A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society, or that supports and publishes assertions and argumentation characteristic of hate groups without necessarily explicitly advocating such hate or violence that otherwise characterize hate groups. The term "hate group" is a political neologism. It is not used by these groups themselves, but rather by those who oppose them, and sometimes by sociologists or historians who study them. Many groups described this way disagree with the term as misconstruing their motives or goals.

Hate groups usually assert that the targets of their attacks are harmful to society, malicious, less fit to be members of society, or are operating some hidden cabal. The evidence hate groups present for these assertions is usually poorly corroborated, and is often based explicitly on the hate group's negative beliefs about the social groups to which the target is or is imagined to belong (e.g. groups based on race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.).

Although their evidence is usually inaccurate, sub-standard and widely rejected by society, the hate group continues to propagate assertions, myths, narratives and rumours, playing upon fear, xenophobia, blame or jealousy, with the aim of harming the individuals and groups they target, and inciting others to distrust or hate them also. The ultimate aim of a hate group is commonly the delegitimization, elimination, and exclusion of groups, or the harm, deportation, or death of individuals. Hate groups often use their victims as scapegoats to blame for discontent in society.


Doesn't this define the actions of many of the major world religions, MAINLY Christianity in America?



Debate away my friends!!!

Doesn't this define the actions of many of the major world religions, MAINLY Christianity in America?


Yes.

Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses and we should get rid of it as soon as we can.

Since you are already starting off with a biased viewpoint we can extrapolate that hate is present amongst all groups.

Since you are already starting off with a biased viewpoint we can extrapolate that hate is present amongst all groups.

You really don't like me do you?

You really don't like me do you?

:D. Your reading into things.

Plus you want to start another thread with a guarantee to go over 2 pages...possibly?

Plus you want to start another thread with a guarantee to go over 2 pages...possibly?

I speak whats on my mind, despite its results.

Are you so cowardly and insecure that you need to start threads like this?

I guess it depends on where you look then. You didn't mention anything specific either, so i guess it just depends on what you are looking for. You are entitled to your opinion, what 'group' would be opposite?

Are you so cowardly and insecure that you need to start threads like this?

Get lost. I've no time for your childish ways. Either participate in the conversation or shut the hell up. Its really that simple.

I think Abrahamism in particular tends to foster hatred because it reinforces people's tribal instincts. Christianity has mellowed very slightly over the past few generations just because it's been around longer than Islam and is losing steam, but Islam is at the peak of its hate curve. Since the major target of its hatred is Christendom--its competitor for the "souls" of us "heathens"--Christendom is rising to the challenge and hating back. The Jews, not having the ability to grow through evangelism, never had enough power to safely manifest a lot of hatred, but they're sure doing a good job of it now that they have their own little theocratic country and the protection of The World's Only Superpower.

It's certainly inarguable that the majority of the hatred in America--toward gays, immigrants, intellectuals, people with darker skin, scientists, foreigners and every other religion except Judaism and possibly the Dalai Lama--is centered in our Christian community.

Nonetheless as I've said I think it's highly unfair to single out Christianity when over the centuries it's running in a dead heat with Islam for the Hatred Award and the only reason the Jews aren't in the running is that there aren't enough of them to qualify. There's something about monotheism that brings out the worst in human beings. As I've hypothesized at great length in other threads, I think it's the very fact that the human spirit is not one-dimensional and the Abrahamic attempt to squash it into a pathetic model of good-versus-evil suppresses all those other dimensions of it, which fester and periodically explode.

Can anyone cite instances of polytheistic or animistic religions having inspired such orgies of hatred?

I think Abrahamism in particular tends to foster hatred because it reinforces people's tribal instincts. Christianity has mellowed very slightly over the past few generations just because it's been around longer than Islam and is losing steam, but Islam is at the peak of its hate curve. Since the major target of its hatred is Christendom--its competitor for the "souls" of us "heathens"--Christendom is rising to the challenge and hating back. The Jews, not having the ability to grow through evangelism, never had enough power to safely manifest a lot of hatred, but they're sure doing a good job of it now that they have their own little theocratic country and the protection of The World's Only Superpower.

It's certainly inarguable that the majority of the hatred in America--toward gays, immigrants, intellectuals, people with darker skin, scientists, foreigners and every other religion except Judaism and possibly the Dalai Lama--is centered in our Christian community.

