Author Topic: More People Have Been Killed in the Name of Atheism & Secularism than Religion?  (Read 3241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Quote from: nodogsforme
And, surprise, in those rational secular countries they have fewer social problems than in the god-soaked countries like the US where people are doing the modern equivalent of tossing people into volcanoes to stop the eruptions. As long as we think that sex is an evil sin that no teenager should engage in or know anything about, we will continue to have some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy, STD's and abortions among the industrialized countries. As long as we battle scientific education because our religious faith is so very fragile, we will trail behind India, China and Western Europe in turning out engineers, medical researchers and environmental experts.

I'm not denying that false religion has done a lot of harm and still does a lot of harm, but we are not all like the Westboro Baptist Church.  The Bible nowhere gives Christians the right to make laws of the land.  The Bible teaches Christians are individually responsible for their own families and not everyone elses.  We may advise but are nowhere told to force our will.  Christians are told to be like Christ.  Christ was not a politician or a lobyist, nor did he lead protests.  Nowhere does he say to carry signs saying "God hates fags".  Jesus didn't even denounce a prostitute when given the opportunity.

In fact, Jesus never denounced any "sinners".  Who did he denounce?  The religous leaders!  Ironic? 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
What is the state religion of Canada, pray tell?

This should be a really easy question for you to answer, even if you have to check for it.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1732
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
I'm not denying that false religion has done a lot of harm and still does a lot of harm, but we are not all like the Westboro Baptist Church. 

Bolds mine.

I certainly agree that the WBC is, thankfully, a definite minority. But here's a big stumbling block for us atheists, Jst: how are we to distinguish "false" from "true" religion? Every religious person seems to have their own definition, which unsurprisingly lines up with their own Self Projection As God (SPAG).
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 06:46:08 PM by wright »
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1383
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
The Bible nowhere gives Christians the right to make laws of the land.  The Bible teaches Christians are individually responsible for their own families and not everyone elses.  We may advise but are nowhere told to force our will.  Christians are told to be like Christ.  Christ was not a politician or a lobyist, nor did he lead protests.  Nowhere does he say to carry signs saying "God hates fags".  Jesus didn't even denounce a prostitute when given the opportunity.

In fact, Jesus never denounced any "sinners".  Who did he denounce?  The religous leaders!  Ironic?
I suggest you read the book of Acts before you carry on with your erroneous statements. The bible is in fact a communist manifesto.
Quote
Basic communism states to hold all property in common rather than privately, is practiced by numerous Christian communities now and throughout history. references to it can be found in Acts:

Acts 4:33-35 "With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "
The similarity to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.

And here again in Acts:

Acts 5:1-11 "But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.

The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things."

Their deaths served as an example to all the others of what would happen if they, too, held back profits for themselves instead of giving everything to the community.
So we can see that this was the first christian commune(ist) society.
It is time you learned from your mistakes, and wised up. Take a good look at all the secular countries and compare those with the religious ones including your own. Oh and don't forget the new religion that is communism..
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
What is the state religion of Canada, pray tell?

This should be a really easy question for you to answer, even if you have to check for it.

Church of England.

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

Quote from: wright
I certainly agree that the WBC is, thankfully, a definite minority. But here's a big stumbling block for us atheists, Jst: how are we to distinguish "false" from "true" religion? Every religious person seems to have their own definition, which unsurprisingly lines up with their own Self Projection As God (SPAG).

This is a huge stumbling block for believers too.  "A little yeast works through the whole loaf", that is, a little false doctrine spoils the whole thing.  I can't identify what is true and false.  I can only identify those that obey the Bible versus those that don't.  I consider those that don't to be false.  There may be some gray areas but as a definate rule of thumb Christians are supposed to promote peace, even allowing themselves to be wronged to maintain it.  They are definately not to be bloodthirsty, liars, hypocrits, sexually immoral, etc.

They have been given the right to "rebuke" their brother but not their neighbors.  My search for who are the true followers of the Bible has led me to Jehovah's Witnesses.  I think they are the group that most closely follow the Bible, as one entire united Church that is.

