therefore, he is either a cruel entity or not there at all), our creativity know's absolutely no bounds beyond what our minds are capable of.

 

[Cephus]

The lack of religion didn't stop Stalin.

It didn't cause Stalin either.

IMO violence is a human condition, that religion is merely the most convenient excuse to build a rational to enact that violence on, and that the removal of religion, even if that were possible, would only force folks to come up with other rationales....like 'the white man stole our land' or '******s are an inferior race'....

You're right and I've never said that getting rid of religion is going to get rid of all violence, far from it. But it will get rid of all of the silly "my god is better than your god" nonsense, it'll get rid of the "you're on my holy land, get off" crap and the "my imaginary friend told me to kill you because you don't believe in the same nonsensical god that I do" stupidity.

There's far more stupidity out there for people to kill over however.

 

[Jerry]

It didn't cause Stalin either.



You're right and I've never said that getting rid of religion is going to get rid of all violence, far from it. But it will get rid of all of the silly "my god is better than your god" nonsense, it'll get rid of the "you're on my holy land, get off" crap and the "my imaginary friend told me to kill you because you don't believe in the same nonsensical god that I do" stupidity.

There's far more stupidity out there for people to kill over however.

IMO the best way to get rid of it is to ablige it.

 

[Cephus]

Well, from following this thread the point is what you brought it be, i.e. without religion there'd be less of this and that. as you'd asserted.

I said there would be less people strapping bombs to their backs, yes. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of people currently strapping bombs to their backs are doing so for religious reasons. Take away the religious reasons, you take away the impetus to perform that particular action. That doesn't mean take away the religious reasons and all violence will magically disappear, that's ludicrous.

 

[Jerry]

I said there would be less people strapping bombs to their backs, yes. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of people currently strapping bombs to their backs are doing so for religious reasons. Take away the religious reasons, you take away the impetus to perform that particular action. That doesn't mean take away the religious reasons and all violence will magically disappear, that's ludicrous.

When you look at the religious reason, you find that it's about land, and I dare to suggest that a people can fight about land without using religion.

 

[VTA]

I said there would be less people strapping bombs to their backs, yes. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of people currently strapping bombs to their backs are doing so for religious reasons.

Why? Would it's validity as a tactic cease to exist? The very act itself has no religious connotations, it's a last ditch effort to hurt an enemy with only the crude materials at hand. If it were not religion, it'd be land (which it is), power (which it is) or revenge (which it is). Religion is only a tool convenience. There'd still be suicide bombers no matter what.

Take away the religious reasons, you take away the impetus to perform that particular action. That doesn't mean take away the religious reasons and all violence will magically disappear, that's ludicrous.

You're simplifying something that cannot be simplified. We've been fighting since before we created a legitimate reason to fight. There are no outside forces causing man to act. The impetus is from inside, and the susceptibility of the individual to simply accept the reasons put forth by others.

If anything else were painted with so broadly a brush, with which you paint religion, the person doing so would be raked over the coals. This day and age has not seen an enlightenment, but simply a shifting of prejudice.

The interpretations of what the bible really say's are quite simplistic; the fact that it's being ridiculed on these erroneus conclusions, i.e., the surface level understanding of what is meant, if it's not a text of God's word's, it is written by a people far more advanced in psychological understanding than anything we've seen since, considering these child-like interpretations of it's words.

 

[Cephus]

When you look at the religious reason, you find that it's about land, and I dare to suggest that a people can fight about land without using religion.

I'm sure that they can. Do you honestly think they'd be blowing themselves up over it without their religious convictions?

Without the supposed rewards in the afterlife, these people would want to LIVE to reap the benefits of their actions.

 

[Cephus]

Why? Would it's validity as a tactic cease to exist? The very act itself has no religious connotations, it's a last ditch effort to hurt an enemy with only the crude materials at hand. If it were not religion, it'd be land (which it is), power (which it is) or revenge (which it is). Religion is only a tool convenience. There'd still be suicide bombers no matter what.

If that were the case, why do we never see suicide bombers that are not doing it for religious reasons? If it's just a convenient tool, then we should see it done regularly by people of both religious and non-religious persuasions. The reality is, we don't. We see it done by a specific religious sect, by those who believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Sure, you can make the case that it's evil people using the religious convictions of others to get them to sacrifice their lives and I'd agree, but without those religious convictions, how far do you think the evil people would get?