Nonetheless as I've said I think it's highly unfair to single out Christianity when over the centuries it's running in a dead heat with Islam for the Hatred Award and the only reason the Jews aren't in the running is that there aren't enough of them to qualify. There's something about monotheism that brings out the worst in human beings. As I've hypothesized at great length in other threads, I think it's the very fact that the human spirit is not one-dimensional and the Abrahamic attempt to squash it into a pathetic model of good-versus-evil suppresses all those other dimensions of it, which fester and periodically explode.

Can anyone cite instances of polytheistic or animistic religions having inspired such orgies of hatred?


Well written and great points! And to answer your question, no, I can not think of any instances of the top of my head aside from the Persian Wars, which even then were not based entirely in religion.

but Islam is at the peak of its hate curve. Since the major target of its hatred is Christendom.
To be fair to Muslims I'd say the motivations of their antagonism are political, not religious.

Jesus is one of the most highly revered figures in their religion.

Bible belt Christians absolutely LOVE believing things like...'they hate us because we're free' or 'they hate us because we're Christian'.

To be fair to Muslims I'd say the motivations of their antagonism are political, not religious.


Yes and No... it is political because they rely on thier religion to not just influence, but to RUN thier governments.

Its really that simple.

The complexity of life terrifies you.

I had to vote yes, since imo any ideology (religion, nationalism, racism, etc) that breeds such certain conviction that not only are you right, but everyone else is beneath you or needs you to save them, based on nothing but hearsay, is hateful by nature.

I had to vote yes, since imo any ideology (religion, nationalism, racism, etc) that breeds such certain conviction that not only are you right, but everyone else is beneath you or needs you to save them, based on nothing but hearsay, is hateful by nature.
since most people believe they are right and that everyone is beneath them based on nothing but hearsay, it seems we are mostly atomic hate groups

since most people believe they are right and that everyone is beneath them based on nothing but hearsay, it seems we are mostly atomic hate groups
You are probably right. It's a tough nut to crack. But encouraging mass outbreaks of this (religion, etc) is hardly helping.

You are probably right. It's a tough nut to crack. But encouraging mass outbreaks of this (religion, etc) is hardly helping.

on the contrary, I would argue that religiousity helps crack it simply because it deals specifically in challenging those faults of character we just love to decorate ourselves with (lust/wrath/envy/animosity/etc)

even if a religious person is acting in a hateful way, they can be criticized by the standards of scripture they are advocating

All you can say about religion is that it offers the greatest opportunity for hypocrisy, since the higher the values the less likely persons in general will be able to abide by them

Please be advised, I am not saying that all Christians are violent and closed minded... I know many who are caring and wonderful people. But I am referring to the religion as a whole which tends to be ran by the goal of superiority among others.

on the contrary, I would argue that religiousity helps crack it simply because it deals specifically in challenging those faults of character we just love to decorate ourselves with (lust/wrath/envy/animosity/etc)

even if a religious person is acting in a hateful way, they can be criticized by the standards of scripture they are advocating

All you can say about religion is that it offers the greatest opportunity for hypocrisy, since the higher the values the less likely persons in general will be able to abide by them
Unless, like me, you happen to understand that human behaviors like lust/wrath/envy/animosity/etc are innate evolutionary developments that enhanced the survival of our species for almost all of our history and are probably some of the major reasons we made it this far at all.

In modern society, these behaviors can be counterproductive, yes? The religious approach of simply condemning them and threatening people with damnation or bad karma or whatever is like advocating a good bleeding to get the bad spirits out of a sick person with the consumption. A nice idea if all you have is a backward understanding of the problem.

I think we're beyond that. Don't you?

Unless, like me, you happen to understand that human behaviors like lust/wrath/envy/animosity/etc are innate evolutionary developments that enhanced the survival of our species for almost all of our history and are probably some of the major reasons we made it this far at all.

In modern society, these behaviors can be counterproductive, yes? The religious approach of simply condemning them and threatening people with damnation or bad karma or whatever is like advocating a good bleeding to get the bad spirits out of a sick person with the consumption. A nice idea if all you have is a backward understanding of the problem.

I think we're beyond that. Don't you?

I am surprised you can say that since issues like animosity and envy coupled with nuclear technology is what most people would indicate as the single most threat to (at least human) life on this planet.

