• Atheism as state religion
    224 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bravehat;21791347]Or if we didn't have religion in the first place the multiple crusades would never have happened :v:[/QUOTE] Because the eastern kingdoms [b]SO[/b] wernt trying to invade europe at [b]any[/b] time :v:. Learn history please. ^^ People die all the time.
[QUOTE=bravehat;21791347]Or if we didn't have religion in the first place the multiple crusades would never have happened :v:[/QUOTE] You'd have to rewrite a lot of history and pre-history to entirely rid us of religion Why you would come up with such a fantasy scenario is beyond me [editline]03:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;21791354]but people died in the crusades people[/QUOTE] How is that relevant
It's relevant because people died because of religious conquest. And I can always dream that all the worlds religious leaders will be eviscerated by angry mobs of people sick of being spoon fed shit.
[QUOTE=bravehat;21791584]It's relevant because people died because of religious conquest. And I can always dream that all the worlds religious leaders will be eviscerated by angry mobs of people sick of being spoon fed shit.[/QUOTE] But the pope is so cash
I really hate atheists when they talk about religion as a big lie.
[QUOTE=bravehat;21791584]It's relevant because people died because of religious conquest. And I can always dream that all the worlds religious leaders will be eviscerated by angry mobs of people sick of being spoon fed shit.[/QUOTE] It wasnt about religious conquest. It was political, with religion used to organise it and give the men a sense of greater purpose. Once again, learn history.
The popes an asshat who needs to be slaughtered. And my personal opinion is get rid of religion and form your own morals, if you need a book or a cloud man to tell you how to live, there is something fundamentally wrong with your nature.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21791316]An example of how otherwise bickering kingdoms easily abandoned their hostilities, unified by their religion, to counter an external threat[/QUOTE] their religion was an excuse to expand their kingdom. Kings used religion and the church for their own gains. Also, how was islam an external threat?
[QUOTE=bravehat;21791688]The popes an asshat who needs to be slaughtered. And my personal opinion is get rid of religion and form your own morals, if you need a book or a cloud man to tell you how to live, there is something fundamentally wrong with your nature.[/QUOTE] So you denounce religiously inspired violence, but wish to kill the pope because hes a religious leader? Isnt this somewhat.. hypocritical? I can understand why you would hate the church and its establishment.. and right hand path religions as a whole, but you should really try and direct that anger into a more forceful, logical arguement.
[QUOTE=Deathbane;21791394]Because the eastern kingdoms [b]SO[/b] wernt trying to invade europe at [b]any[/b] time :v:. Learn history please. ^^ People die all the time.[/QUOTE] It wasn't until the destruction of the eastern roman empire that islam invaded europe.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;21791630]I really hate atheists when they talk about religion as a big lie.[/QUOTE] That's what it is
How many times do we have to explain that Atheism isn't a religion? It's like the most idiotic among the religious demographic can't grasp the concept of life without religion.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21791732]It wasn't until the destruction of the eastern roman empire that islam invaded europe.[/QUOTE] There were 800 years of Reconquista prior to the fall of the Byzantine Empire.
[QUOTE=johanz;21791740]That's what it is[/QUOTE] Either you think it's a big lie or you let everyone belive what they want to. You don't seem to belive in religious freedom.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21791797]There were 800 years of Reconquista prior to the fall of the Byzantine Empire.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you talking about? The reconquista was in iberia, and that was invasion by christians. During the time of the byzantines, the eastern islamic kingdoms did not enter europe. Instead they were busy fighting eachother, trying to take territory in the middle east, in the case of the seljuk turks, or fighting off crusades and attacking crusader states. There was no eastern invasion until the ottomans, and they weren't really a purely islamic force.
[QUOTE=archangel125;21791778]How many times do we have to explain that Atheism isn't a religion? It's like the most idiotic among the religious demographic can't grasp the concept of life without religion.[/QUOTE] It seems like the idiotic amongst the atheist demographic dont have a fucking clue what athiesm is. Its a belief in the lack of gods, not a life without a religion. Go get a better definition.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21791873]What the hell are you talking about? The reconquista was in iberia, and that was invasion by christians. During the time of the byzantines, the eastern islamic kingdoms did not enter europe. Instead they were busy fighting eachother, trying to take territory in the middle east, in the case of the seljuk turks, or fighting off crusades and attacking crusader states. There was no eastern invasion until the ottomans, and they weren't really a purely islamic force.[/QUOTE] It's called the Reconquista because it's a [i]re[/i]conquest. Muslims invaded Europe three hundred years before the Crusades, which is contrary to what you were saying.