Quote from: bertatberts
  I suggest you read the book of Acts before you carry on with your erroneous statements. The bible is in fact a communist manifesto.

Acts has nothing to do with it.  What happens within the Church has no bearing on what happens outside the Church.  The national laws of Israel were not affected, nor were the laws of any nation.  Money was given to the poor as a moral responsibility.  Christians are not to be like the world and hold to wordly possessions to the harm of others and I am not here to defend those Christians that do.  Money and wealth is a man made thing.  We do not need money and wealth to be happy and succeed.  For the time, money is simply a means to an end and nothing more.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
What is the state religion of Canada, pray tell?

This should be a really easy question for you to answer, even if you have to check for it.

Church of England.

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

News to this Canadian.

*checks it out*

Oh.  My bad, I took you seriously when you were lying.  That or you never read anything about the Church of England yourself - in which case you were still pretending to know better, which is still being deliberately false.

You mistake Canada for Britain.  Canada recognizes the Crown, but that does not extend to all British establishments.

Further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada
Quote
Religion in Canada encompasses a wide range of groups.[2] The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to "God", and the monarch carries the title of "Defender of the Faith". However, Canada has no official religion, and support for religious pluralism (Freedom of religion in Canada) is an important part of Canada's political culture.[3][4] The 2001 Canadian census reported that 77% of Canadians claim adherence to Christianity, followed by no religion at 16%,[1] but rates of religious adherence have been steadily decreasing.[5]

My point with all this is that Canada, and many other democratic countries, doesn't officially sanction one faith over another.  It is secular.  Despite some relict language in our traditional songs and titles, it is effectively an atheist regime.

You say that "atheist governments" are repressive, but you are only counting repressive regimes as "atheist" in the first place.  I could do the same thing, and only count, say, theocratic Christian dictatorships throughout history as "Christian regimes", then point out that - surprise surprise! - they're dictatorial.  But that would prove nothing at all.  Just as you've done.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 07:40:01 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I know what a secular government is.  This U.S. secular government was set up by believers is all I'm saying.

But this has nothing to do with whether or not people have been killed in the name of atheism.  What point are you trying to argue?

Quote
Oh.  My bad, I took you seriously when you were lying.  That or you never read anything about the Church of England yourself - in which case you were still pretending to know better, which is still being deliberately false.

Canada was not secular until 1854

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

I actually prefer secular government but it has it's own problems and share of blood guilt. 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
I know what a secular government is.  This U.S. secular government was set up by believers is all I'm saying.

No, it is not all you were saying.

But this has nothing to do with whether or not people have been killed in the name of atheism.  What point are you trying to argue?

It had to do with this statement by you.  Which I quoted for you repeatedly.  Here it is again:

There's no atheist states listed that are not totalitarian.  Coincidence?

Not a coincidence at all, Jst.  If you make sure only to include repressive regimes in a list, you'll find that everything in the list is a repressive regime.  That doesn't demonstrate anything other than your own selection skills.

Quote
Canada was not secular until 1854

Last I checked, that event'd happened already.

Quote
I actually prefer secular government but it has it's own problems and share of blood guilt.

Perhaps assigning guilt based on the religion (or lack thereof) espoused by the state isn't the best way of assigning guilt.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
He's referring to the section on former state churches in British North America, which incidentally was Canada West (the current province of Ontario), rather than the entirety of Canada.  Incidentally, since it disestablished the Church of England in 1854, it's kind of like citing the USA as a slave-holding country.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Yeah I was saying everything in the present tense, so the assumed 1854-validity thing kind of caught me off guard.  I asked him what the state religion of Canada is, not what it was.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 08:48:03 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Azdgari

Please read the Wiki definition againt.

"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen."

Secular government and state atheism is not the same thing.  There are many religious people among secular governments as opposed to those with state atheism where there are none.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
You might note part of that yourself.  "sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice".  Sometimes, not always.  Does that not suggest that there are atheistic governments which do not engage in brutal totalitarian methods?

