Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:54 am

Why is delusion preferable to reason, Eggy? We all need to find our own way in this life and I believe that religious belief has been a hindrance to me. My father was an atheist and my mother was a devout believer. My father never encouraged atheism (probably on my mother's orders). The one time we had a discussion about it, I was maybe 10 or 12 and he said that to him, belief is false, not based on solid evidence and relies completely on faith in things unseen. To him, it was irrational. Everything we do in this life is based on evidence. Everything. Except when it comes to religious belief which is where we ditch all of our rational thought and start believing that fairies and superheroes are real.

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:30 pm

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:17 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Stalin was an atheist, Stalin’s beliefs were delusional, and Stalin’s interpretation of his delusional beliefs helped mass murders in the name of Marxism and antireligious atheism arise and devastate a generation of Soviet citizens.

Pol Pot was an atheist, Pol Pot’s beliefs were delusional, and Pol Pot’s interpretation of his delusional beliefs helped mass murders in the name of Marxism and antireligious atheism arise and virtually destroyed a generation of Cambodian citizens.
Rock, atheists don't believe that God exists.

I know.

snowyflake wrote:
If you have evidence to the contrary please present it here.

I have.

snowyflake wrote:
PolPot and Stalin were madmen, not because they were atheists.

Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists; Pol Pot and Stalin were madmen. I don’t know if they were (a) madmen because they were atheists, (b) atheists because they were madmen, or (c) madmen and atheists with each independent of the other.

snowyflake wrote:
They murdered because they were madmen not because they were atheists.

Mass murderers are heinous atrocities. All beasts who commit heinous atrocities do so because they are madmen, including beasts implicitly and explicitly accused hereon of committing heinous atrocities because they were “believers.”

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Once you cease attributing beast-hood to beasts’ “believer-ism”, I’ll cease attributing beast-hood to beasts’ atheism, and we can join together in attributing beasts’ beast-hood to beasts’ madman-ism.

snowyflake wrote:
They were delusional because they believed in a political ideology and when it wasn't working they murdered those in opposition.

Slight addition, and then I’ll proceed.

“They were delusional because they believed in an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology and when it wasn't working they murdered those in opposition.”

True.

snowyflake wrote:
At the end of the day, believers kill more in the name of God/YHVH Elohim/Allah/Buddah/Shiva than anyone else.

At the end of the day, Stalin, an anti-religious, anti-believer atheist, mass murdered millions in the name of an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology that includes anti-religious atheism as a necessary core component.

At the end of the day, Pol Pot, an anti-religious, anti-believer atheist, mass murdered millions in the name of an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology that includes anti-religious atheism as a necessary core component.

If you wish to compare beastliness, I will point out here that some historians suggest that Stalin mass murdered millions more than Adolf the beast, and that some historians conclude that Pol Pot mass murdered more than one-quarter of Cambodia’s pre-Khmer Rouge population.

If you wish to cease attributing beast-hood to believer-hood, I will join you in attributing beast-hood to madman-hood.

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:25 pm

snowyflake wrote:
The qu'ran has several verses about not befriending the infidel and yet you choose to look at the verse that says treat the Jew and Christian with dignity and respect (because that's what's happening in the Middle East eh?).

I am neither a Muslim nor a Qur’anic scholar. I acknowledge these two truths whenever the opportunity to substantively interact with Muslins occurs.

Story #1.

In 1985, for maybe ten or eleven months, five men met every Wednesday night from about 8:15-10:00 PM. Four men were Muslims; two co-owned the restaurant in which we met, the other two, along with the first two, co-owned the hotel building in which the restaurant was located. The fifth man was me.

One Wednesday night, after a Bible study held at the business offices of one of the study group, I stepped out on the street shortly after 8:00 PM hungry. I looked across the street, noticed someone walking into the aforementioned restaurant, and “hooked ‘em.” Entering the restaurant and noticing the aroma, I asked if the menu included bar-b-que. The man behind the counter said, “We have beef ribs.” A light went on in my head and I asked, “Are you Jewish or Muslim?”

As it turned out, all four men were ex-members of the Nation of Islam (NOI), disbanded by Walis Muhammad shortly after Elijah Muhammad, Walis’ father, died. Left field, after it was disbanded by Walis Muhammad, NOI was re-established by Calypso Louie, aka Louis Farrakhan, a person that I despise with deep passion. Back on track, Walis understood that NOI’s tenet of hatred of all White People and NOI’s practice of labeling White people as “devils” were both contrary to the Qur’an and inherently immoral. Since he “inherited” NOI upon his father’s death, and thus possessed the authority and the ability to do so, he shut NOI down as his first and last series of actions as its head.