[QUOTE=Deathbane;21791725]So you denounce religiously inspired violence, but wish to kill the pope because hes a religious leader? Isnt this somewhat.. hypocritical? I can understand why you would hate the church and its establishment.. and right hand path religions as a whole, but you should really try and direct that anger into a more forceful, logical arguement.[/QUOTE] One final brutal act and that's all. And this is the perfect time to end chrisitanity at least. What with all the shit happening with the kiddie fidling priests and the like. And not really a hypocrite, just my views on punishment and justice are pretty draconian.
The Muslims had powerful fleets that they used to capture islands all around the Mediterranean. Rhodes was captured, as was Crete. I think they held Sicily at some point too. All that before the Crusades
Considering Christians have primarily run the USA for 200 years and through two world wars and it still survives I trust them to at least run the country fine for at least the next 60 years honestly There are idiots for every religion and lack thereof
I suck at automerge
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21792101]The Muslims had powerful fleets that they used to capture islands all around the Mediterranean. Rhodes was captured, as was Crete. I think they held Sicily at some point too. All that before the Crusades[/QUOTE] I'm not sure about rhodes, because prior to the crusades byzantium was strong and held most islands in the eastern mediterranean (sp?). Crete is about as european as cyprus, and sicily was conquered quickly by the normans, and it still hardly constitutes a muslim invasion of europe. Furthermore, how does a few mediterranean attacks constitute a christian crusade to take over jerusalem and other areas around it? How do attacks on weak kingdoms constitute an external threat? Crusades were entirely political, as the crusaders demonstrated with the sacking of a christian kingdom's capital, constantinople. The threat of eastern muslim kingdoms is exaggerated. They were less unified then the christians were.
[QUOTE=Herr Sven;21791085]Less conflicts? Better cooperation? With [B][I]Religion?![/I][/B] I'm not impressed by your wall of text, you know.[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea why Europe was able to form after the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire and also thrive at a much later date? Religion was responsible for countless senseless deaths but it is also an indirect cause of the formation of Europe. Also, you can thank Islamic people for establishing a religious link between science and religion early on and working out how to do algebra (Excluding Pythagoras and other Greek mathematicians who had very early algebraic formulas worked out) . Religion was also a large part of why the Mayans made such an accurate calendar (A huge part of Mayan culture was religious celebrations, and they were polytheistic and had a god for just about everything, so they had extremely frequent religious celebrations that they relied on a calendar for.) No matter how you look at it religion is responsible for many of the modern things that we use today, though it may have outlived its practical days, we would not be prospering like we are today without religion. [editline]02:38PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;21792677] Crusades were entirely political, as the crusaders demonstrated with the sacking of a christian kingdom's capital, constantinople. The threat of eastern muslim kingdoms is exaggerated. They were less unified then the christians were.[/QUOTE] The Crusades were not completely political, there was also economic reasoning behind it. Merchants from Europe needed money so they also egged on the crusades so they could sell people going on a crusade the supplies that they needed and make a goddamn fortune off of it. IIRC The political reasons also just involved the pope wanting knights to just die because they were such a trouble back in Europe?
[QUOTE=Conscript;21792677]I'm not sure about rhodes, because prior to the crusades byzantium was strong and held most islands in the eastern mediterranean (sp?). Crete is about as european as cyprus, and sicily was conquered quickly by the normans, and it still hardly constitutes a muslim invasion of europe. Furthermore, how does a few mediterranean attacks constitute a christian crusade to take over jerusalem and other areas around it? How do attacks on weak kingdoms constitute an external threat? Crusades were entirely political, as the crusaders demonstrated with the sacking of a christian kingdom's capital, constantinople. The threat of eastern muslim kingdoms is exaggerated. They were less unified then the christians were.[/QUOTE] Possibly so, but the people at the time did see it as a threat. They may have been influenced by the actual conquest of European soil in the Iberia and felt like there's a similar threat coming from the East. After all, the Byzantine emperor did call for Rome's aid, and the Byzantine Empire was considered somewhat superior to the rest of Europe. And I disagree with your claim that the Byzantine Empire actually was powerful before the Crusades. Sure it had glamour, but it wasn't doing as well from 700 onwards as it had before. It wasn't only threatened by Arabs but also by Avars and Slavs. I suppose you could also count the iconoclasm in ~750 as a sign of some kind of unrest. [editline]06:23PM[/editline] Also, Palestine had previously belonged to the Byzantine Empire - a remnant of Rome's division. That was until it was conquered by the Arabs. Christians did have some claim to it. [editline]06:27PM[/editline] And concerning "a few Mediterranean attacks", Louis II fought extensive wars on Italian land against the Arabs but I don't think they ever managed to control more than a few cities. Still, they did have unhealthy interest in areas so close to one of Christianity's central cities, Rome.