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
You might note part of that yourself.  "sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice".  Sometimes, not always.  Does that not suggest that there are atheistic governments which do not engage in brutal totalitarian methods?

Not on the Wiki page.  Do you know of one?
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen."

Note the underlined part.  Your quote refutes your position.

Secular government and state atheism is not the same thing.  There are many religious people among secular governments as opposed to those with state atheism where there are none.

That's just a matter of politically motivated definitions, then.  Would you define "state Christianity" as only referring to governments that oppress non-Christians in the name of Christianity?  If not, then why the double standard?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
No, it would be a state that officially supported the spread of Christianity.  Secular governments do not do this either, nor do they support the spread of atheism.  They are religiously neutral.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
And please supply some examples of free states that practice state atheism.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
No, it would be a state that officially supported the spread of Christianity.

See, it's all a definitional thing, then.  Your definitions so far...

State atheism:  Repressive regime that forbids the practice of any religions.
State Christianity:  State that officially supported the spread of Christianity.

If this blatant double standard is not accurate, then please tell me what you'd need to include a state as an "atheist regime".

Secular governments do not do this either, nor do they support the spread of atheism.  They are religiously neutral.

Atheism is a lack of theistic religious beliefs.  Secularism is a lack of promotion of theistic religious beliefs.  Works out to being an atheist state pretty effectively, there.

And please supply some examples of free states that practice state atheism.

I already kind of did.  Canada is one.  Not by your double-standard definition, but by any reasonable one.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +17/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Well, that's just like people. What hypocrites. Always killing other people in the name of this and that. Why can't they just admit they kill for personal gain?

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
No, it would be a state that officially supported the spread of Christianity.

See, it's all a definitional thing, then.  Your definitions so far...

State atheism:  Repressive regime that forbids the practice of any religions.
State Christianity:  State that officially supported the spread of Christianity.

If this blatant double standard is not accurate, then please tell me what you'd need to include a state as an "atheist regime".

Secular governments do not do this either, nor do they support the spread of atheism.  They are religiously neutral.

Atheism is a lack of theistic religious beliefs.  Secularism is a lack of promotion of theistic religious beliefs.  Works out to being an atheist state pretty effectively, there.

And please supply some examples of free states that practice state atheism.

I already kind of did.  Canada is one.  Not by your double-standard definition, but by any reasonable one.

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
State religion is the official promotion of religion.
Secularism is religiously neutral.

Dislike it all you want, that is the definition.  Because it doesn't promote religion doesn't make it atheist.  If that's true then if it doesn't promote atheism it's religious.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Okay, that's how you define it.

However, I dispute that definition.  First off, atheism by itself is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities; while I suppose it's possible to promote the lack of belief in deities, it's not something that makes a lot of sense.  It's like promoting a lack of belief in leprechauns, or in unicorns, or in faeries.

Second, it's possible to be secular and atheist, just as it's possible to be secular and religious.  There is no reason this shouldn't hold true for governments as well as for people.  That means you can have a government which is atheistic but doesn't have a state policy on it, and you can have a government which is religious but doesn't have a state policy on it.  Furthermore, it's possible to have a state policy on religion (and thus atheism) without being totalitarian.  England falls into that category, for example, since it does have a state church but doesn't really do much about it.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
JST you are acting like religious based Governments (Christian or otherwise) have never killed for the convenience of riding their worlds of problem people ......Early America and Canada were prime example Killing Aboriginals by the millions for the sake of convenience.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Just to clarify, Jaime - my +1 meant that *you* said it better than I would have.  I can see how it might be interpreted either way.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1383
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
So you don't accept that your statements are erroneous. So here we go again
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
The Bible nowhere gives Christians the right to make laws of the land.  The Bible teaches Christians are individually responsible for their own families and not everyone elses.
Then Matthew 19:19 NIV
"honor your father and mother,' and "love your neighbor as yourself." must have fell on deaf ears then. 
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
We may advise but are nowhere told to force our will.  Christians are told to be like Christ.  Christ was not a politician or a lobyist, nor did he lead protests.    Jesus didn't even denounce a prostitute when given the opportunity.