This background information is key because, to understand what happened at that restaurant, it is important to know that these men were Black, not Arabic, and that, as a consequence of Walis’ actions, they were free of any organizational constraints in their study of the Qur’an and their practice of Islam. I felt a kinship with them, partially because I was (and continue to be) also free of any organizational constraints in my study of the Bible (as I called it then) and my practice of Christianity.

Throughout the ten or eleven months that we five men met and studied together at that restaurant every Wednesday night, I asked the hard questions, including many questions about Qur’an verses like the “several verses about not befriending the infidel” that you’ve mentioned in your hard question to me.

One reason that the group quickly grew from the original three men, the two restaurant co-owners and me, two five men (the other two joined us the second week) was because word got out that there was a Christian brother who asked the hard questions “in the house”, and he wanted some hard answers.

I got hard answers. These men practiced brotherhood to all men, gender inclusive, regardless of “race”, ethnicity, religion (or non-religion), or anything else. All that they required was that the other persons be men gender inclusive of decency that were committed by word and deed to treating others with dignity, honor, respect, and decency. These men showed me and taught me verses from the Qur’an that supported their practice of brotherhood to all men, including the Christian in their midst with whom they weekly studied and disagreed.

I am neither Muslim nor Qur’anic scholar. These four Muslim brothers were Muslims and Qur’anic scholars. I pass on to you what they taught to me unadulterated by any “interpretation” added by me.

Story #2.

In 1988-1989, I taught twice weekly amnesty classes at an Anglican Church building located within a Hispanic neighborhood. All of my students were more or less Hispanic, including a significant number who were Mayan and for whom English was a third language after Mayan and Spanish. Assisting me every Tuesday and Thursday evening was a quiet, peaceful man who stood ten feet tall.

This man was a Muslim, a Pakistani native whose second language was Urdu. His was of an ethnic minority Pakistani tribe; his faith was a minority variant of Islam that was an anathema to the majority Pakistani faith because men of his faith taught from the Qur’an that all Muslims are called upon to treat “People of the Law”, Jews, and “People of the Book”, Christians, and by implication and inference all men of decency gender inclusive, with dignity, honor respect, and deference. Sounds familiar, and it should, because it echoes the four Muslim brothers’ words at the restaurant; men of two distinct ethnicities, two distinct cultures, from two distinct and separate continents and nations, saying and teaching by word and deed the exact same thing.

Once again, as I had done years earlier, I asked the hard questions, including many questions about Qur’an verses like the “several verses about not befriending the infidel” that you’ve mentioned in your hard question to me. This time, in addition to hard answers, I received as a gift my own copy of the Qur’an, in Arabic, with a side by side English translation included, from which this quiet, peaceful man peacefully and patiently showed me the specific pertinent verses. He didn’t shy away from those that you’ve mentioned; rather, he addressed them directly, as with sadness he said that these verses had been mis-taught and misunderstood for centuries and as with sadness he exposited each one from Arabic and showed me that these verses actually call upon Muslims to not befriend those who, within their religions, practice child sacrifices and other heinously immoral acts.

In May 1989, this man, now my beloved friend, told me that he was returning to Pakistan at risk of his life to complete paperwork to bring his wife and children out of Pakistan and to the US. My friend was in the US on a student visa, which allowed him to work only as a student assistant, his official title as he worked as my teacher assistant. Because of his education and training, he was eligible to transition to a permanent work visa as soon as he finished the ESL classes in which he was enrolled at the time (he was articulate in English, his fourth language of five, in order (1) his native language, (2) Urdu, (3) Arabic, (4) English, (5) French). He planned to do so and apply for US citizenship, and he wanted his wife and children to also become US citizens.

When we last met, my friend told me that if he were successful in his deep cover attempt to go into hostile territory, Pakistan, and extract his family therefrom, he would be back within a month and I would be invited to come to his home to meet his family over a meal prepared for me as an honored guest. On the other hand, if a month passed and there was now rod from him, that would mean that Pakistani authorities had detected his presence in Pakistan, arrested him, and after a “show trial”, executed him for daring to teach others that Muslims are called upon to treat non-Muslims with dignity, honor, respect, and deference.

That was the last time in my life I saw my friend. I mourn for him daily for twenty-three years, nine months and counting.