There are various types of religious methods for dealing with lust/wrath/etc - you seem to be indicating atonement - but there are indications that atonement is not the highest method of dealing with it, since it is unstable

Sometimes one who is very alert so as not to commit sinful acts is victimized by sinful life again. I therefore consider this process of repeated sinning and atoning to be useless. It is like the bathing of an elephant, for an elephant cleanses itself by taking a full bath, but then throws dust over its head and body as soon as it returns to the land.

The actual solution to dealing with issues of faults of character is rather explained as

The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

You seem to be neglecting the possibility of a positive alternative being offered, as opposed to "IF YOU DO THAT YOU ARE IN BIG TROUBLE" which does not ultimately benefit anyone

The actual solution to dealing with issues of faults of character is rather explained as

The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.


That's a solution? How will you implement this as a solution to the baser instincts of humanity? How will you, without an understanding of the origins and basis for these behaviors, modify or eliminate them? Will you use science to study the brain? Or neuropsychology? Or an understanding of why we lust/aggress/fight?

What is the real basis and outline of your solution?

Are you so cowardly and insecure that you need to start threads like this?

Troll

Please be advised, I am not saying that all Christians are violent and closed minded... I know many who are caring and wonderful people. But I am referring to the religion as a whole which tends to be ran by the goal of superiority among others.

The Catholics used to be one big hate group against everyone else. They said that anyone who didn't believe in exactly what they said was damned to hell for eternity. That's some hate right there.

That's a solution?
more like a concise introduction to the solution
a person can give up a bad habit by taking on a good habit



How will you implement this as a solution to the baser instincts of humanity?
I'm not sure what you are asking here
can you give an eg?


How will you, without an understanding of the origins and basis for these behaviors, modify or eliminate them?
I wasn't aware that modern science was offering any clear understanding of these base behaviours
the solutions they seem to be offering seem to deal with the effect and not the cause
anyway, there are elaborate understandings of the basis of behaviour available


Will you use science to study the brain? Or neuropsychology? Or an understanding of why we lust/aggress/fight?
this is simply the study of effects and not the cause
there is no indication that advances in neuropsychology can be correlated to advances in jollyiness


What is the real basis and outline of your solution?
In short, we are creatures of attachment and not renunciation

a simple example is that if a child is misbehaving, it is better to give them some sort of other thing to do rather than sitting them in a corner with nothing to do (unless you want to supervise them through the whole ordeal)

on a grander scale, our attachment to transient things (which gives us lust, wrath, etc) can be given up when we develop attachment to god - if god is unobservable, unverifiable, unknowable, etc, where is the possibility of attachment?

Are you so cowardly and insecure that you need to start threads like this?

Is that really the best you can come up with? I mean, duh of course Christianity is a hateful, supremacist philosophy. It should be pointed out, however, that a massive apostasy has watered down Christianity to the point that, as MZ3 reminds, not all Christians are violent and closed minded. In fact, there are many who would assert that at the core of Jesus' ministry was a deep trust in God. You know, faith? This is why I get along with certain sects. The Quakers I've known, for instance, have generally shown that trust. I've also seen their trust falter, and that was unfortunate, but compared to the vitriolic exclusionism and exceptionalism infecting so much of contemporary Christian evangelism, a flock toppling their pastor for domestic violence issues° isn't something I'm going to complain about.
____________________

Notes:

° toppling their pastor for domestic violence issues — This is even an adjusted description. The story as it came to me is that shortly after I encountered this congregation, the pastor stepped aside in the face of opposition from some of the more conservative members of the congregation who were concerned not so much about the idea that he lost his temper and gave his son a good hard smack in the teeth as they were that, instead of trusting in God to show him the way, he entered anger-management therapy in order to get a hold on his emotions and preserve his family. Unfortunate, indeed, but compared to what has taken place in the years since, whether or not he should have stepped down/been ousted is the business of that congregation, and not my judgment to make. There are so many greater internal challenges facing Christendom today that any rational sense of proportion suggests quite strongly the impropriety and superfluousness of any indictment I might invent for such an incident.