In fact, Jesus never denounced any "sinners".  Who did he denounce?  The religous leaders!  Ironic?
Were they not sinners then? Were they not men? Were they not born in sin? Why didn't jesus turn the other cheek? He did preach it didn't he. Oh and was he not protesting, when he turned over the tables etc?

Before you continue with your erroneous remarks I suggest you actually read your holy book, instead of voicing error after error.
Judging by your lack of knowledge of your own holy book, I can understand why you dismiss Acts as communism incarnate. 
It's because you don't actually know what you're talking about!
 
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline J0SH

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Unbeliever of the bullshit.
I find it completely laughable that religious individuals would make the claim that atheism has caused more deaths than religion which is utterly ridiculous. Extremist religious insanity causes many deaths and tortures. I don't know what the law still is in Uganda (I think the gay ban still exists in Uganda) but there is one example that religion can cause unnecessary deaths. Ugandans killed and tortured quite a few homosexuals and most Ugandans are fanatical Christians. The world would be better off without mainstream religion, and it's a simple fact. Religion causes intolerance and wars and retards the progress of humanity.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 08:09:55 AM by J0SH »
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion."  -Robert M. Pirsig
“Be the change you want to see in the world.” -Mahatma Gandhi

Online Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1257
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Thing is, you can make a very good case for communism leading to atheism. Most communist countries were, at least to an extent, actively atheist.
However, does that make atheism resonsible for the things the communist governments did? Half the people in communist countries are women ... so, all women are responsible for the evils of communism? Communist countries like to focus on track and field and gymnastics ... so, athletes are responsible for the Great Leap Forward?[1]
Atheism is (often) an attribute of communism, communism is not an attribute of atheism. You can draw a line from communism to atrocities and from communism to atheism but not from atheism to atrocities.
You CAN however draw a direct line from any of a great number of religions straight to atrocities.
 1. btw, Mao ... another God-Emperor
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1310
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
JST you are acting like religious based Governments (Christian or otherwise) have never killed for the convenience of riding their worlds of problem people ......Early America and Canada were prime example Killing Aboriginals by the millions for the sake of convenience.

No I am not.  I am agreeing that they have.  It's just you guys refuse to agree that atheists have done the same thing.  Also, if atheism isn't responsible for all the atrocities done in it's name then neither is Christianity responsible for all the things that have been done in it's name.

^^ I agree. In fact, one might say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to be killed in the "name of atheism" because atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief on one particular issue. It's passive. People are killed for active reasons, not passive ones.

This statement is proven false.  It could also easily turn into a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Jst, are you familiar with anti-theism?

It seems to me that when you say atheism you are really referring to anti-theism.

Atheism is passive and means little.  Anti-theism is a political opinion and can drive one's actions.

Makes more sense, eh?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
No, it would be a state that officially supported the spread of Christianity.  Secular governments do not do this either, nor do they support the spread of atheism.  They are religiously neutral.
Why are stat holidays also mainly Christian based in these secular Governments? If I want the summer or winter solstice off,I can take it but not be paid like I would for good Friday or Christmas.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
And the fact that these killers like Stalin and Pol-pot were not theists had nothing to do with the lack of religion,but the desire to rule under an Iron fist and keep control. The way you keep control is to kill dissenters,this has nothing to do with a lack of belief in any deity.

 People who had a beef with the Totalitarian,be it for religious reasons or for ANY other reason under the sun were killed so the power could stay in power. Christians killing Indians was also an issue,they use religious reasons for their acts. Dirty heathens,or wrong god or Scripture instructing them to kill was good enough. It really had nothing to do with power but to get rid of groups of people in the way of them getting RICH. The difference is plain.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 05:49:04 PM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)