I am neither Muslim nor a Qur’anic scholar. I have been taught by my friend, a quiet, peaceful scholar who stood ten feet tall, that Muslims are to treat all men of decency gender inclusive, of all “races”, ethnicities, religions (non-religions), and cultures, with dignity, honor, respect, and deference. I pass what I have been taught unto you as pure as I received it, unadulterated by any addition by me, subtraction by me, or alteration by me, in honor of he who taught me, one of the finest humans I have ever known.

snowyflake wrote:
Why does the verse about killing the infidel get edited out of your version of the qu'ran?

Can you not see that what you think is right is down to interpretation only?

Please honor me by reading and understanding my writing above and by refraining from attributing to me any such disingenuous editing which your question above implies that I might have performed for any reason or purpose.

Once again, if you have not done so, please read the extensive, thoughtful, heart-wrenching essay at the following link:

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t176p90-sharia-law-vs-christian-law#13629

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:04 pm

A Rose, by any other name, smells as sweet.
W Shakespeare

Racism, however disguised, stinks in the nostrils of honest men.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:05 pm

Racism, however disguised, stinks in the nostrils of honest men.

Yes, it does, OW, so please stop being a racist.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:12 pm

At the end of the day, Stalin, an anti-religious, anti-believer atheist, mass murdered millions in the name of an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology that includes anti-religious atheism as a necessary core component.

God is a mass-murderer according to the bible. A genocidal, homicidal maniac. If he is not, please explain to me what the verses that I posted mean? Can God be all-loving, all-merciful yet murder millions?

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:13 pm

Rock, thank you for posting your story of your friend. How do you know he is dead and not just living in Pakistan with his family?

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:25 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
At the end of the day, Stalin, an anti-religious, anti-believer atheist, mass murdered millions in the name of an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology that includes anti-religious atheism as a necessary core component.

Stalin and Pol Pot are mass murderers according to history. I’ve given you the short answer repeated below,

YHVH Elohim is all-merciful, verified throughout the Hebrew and Greek Bibles from Genesis to Revelation.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:36 pm

I await your answer to my question; upon receiving your answer, I can begin answering comprehensively, starting with Y’shua’s teaching, “Treat others as you wish others treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Sorry, Rock, in all of the discussion I've forgotten your question. Can you repeat it please?

Is there a difference between YHVH and the God of the bible?

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:42 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
A Rose, by any other name, smells as sweet.
W Shakespeare

Racism, however disguised, stinks in the nostrils of honest men.

Racism disguised as cultural deference stinks in my nostrils. I am a Black American, a Black Texan, a West African of the Diaspora, a Cherokee whose ancestor survived the Trail of Tears only to be enslaved until emancipation, a Scot whose ancestors persecuted by Englishmen, and an Irishman whose ancestors survived the potato famine by immigrating to the US while your ancestors’ larders were fattened by the same crops denied my ancestors because of their “race.”

Depending on who’s counting, that’s four to six cultures persecuted by Englishmen and their descendants because of their “race.” Lecturing me about racism from your privileged English perch is the height of audacity.

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:03 pm

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:13 pm

Rock, all of the references you posted are meant to be God. The same God as in the references I posted who committed all of those atrocities. So how do you square that God with the God of the NT. Assume that we are talking about your God/YHVH. To me, it's all the same.

by Tosh Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:51 pm

Neither Stalin nor Pol Pot killed millions because of their religious beliefs, they may have murdered a few thousand for being theists.

Compare this to the death toll in all the religious wars throughout history, and there is simply no comparison, especially if one takes the available killing technology into consideration.

by Tosh Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:44 pm

To believe in Elohim, one must want to believe in Elohim, the question why they need or want to believe in Elohim is the real question.

There is no intelligent argument for this belief and yet believers insist there is, it is a classic case of delusion, and delusions occur for a reason.

We are all products of our culture, it provides us with our sense of identity and status, we are who we are in relation to our culture.
Religion is a part of our culture and to some it is the backbone of their culture, threatening their religion with science or reason is threatening their identity.

Look how important it is to Texas, it is his raison d'etre and his self status is built within this template, he is willing to contort and distort anything to justify and protect who he is.

Ancestor worship was our need to be connected to our past, we want to be rooted in our history, it strengthens our identity and bolsters purpose and meaning.

Religion is just the modern equivalent, it is all about significance, ideologues don't do humility, they leave that to the rational pragmatists.