Is that really the best you can come up with? I mean, duh of course Christianity is a hateful, supremacist philosophy.
gee
I guess we can all go home now

There are some Christian groups/sects that I would say are hate groups and there are Jewish sect and Islamic sects that I would classify as hate groups too...just to be fair! But not all Christian groups/sects are hate groups (e.g. Methodists and Unitarians).

gee
I guess we can all go home now

I'm just curious why, if such sentiments are so offensive or spurious or whatever, this is the best people can come up with. I realize Christians don't like to think of themselves as hatemongers. And I'm aware that not all of them are. (You might have missed the part about apostasy.) But, you know, white supremacists don't see themselves as hatemongers, either. They, like the Christian soldiers, see themselves as holy warriors.

Remember: hatred is acceptable—all the way to genocide—if one believes God wants it.

In the meantime, I prefer the apostates who defy the hatred and prefer to put their trust in God's compassion and judgment. Of course, as one of our neighbors has expressed, following what Jesus actually says makes Christians candy-assed wimps.

Are you so cowardly and insecure that you need to start threads like this?

He's not being either of those, it was a legitimate thread pointing out how religion seems to make hatred acceptable. Deal with that or piss off.

Religions are like guns in this respect. Guns don't kill people, people do. And so it is with religion. Religion does not kill people, people do.

Religions are like guns in this respect. Guns don't kill people, people do. And so it is with religion. Religion does not kill people, people do.

Hence, religion should be eradicated so that people don't use it to kill.

I'm just curious why, if such sentiments are so offensive or spurious or whatever, this is the best people can come up with. I realize Christians don't like to think of themselves as hatemongers. And I'm aware that not all of them are. (You might have missed the part about apostasy.) But, you know, white supremacists don't see themselves as hatemongers, either. They, like the Christian soldiers, see themselves as holy warriors.

Remember: hatred is acceptable—all the way to genocide—if one believes God wants it.

In the meantime, I prefer the apostates who defy the hatred and prefer to put their trust in God's compassion and judgment. Of course, as one of our neighbors has expressed, following what Jesus actually says makes Christians candy-assed wimps.

Theres alot you just cannot see though your hood, maybe the holes for your eyes are cut too small.

Hence, religion should be eradicated so that people don't use it to kill.


Eliminating religion will not stop killing any more than eliminating guns would. If we just look at the atheist regimes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler, we have a body count that exceeds 100 million people. Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history. Even a second-rate atheist despot like Pol Pot killed more people in a month than the Inquisition managed to do in three centuries.

There is only one well established religion I know of that has killing of non-believers as part of it’s core beliefs.

If we just look at the atheist regimes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler, we have a body count that exceeds 100 million people. Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history. Even a second-rate atheist despot like Pol Pot killed more people in a month than the Inquisition managed to do in three centuries.

You make the mistake of assuming those so-called 'atheist regimes' were built on the pursuit of atheism. Those despots simply replaced gods with themselves as the center of worship. The theocratic infrastructure remained the same.


There is only one well established religion I know of that has killing of non-believers as part of it’s core beliefs.

Abrahamism.

Please be advised, I am not saying that all Christians are violent and closed minded... I know many who are caring and wonderful people. But I am referring to the religion as a whole which tends to be ran by the goal of superiority among others.


I would hope very few Christians are violent and closed-minded. Sadly some are. There is certainly nothing that Jesus said that would lead them to violence. They do so against their religion. Same with superiority. Sure Christians believe they are right, but there is no supremism in the teachings of Christ. World domination through violence is not an attribute I would ascribe to Christianity.

Christians for example who refuse to allow homosexuals in their Church are going against their teachings in my opinion. Homosexuality is a sin, but so is pre-marital sex. I doubt many Christians can claim innocence with that, but God doesn’t differentiate. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history.

While I agree with you that the elimination of religion would not stop killing, I'd like you to justify your fallacious claim that the killing committed by mass-murderers was done because of atheism.

Your failure to justify this will signal your ignorance, your willingness to lie, or your willingness to believe things without evidence.

There is only one well established religion I know of that has killing of non-believers as part of it’s core beliefs.

Abrahamism.

Technically you are correct. The definition of Abrahamism is: “Abrahamists believe in Tanakh (Old Testament), New Testament, and Quran as holy scriptures inspired by God.”

(based on http://abrahamism.blogspot.com/)

The only religion believing in all three is Islam. But of course Muslims believe the Torah and New Testament are forgeries.