"We want you to go die. No, you don't get anything for it, you're going to die a horrible, painful death, completely throwing away the only life you have to help our cause, but... hey... where are you going?"

 

[scourge99]

You argue that Hitler was a Catholic......
It is hard, thank you for reconizing my strugle.

Out of the kindness of my cold, black heart, I will graciously allow you to change your argument away from 'Hitler was a Christian' to any variant of 'Hitler had some kind of belief system' you proffer to forward.

I am pleased to see that you have now elected to include links. It’s nice to know my tutelage is being followed to the best of your ability, and I applaud your efforts.

Obviously you are so wrapped up in your own posts you haven;t bothered reading mine... I'll recap for you.

Jerry: Stalin at Hitler were Atheists.. blah blah blah
Link

Scourge: Hitler wasn't an atheist
Link

Jerry: I don't believe you. support your claim
Link

Scourge: Anyone can use Google... try Googling "Hitler Religion"
Link

Jerry: You argue that Hitler was a Catholic. Heres one source that supports my claim. That means I win!
Link

First of all you haven't shown any direct evidence to support your idea that Hitler was an atheist. You've shown he has dislike for Christians or what he views as Christianity (assuming your source is even legitimate)... that doesn't make him an atheist. You the proceed to ignore the millions of books and articles about Hitler and religion and instead focus on your weakly supported viewpoint.

Then you built a strawman where you assert that I believe Hitler is Catholic. Seriously, I have no idea where you even came up with that one.:screwy

 

[Arcana XV]

If that were the case, why do we never see suicide bombers that are not doing it for religious reasons? If it's just a convenient tool, then we should see it done regularly by people of both religious and non-religious persuasions. The reality is, we don't. We see it done by a specific religious sect, by those who believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Sure, you can make the case that it's evil people using the religious convictions of others to get them to sacrifice their lives and I'd agree, but without those religious convictions, how far do you think the evil people would get?

"We want you to go die. No, you don't get anything for it, you're going to die a horrible, painful death, completely throwing away the only life you have to help our cause, but... hey... where are you going?"

Do the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka do it for religious reasons? What about the Japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII?

Jihadists didn't invent the suicide attack tactic, it's been used as a war tactic all through history. I won't deny that religious belief plays a part in the rise of suicide attacks by Jiahdists, but it is far from being the main trigger for someone to strap a bomb to themselves.

 

[VTA]

If that were the case, why do we never see suicide bombers that are not doing it for religious reasons? If it's just a convenient tool, then we should see it done regularly by people of both religious and non-religious persuasions. The reality is, we don't. We see it done by a specific religious sect, by those who believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Sure, you can make the case that it's evil people using the religious convictions of others to get them to sacrifice their lives and I'd agree, but without those religious convictions, how far do you think the evil people would get?

"We want you to go die. No, you don't get anything for it, you're going to die a horrible, painful death, completely throwing away the only life you have to help our cause, but... hey... where are you going?"

Do you agree that religion has a powerful influence on people?

My whole point is that religion is not the seed of man's wants, it's the tool for man to gain his wants. We've been exceedingly creative in our use of tools, both physical and psychological, throughout our history on this earth. I don't doubt that were it not religion, it'd be something ele entirely.

Everything can be perverted once it becomes an institution. Like money, religion is an external consideration for man's internal wants. The idea of trading is to reach a balance of fairness for both the recipient and the supplier of goods, yet, money impells people to do atrocious things to one another, just as religion perverts man.

The core of our problems is ourselves.

 

[Jerry]

I'm sure that they can. Do you honestly think they'd be blowing themselves up over it without their religious convictions?

If that's what it took, yes. How many solders are willing to take a grenade attack to protect the oil fields in Iraq? That's not so different.

Without the supposed rewards in the afterlife, these people would want to LIVE to reap the benefits of their actions.

I don't think that one needs the promises of the afterlife to be convinced to sacrifice themselves for the good of their people, but I agree that convincing one of such promises is the easiest and most effective method of recruitment.

 

[Cephus]

Do the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka do it for religious reasons? What about the Japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII?

Without going to look up the first example, I have no idea. The second, absolutely. They thought their Emperor was functionally a god.

 

[Cephus]

Come on man, you've got a reply for everyone but me?

Nah, I've determined you're just not worth the effort. It's not like you deal with reality well or anything.