Their morality and values are considered by them to be absolutely right, this in plain English is called self righteousness.

by egginbonce Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:36 am

So, Tosh.............suppose us believers 'fess up, and say 'youre right, and its all nonsense,and we've been doing all this for years just because we did it for years already,and we wont believe it any more,and theres no ghoulies and ghosties, and no Devil to hunt,and noon e to say prayers to,and elohim is just another silly word,etc', then what?
I mean, is everything then sorted?(and if not, whats still to sort?)

PS speaking of the Devil, maybe as its easter, I can be his advocate ....
PPS why are people looking for the higgs boson?..........and is it relevant?

by Tosh Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:27 am

then what? I mean, is everything then sorted?(and if not, whats still to sort?

RELIGION HAS ENCOURAGED LAZY MINDS, EACH INDIVIDUAL MUST SORT OUT THEIR OWN PURPOSE, MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A NATURAL FINITE PARADIGM.

The natural world is your oyster, its just not a flying oyster that lives past death.

by egginbonce Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:04 pm

EACH INDIVIDUAL MUST SORT OUT THEIR OWN PURPOSE, MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A NATURAL FINITE PARADIGM.

If its that complicated, maybe I'll get religion..................It doesnt make sense, but at least they use one-syllable words................ but hang on......I think ive got it- a para thingy is where 72 virgins are waiting to wear me out...........and lions lie down with lambs,and beer is free.........right?
so when a paradime is natural, is that a different sort to one that is synthetic?(see- that bit I didnt get.... Crying or Very sad

).
Also...................another thing I dont get is where meaning ends and significance begins;all this is why people do religion;atheism is too hard on the brain...............and............is purpose a bit like significance?...............dont mind me, tho; I m often wrong....no no no - I dont mean im often wrong-im just often wrong....................oh heck...............off to check out the fridge!! bounce

by egginbonce Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:35 pm

yayyyyyy.............its EASTER!!!!.................when all sorts od good stuff happens....theres.....errrr....ummmmm........errrrrrr,well..you know.................... What a Face

by trevorw2539 Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:14 pm

Tosh wrote:Neither Stalin nor Pol Pot killed millions because of their religious beliefs, they may have murdered a few thousand for being theists.

Compare this to the death toll in all the religious wars throughout history, and there is simply no comparison, especially if one takes the available killing technology into consideration.

A quote which is unsustainable. We really have no idea of how many people have been killed throughout history. 'Religious wars' were not a part of ancient history in the main. Those were for possession and land. There are many parts of the world whose early history is still not really known, except by myth and legend. How many were killed there, and for what.
We have no idea how many were killed by the succession of Babylonian Empires. Ditto the succession of Assyrian Empires. Ditto Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian, Chaldean, Persian, Greek, Roman Empires. Wars for power and possession of land.
O.T. figures are unreal to anyone who has read and studied the O.T.

Figures given are meaningless.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:34 pm

'Religious wars' were not a part of ancient history in the main.

The Crusades 1-9
The Spanish, Mexican and Medieval Inquisitions
The Thirty Years War
French War of Religion
Nigerian Civil War
Lebanese Civil War
Bosnian War
Sudanese Civil War
Iran & Iraq
Palestine & Israel
North & South Ireland
The 80 Years War

“We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell”

Karl Popper

by Tosh Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:17 pm

Don't talk mince, all I have to do to sustain my quote is to provide death figures of unequivocal religious wars that are in excess of the few thousand killed by Pol Pot or Stalin for being theists..

Read it and weep.

List of major religious wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

by egginbonce Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:39 pm

im bored now.........................noone to play with...................Ill leave you lot to talk among yourselves....................seeya!

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:41 pm

Confused?

That was the intention.

When will they ever learn?

by Tosh Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:43 pm

so when a paradime is natural, is that a different sort to one that is synthetic?(see- that bit I didnt get.... Crying or Very sad ).

It does not involve the supernatural, no gods, angels, satan, fairies, unicorns or immortal ghosts.

Its called reality.

by trevorw2539 Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:12 pm

snowyflake wrote:
'Religious wars' were not a part of ancient history in the main.

The Crusades 1-9
The Spanish, Mexican and Medieval Inquisitions
The Thirty Years War
French War of Religion
Nigerian Civil War
Lebanese Civil War
Bosnian War
Sudanese Civil War
Iran & Iraq
Palestine & Israel
North & South Ireland
The 80 Years War

“We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell”

Karl Popper

What I meant was that ancient history pre 4000-1BC was full of wars, mainly for possessions and land.
Crusades etc were more or less modern history.

by Tosh Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:23 pm

What I meant was that ancient history pre 4000-1BC was full of wars, mainly for possessions and land. Crusades etc were more or less modern history.