Allah is NOT the same God as expressed in the OT or NT. The Muslims claim their religion is an evolution of the OT and the NT to claim legitimacy. It is a false claim. Atheists would serve their cause well by learning the vast difference between Allah and God.

Technically you are correct. The definition of Abrahamism is: “Abrahamists believe in Tanakh (Old Testament), New Testament, and Quran as holy scriptures inspired by God.”

(based on http://abrahamism.blogspot.com/)

The only religion believing in all three is Islam. But of course Muslims believe the Torah and New Testament are forgeries.

Allah is NOT the same God as expressed in the OT or NT. The Muslims claim their religion is an evolution of the OT and the NT to claim legitimacy. It is a false claim. Atheists would serve their cause well by learning the vast difference between Allah and God.

They both have one important characteristic in common...

Technically you are correct. The definition of Abrahamism is: “Abrahamists believe in Tanakh (Old Testament), New Testament, and Quran as holy scriptures inspired by God.”

The Abrahamic religions are Islam, Judaism and Christianity.


Atheists would serve their cause well by learning the vast difference between Allah and God.

You might serve a little better also.

While I agree with you that the elimination of religion would not stop killing, I'd like you to justify your fallacious claim that the killing committed by mass-murderers was done because of atheism.

Your failure to justify this will signal your ignorance, your willingness to lie, or your willingness to believe things without evidence.


You are putting words in my mouth. I never said these examples are mass murderers because they are atheists.

The hypothesis is that religion causes most of the violence in the world; a world run by atheists would be a peaceful place. To test the hypothesis we look for examples of mass murdering atheists. We find examples, therefore the hypothesis fails.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said these examples are mass murderers because they are atheists.

The hypothesis is that religion causes most of the violence in the world; a world run by atheists would be a peaceful place. To test the hypothesis we look for examples of mass murdering atheists. We find examples, therefore the hypothesis fails.

Really?

I thought the hypothesis was that a world run WITHOUT monotheistic cults at the helm would be more peaceful.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said these examples are mass murderers because they are atheists.

The hypothesis is that religion causes most of the violence in the world; a world run by atheists would be a peaceful place. To test the hypothesis we look for examples of mass murdering atheists. We find examples, therefore the hypothesis fails.

I'm using your own words. "Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history."

You, then, are a liar.

Play word games to your heart’s content. You fail to refute this point because you cannot, resorting to personal attacks instead.

My point, that religion's followers have no exclusive corner on the market when it comes to creating suffering, is well established. Atheism it seems is at least as bad, if not worse.

It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true If it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none.

Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency these atheists conducted on a massive scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all "on behalf" of the proletariat.

You could argue these mass murders were not caused “because of atheism” but they were certainly enabled by atheism.

There are no "word games" afoot. You accused me of "putting words in your mouth," which is untrue to the point of being an utter lie. Nor am I making a personal attack -I was making a statement of fact. One who lies is a liar.

It's interesting you say that it's "obvious atheism cannot be true" since it would produced "a more humane world," yet you fail to document or cite how it is that this is "obvious."

The only thing you have that barely comes close to making this point is the dogmatic regimes of despots like Stalin, Pol Pot, et al who were successful at creating dogmas that fundamentally inserted them as the "god" for the societies they led. The despotic results of regimes like Stalin's has nothing to do with atheism nor did atheism enable such a regime -the people who chose to follow Stalin enabled his atrocities.

The evidence for this is clear: on need only look at current "atheistic regimes" and nations to find them among the lowest in crime in the Western world. Indeed, the nation in the west that has the highest incidence of violent crime is also the same nation that has the highest incidence of religious belief. Not only that, but the nations that have the highest incidence of atheism are also the more humane by most measures of the word, invalidating your entire statement of "obvious" truth about atheism.

In the end, those deluded by religious superstition seek to "demonize" and deride those that don't buy into their delusions wherever possible, particularly if those that reject their superstitions are rational and skeptical to the point of not buying into anyone's. That you seek to lie and deceive is evidence of this.

Yes good solution, take away the religion and keep the humans the same? Are you looking to bring along 'the rapture'?

The damn stealth Christians.^

You could argue these mass murders were not caused “because of atheism”

One could argue that and one would be justified in doing so because these atrocities were not because of atheism. The cases cited by theists are always the same and always the communists. Communism, it need not be said, is more along the lines of religion than atheism. It is worship, but for the state instead of a sky fairy. That is not atheism, it is communism.