In the U.S. when the country was founded most of the founding fathers didn't go to church and some were even atheist. The reason the U.S. is like this is because some religious leaders along the way got elected and change the foundational morals of the country. Also History is written by the winners to all those who say the Bible is sound proof for God's existence. Note I am a fellow Christian but you have to think it was written by man not God, so it can be imperfect.
[QUOTE=bravehat;21780505]Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in a deity not belief there is none.[/QUOTE] Stop hair-splitting.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;21780508]it's the right of the people to worship whatever diety they want to say otherwise makes you a tyrannical dick we're already on the way to secularism via the progressive movement[/QUOTE] I agree, people should be able to freely and openly believe in what they like, for the sake of having the freedom to do so. Here is the problem. Religion goes against critical rights like free speech and free will. People under nearly every religion with a deity has been commanded with a moral obligation to "correct" those who are either not following correctly, or are an unbeliever. Here is an example, the guy that comes to my door every month or two and says "Have you been saved by Jesus Christ?" and hands me that piece of trash he calls the word of God. That is the general mentality of religion, you are either in or out. I won't condemn all religion to this mentality, such as Hindu. If you have freedom of religion, can you have freedom FROM religion? My idea would be a nation with a secular foundation and government with a high standard for education. Above that, I would be fine with anything that people do as long as it doesn't disturb anything with life (plants, animals, humans) unnecessarily or cause more harm than it does good. There is of coarse a constitution that states all these basic rules and sets them in stone and the government's only job is to support it and the people who support it. The nation would be an absolute democracy (people directly vote for new laws) and if 90% of the majority chooses a new law that agrees with the constitution, then it is passed. (I choose 90% because at that point, it's bleeding obvious that whatever they are trying to stop or allow is either wrong or right.)
[QUOTE=Hostel;21795438]I agree, people should be able to freely and openly believe in what they like, for the sake of having the freedom to do so. Here is the problem. Religion goes against critical rights like free speech and free will. People under nearly every religion with a deity has been commanded with a moral obligation to "correct" those who are either not following correctly, or are an unbeliever. Here is an example, the guy that comes to my door every month or two and says "Have you been saved by Jesus Christ?" and hands me that piece of trash he calls the word of God. That is the general mentality of religion, you are either in or out. I won't condemn all religion to this mentality, such as Hindu. If you have freedom of religion, can you have freedom FROM religion? My idea would be a nation with a secular foundation and government with a high standard for education. Above that, I would be fine with anything that people do as long as it doesn't disturb anything with life (plants, animals, humans) unnecessarily or cause more harm than it does good. There is of coarse a constitution that states all these basic rules and sets them in stone and the government's only job is to support it and the people who support it. The nation would be an absolute democracy (people directly vote for new laws) and if 90% of the majority chooses a new law that agrees with the constitution, then it is passed. (I choose 90% because at that point, it's bleeding obvious that whatever they are trying to stop or allow is either wrong or right.)[/QUOTE] That absolute democracy sounds awful. Sounds like a good way of allowing alot of uneducated people who have no idea how to run a country influence the laws being passed. Just because a majority believes something is a good idea does NOT mean it is. Also those people who inform you about their religion are doing nothing wrong. If they come and try to tell you about it, theyve broke no law, its only if they refuse to leave etc or get aggressive that theyve stepped over a line. Simply talking to you is not an invasion of your privacy.
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;21781112]how can you brainwash a child towards atheism? religion itself is irrational and attempts to explain the currently unexplainable and evolution kinda disproves adam and eve doesn't it? as far as i know it doesn't say, "and adam evolved from a common ancestor of apes..."[/QUOTE] It is implied in Genesis that there are other humans in the world, just not Eden.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;21795760]It is implied in Genesis that their are other humans in the world, just not Eden.[/QUOTE] It's still disproven by evolution
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.