Irrelevant mince, I never mentioned ancient history, you did.

My statement stands, the number of people killed by atheists because they were theists, is a fraction compared to the number of people killed by religious wackos for their theistic beliefs.

by trevorw2539 Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:25 pm

Tosh wrote:Don't talk mince, all I have to do to sustain my quote is to provide death figures of unequivocal religious wars that are in excess of the few thousand killed by Pol Pot or Stalin for being theists..

Read it and weep.

List of major religious wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

I've read the above list which includes this 'These figures include the deaths of civilians from diseases, famine, etc., as well as deaths of soldiers in battle and possible massacres and genocide and many others.'

These lists mean nothing in the context of my post. They do not compare total war deaths in the history of man with deaths in 'religious' wars in the same historical period. They cannot as there are no figures available.

My post regarding 'ancient history' was intended for Snowflake.

by Tosh Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:27 pm

What I meant was that ancient history pre 4000-1BC was full of wars, mainly for possessions and land.

We haven't a clue why they fought 6000 years ago, maybe it was over religion, maybe it was over resources.

by Tosh Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:31 pm

These lists mean nothing in the context of my post. They do not compare total war deaths in the history of man with deaths in 'religious' wars in the same historical period. They cannot as there are no figures available.

More irrelevance, you are making a habit of it, the debate concerns the number of people killed for their religious beliefs, who killed more, theists or atheists, its a no brainer.

by Shirina Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:32 pm

'Religious wars' were not a part of ancient history in the main. Those were for possession and land.

The common foot soldier who did the fighting and the dying - they received no land, no possessions, no boon for the suffering and horrors they endured. What motivated them to stand with sword in hand against the enemy was religious fervor. With a firm belief that their religion and their God were threatened by a foreign belief paradigm allowed those men to fight, and not just fight, but to murder. There are few things on earth that empowers a man (or woman) to commit heinous acts, acts of barbarity and atrocity, like the certitude of religious belief. When one believes he (or she) is acting on behalf of or in defense of their God, there is virtually nothing out of bounds.

Rare it is in human history when an army would fight for the sole reason of making its king, its tyrant, its president richer or more powerful. There always had to be a secondary motivation, one that spurred the common man forward, and that motivator has been religion. Even America's modern day army is no exception. Military bases are rife with evanglism and fundamentalism, proselytizing and preaching. Even today, the use of religion has been the catalyst to turn high school kids into trained killers.

To say that religion bears no responsibility for most wars in history - even wars that were not fought specifically for religion - is to not see the historical evidence. Not to mention what is going on today. While religion may only be a tool, well, so are guns, and MOST nations do not allow its citizenry to own them. So what should that say about religion?

Think about it.

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 10 KILLING-JEWS-IS-WORSHIP-propaganda-draws-us-closer-to-allah-hamas-disinformation

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 10 KILLING-JEWS-IS-WORSHIP-propaganda-draws-us-closer-to-allah-hamas-disinformation

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 10 Archives%20fighting_to_prevent

Transforming America's Military into a Christian Military
LINK
Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 10 Thisenemy

Why Is the Military Spending Millions on Christian Contractors Bent on Evangelizing US Soldiers?
LINK

by Tosh Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:43 pm

There is simply no evidence religion contributed in a major way to human morality, its a myth promoted by religious vermin.

by Tosh Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:17 pm

Richard Paula and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking assert that "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law". They separate the concept of ethics from these topics, stating that

The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being of others—that warrant our praise—and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant our criticism.

According to Gregory S. Paul, theists assert that societal belief in a creator god "is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society." Yet, empirical evidence indicates the opposite. High rates of religiosity are correlated with "higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies." Paul concludes that

The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.

by Guest Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:06 am

Removed because it is offensive to my friend.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:04 am

Thanks Rock. From this, am I to understand that what Jesus says or teaches has no bearing on what God has done in the past?

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:55 am

Shirina wrote:
'Religious wars' were not a part of ancient history in the main. Those were for possession and land.

The common foot soldier who did the fighting and the dying - they received no land, no possessions, no boon for the suffering and horrors they endured. What motivated them to stand with sword in hand against the enemy was religious fervor. With a firm belief that their religion and their God were threatened by a foreign belief paradigm allowed those men to fight, and not just fight, but to murder. There are few things on earth that empowers a man (or woman) to commit heinous acts, acts of barbarity and atrocity, like the certitude of religious belief. When one believes he (or she) is acting on behalf of or in defense of their God, there is virtually nothing out of bounds.