The evidence for this is clear: on need only look at current "atheistic regimes" and nations to find them among the lowest in crime in the Western world. Indeed, the nation in the west that has the highest incidence of violent crime is also the same nation that has the highest incidence of religious belief. Not only that, but the nations that have the highest incidence of atheism are also the more humane by most measures of the word, invalidating your entire statement of "obvious" truth about atheism.

In the end, those deluded by religious superstition seek to "demonize" and deride those that don't buy into their delusions wherever possible, particularly if those that reject their superstitions are rational and skeptical to the point of not buying into anyone's. That you seek to lie and deceive is evidence of this.


What atheistic regimes? Im just curious.

Theres alot you just cannot see though your hood, maybe the holes for your eyes are cut too small.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you should be so upset that I consider the honest, compassionate, trustworthy people who happen to be Christians the better sort than the Christian voice of public discourse.

Is it that you're not reading? That you're just out looking for a fight of some sort? Does the concept somehow confuse you? Or are you really asserting that those who would wield the Bible as a weapon against their neighbors are unjustly maligned because I reject supremacist bigotry?

The evidence for this is clear: on need only look at current "atheistic regimes" and nations to find them among the lowest in crime in the Western world. Indeed, the nation in the west that has the highest incidence of violent crime is also the same nation that has the highest incidence of religious belief. Not only that, but the nations that have the highest incidence of atheism are also the more humane by most measures of the word, invalidating your entire statement of "obvious" truth about atheism.




LOL LOL LOL LOL!

Hey, did you know that 95.7 percent of all statistics are made up right on the spot?

An atheist regime? Pulleeeese.

This is one of the silliest things I have heard of in a long time!

I don't have time to show just how silly, but just off the top of my head, Denmark, Norway and Finland are in the top ten atheist countries, and they are also in the top ten most crime ridden countries.

It is rather difficult to define what you mean by "atheist regime". How would you measure the amount of religious fervour in a country? I suppose one way would be to look at rates of church attendance. If you investigate this you will see higher church attendance tends to be somewhat correlated with lower crime rates. Perhaps you have some fantasy that the USA is the most crime ridden country? Not by a long shot.

If you really study this you will also find crime rates are primarily correlated with socio-economic conditions, much more so than anything else.

I will be gracious and not call you a lier as you do me. I will only suggest your reasoning abilities are clouded by your hatred of all that is spiritual.

Denmark, Norway and Finland are in the top ten atheist countries, and they are also in the top ten most crime ridden countries.:p:p:p

One could argue that and one would be justified in doing so because these atrocities were not because of atheism. The cases cited by theists are always the same and always the communists. Communism, it need not be said, is more along the lines of religion than atheism. It is worship, but for the state instead of a sky fairy. That is not atheism, it is communism.

Another silly rationalism. Indeed they were! Let me put this as simply as possible:

* Religions put God before Man as the ultimate authority.
* Atheism puts Man as the ultimate authority

These regimes could not exist were they not atheist.

Q.E.D.

The despotic results of regimes like Stalin's has nothing to do with atheism nor did atheism enable such a regime -the people who chose to follow Stalin enabled his atrocities

It should also suffice to say that Stalin was to Communism what Torquemada was to Christianity. Communism sympathizes with religion. At least, Marx did. As Mark Steel (http://www.open2.net/marksteel/marx_lecture.html) reminds:


It's often assumed that Marx hated religion, as illustrated by his line about the opium of the people. But his starting point was that religion, like other ideas, is a product of the environment. So for example Christianity and Islam grew because they opposed the religions of the ruling empires. So Marx was sympathetic to religion. The whole quote was, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creatures, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions: it is the opium of the people."

(The Mark Steel Lectures)

One thing that religious people—e.g. Christian anticommunists—really seem to want to ignore is that the Communist motto ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their need") is derived from the Book of Acts. I keep making this point, but it seems to go largely ignored. I mean, it's fine with me if someone wants to disagree, or whatever. But, strangely, theists aiming to condemn atheism for inspiring Communism won't even acknowledge the point, much less address it. They keep reiterating the same old crap about atheism being responsible for Stalin, while most Christians would refuse the notion that Torquemada, or Kramer and Sprenger, (or David Koresh, the Medici popes, &c.) are representative of Christianity. Given that there is a stronger case for the relationship between Christianity and the behavior of such notorious religious figures than there is for a connection between atheism and Stalin, it seems insulting and demeaning atheists is more their style than actually putting up a useful, decent, rational argument.

I mean, if they really want to have the argument, we'll have to figure out first what Stalin learned from Orthodox Christians.

Question: are communists theists or atheists?

I find it absolutely hilarious that you should be so upset that I consider the honest, compassionate, trustworthy people who happen to be Christians the better sort than the Christian voice of public discourse.

Is it that you're not reading? That you're just out looking for a fight of some sort? Does the concept somehow confuse you? Or are you really asserting that those who would wield the Bible as a weapon against their neighbors are unjustly maligned because I reject supremacist bigotry?

I'm not looking for a fight, beside you are a veteran in the wars against Al Quaker. Too tough for me. I couldn't fight your imagination anyway.

Question: are communists theists or atheists?

A mix of both. Probably in favor of the latter, though.

An atheist regime? Pulleeeese.

I'm not sure what you're attempted to spell there, perhaps it was another internet lol-speak thing. But I'm only using your words with regard to "atheist regime" -thus the scare quotes.

I'm referring to the various nations of the world who have leaders that are atheist or agnostic or for whom religion isn't a factor. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, for instance. Australia even had a PM that was godless in the 1990s as well as a Governor-General.

But the important thing is that there are nations for which religion is *not* a major part of the lives of their citizens, such as New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, and Norway where violent crime is extremely low.

You so carefully noted that Denmark, Norway and Finland are in the top ten atheist nations, but you were misleading in your claim that they're the most "crime ridden."

If you take careful note, I mentioned "violent crime," which is the factor of importance. Focusing on violent crimes is important because Western nations, once violent crime has been reduced, have a tendency to report higher instances of far less serious crimes -which were always there, just overshadowed by violent crime.

The violent crime in the nations you chose are far, far lower than in nations that are more afflicted with religion. Indeed, the only Western nation that is overly afflicted with religion exhibits violent crime rates far higher than the rest.

For that, the nations you mentioned had the lowest violent crime rating. As a source, you can examine the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention).


How would you measure the amount of religious fervour in a country? I suppose one way would be to look at rates of church attendance. If you investigate this you will see higher church attendance tends to be somewhat correlated with lower crime rates. Perhaps you have some fantasy that the USA is the most crime ridden country? Not by a long shot.

How to measure "religious fervor?" I rely on the sociological work others and don't actually do the measurements myself -sorry. But you can look over sociologist Phil Zuckerman's work (2005) and he's done a bit of work which is oft quoted by even religious adherents. Church attendance is one method to quantify, but it has its problems.

You keep saying "crime-ridden," but again I'm focusing on factors of violent crime. Why worry about every pencil cup stolen from every office cubicle? Violent crime has been demonstrated time and again to be the factor that once removed allows other crimes to be reported -many social factors are at play here, but sociologists have studied this effect extensively enough that the only factors important for our discussion is violent crimes. But we can even look at "morality" issues which are popular among religious nutters in the U.S.

Among the secular west, only the United States continues to have a high homicide rate (Beeghley 2003; Doyle 2000). Yes, the United States is an "out lier." It's a religious nation -the only among the industrialized nations- with a high homicide and overall crime rate. Nations like Columbia and Portugal also have high crime rates (Pew 2002). They're also religious nations. Many very religious nations in Africa are high in human rights violations. They're also very religious. South Africa consumes more cocaine than any other country in Africa (UN 2001); it's also the fifth most religious, under Senegal, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, and Mali -four nations were human rights violations are a norm (HRW 2006).

The abortion rate in Sweden (in 1996), one of the nations with the leading population of agnostics and atheists was 18.7% compared to that of Australia (22.2%) and the United States (21.3%). If we are to correlate this to religious adherence, then clearly the United States, where 81% of the population considered itself "religious" in 2001 (ARIS 2001), and Australia, where 74% of the population is religious (NCLS 2001), are both nations that should have lower percentages of abortion.