Rare it is in human history when an army would fight for the sole reason of making its king, its tyrant, its president richer or more powerful. There always had to be a secondary motivation, one that spurred the common man forward, and that motivator has been religion. Even America's modern day army is no exception. Military bases are rife with evanglism and fundamentalism, proselytizing and preaching. Even today, the use of religion has been the catalyst to turn high school kids into trained killers.

To say that religion bears no responsibility for most wars in history - even wars that were not fought specifically for religion - is to not see the historical evidence. Not to mention what is going on today. While religion may only be a tool, well, so are guns, and MOST nations do not allow its citizenry to own them. So what should that say about religion?

Think about it.

Transforming America's Military into a Christian Military
LINK

Why Is the Military Spending Millions on Christian Contractors Bent on Evangelizing US Soldiers?
LINK

I've thought about it. Many soldiers fought because they were paid to fight. Many soldiers fought because they were drafted into the army that had beaten them in the first place. A practise used until fairly modern times - Napoleonic wars. Many fought because not to do so would mean death for treason.
Religion had little to do with the 'reason' for war.

'With a firm belief that their religion and their God were threatened by a foreign belief paradigm allowed those men to fight, and not just fight, but to murder.'
With the ancient Middle East religions mainly having the same gods/goddesses (though different names for different nations) it was hardly likely that fighting against your own 'God' was motivation.

I maintain my statement. Wars were not fought for religious purposes, but land and possessions.
It could even be argued that the Jewish invasion of the Promised Land in the O.T. was not for religious purposes, but for a homeland. Religious persecution of other nations came later, usually as retribution.

by Tosh Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:47 pm

So the victims of the the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with religion but the victims of Stalinism had everything to do with atheism ?

Sure.

There were deaths that had nothing to do with land and possessions and everything to do with religious differences, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:20 pm

[quote="trevorw2539"]

Shirina wrote:
'Religious wars' were not a part of ancient history in the main. Those were for possession and land.
....

Wars were not fought for religious purposes, but land and possessions.
It could even be argued that the Jewish invasion of the Promised Land in the O.T. was not for religious purposes, but for a homeland. Religious persecution of other nations came later, usually as retribution.

Possibly, though it is not difficult to list many Wars that were declared and fought under a Religious pretext.

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:55 pm

Tosh wrote:So the victims of the the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with religion but the victims of Stalinism had everything to do with atheism ?

Sure.

There were deaths that had nothing to do with land and possessions and everything to do with religious differences, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

I made no such statement. My original statement was that it was not possible to sustain the quote that most wars were created by religion in history. And whether you like that or not is irrevelant. It is a fact.

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:11 pm

[quote="oftenwrong"]

trevorw2539 wrote:
Shirina wrote:
'Religious wars' were not a part of ancient history in the main. Those were for possession and land.
....

Wars were not fought for religious purposes, but land and possessions.
It could even be argued that the Jewish invasion of the Promised Land in the O.T. was not for religious purposes, but for a homeland. Religious persecution of other nations came later, usually as retribution.

Possibly, though it is not difficult to list many Wars that were declared and fought under a Religious pretext.

I cannot but agree with that. But, as a matter if interest, was the annihilation of the Jews the reason for WWII, or was that incidental to Hitlers desire to rule Europe. According to his own written words early in his political career he believed the Jews were 'a' reason for Germany's ills because they held too much financial power. He used the power of the Catholic Church for his own ends and when it had served his purpose he abandoned it.

by Tosh Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:13 pm

I made no such statement. My original statement was that it was not possible to sustain the quote that most wars were created by religion in history. And whether you like that or not is irrevelant. It is a fact.

Read it and weep ...again, , your straw man argument has nothing to do with MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT WHICH YOU REFUTED.

Neither Stalin nor Pol Pot killed millions because of their religious beliefs, they may have murdered a few thousand for being theists.

Compare this to the death toll in all the religious wars throughout history, and there is simply no comparison, especially if one takes the available killing technology into consideration.

Now please retract your lie that I claimed most wars were created by religion in history forthwith.

My claim is self evident, religious wackos have killed more people over religion than atheist wackos, please confirm by return I am correct, you are wrong and you are an April fool for telling blatant lies to extract your foot from your mouth.

by Sponsored content