They don't. Moreover, the statistics cited for Swedish abortions in teens in a previous post are a bit misleading. The teen pregnancy rate in Sweden is among the lowest in the world to begin with. There's also the problem with failing to consider other mitigating factors, such as concurrent population growth, which was about 6% from 1996 to 2005 (BFS 2005). Looking at global abortion/pregnancy rates is also revealing.

In the U.S., in 1991, teen pregnancies per 1,000 were 98.0 and total teen abortions, also per 1,000, were 44.4 (Wolf et al 1991). The same year for Sweden yielded 28.3 per 1,000 pregnancies and 19.6 per 1,000 abortions.

Swedish abortions, with 50% increase among teens (National Board of Health and Welfare 2004) would put the rate at about 29.5 per 1,000, just over the U.S. rate of 28% (Ventura et al 2004). Recent data indicate a downward turn in teenage abortions in Sweden, however, with 24.3 per 1,000 in 2005 (National Board of Health and Welfare 2006). Of significant interest is the birth rate among teenagers in the U.S., which is the highest in the developed world, seven times as high as Japan's (UN 2005).

Japan is an interesting comparator, since reports of Japanese religiosity rate them at 64-65% atheist/agnostic (Zuckerman 2005). However, it consistently reports the lowest rates of abortion and pregnancies among teens: 6.3 and 10.2 per 1,000 respectively.

Whenever attempting to find correlations between "moral" behavior and religion, or lack of either, the same thing consistently becomes clear: those nations that are among the most superstitious experience the highest rates of amoral behavior.

Does religion cause bad behavior? That's certainly debatable, but there certainly is *no* evidence to suggest that the United States is in any danger of becoming less religious -it has, indeed, become increasingly backward in its superstitious nature- nor is there evidence that lack of religion, should it occur in America, would be deleterious.

References

ARIS (2001). American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/aris_index.htm). The Graduate Center for the City University of New York

BFS (2005). Struktur der Bevölkerung. Ständige Wohnbevölkerung [Periode 1970-2005]. Bundesamt für Statistik BFS.

Beeghley, Leonard (2003). Homicide: A Sociological Explanation (http://tinyurl.com/qxtem). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Doyle, Rodger (2000) The Roots of Homicide. Scientific American 283 (3), p. 22.

HRW (2006). Info by Country: Africa (http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=africa). Human Rights Watch [accessed 9/3/06]

National Board of Health and Welfare (2004). Abortions 2003. Sweden: Centre for Epidemiology, Official Statistics of Sweden.

National Board of Health and Welfare (2006). Abortions 2005.[PDF] (http://tinyurl.com/pojvo) Sweden: Centre for Epidemiology, Official Statistics of Sweden.

Pew (2002). Among the Wealthy Nations... U.S. Stands Alone in its Embrace of Relgion (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167). Pew Global Attitudes Project [accessed 9/3/06]

UN (2001). The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000) [PDF] (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sv.pdf). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

United Nations. (2005). Demographic Yearbook, 2002 (http://tinyurl.com/ocuz7). New York, NY: United Nations.

Ventura, Stephanie J., et al. (2004, June 15). "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States, 1990-2000: An Update." National vital Statistics Report, 52(23).

Wolff, Michael; et al (1992). Where We Stand. New York: Bantam Books.

Zuckerman, Phil (2005). "Atheism: contemporary rates and patterns," in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Michael Martin, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lets end the war on religion and start one on POVERTY.

A mix of both. Probably in favor of the latter, though.

Are there theistic communist groups? I was under the impression that communists are atheistic by politics and practice. At least that is how it is in India.

Are there theistic communist groups? I was under the impression that communists are atheistic by politics and practice. At least that is how it is in India.

Wasn't there the Tudeh in Iran? I'm not sure if they're religious, though. Can't think of any other concrete examples.

Question: are communists theists or atheists?

I think it depends on the individual communist.


• • •



I'm not looking for a fight

Whatever your mean spirit says.


beside you are a veteran in the wars against Al Quaker

Sectarian bigotry?


Too tough for me

Obviously.


I couldn't fight your imagination anyway.

I just don't see why you're so upset that I think Christians who side with Jesus over Paul or the Old Testament are the better representatives of the faith. I don't see why you're so upset that I consider Christians who show respect to their neighbors and demonstrate their faith through their daily behavior are the better representatives than evangelicals like Pam Stenzel (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1586886&postcount=283), Ted Haggard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA), or Pat Robertson (who allegedly prefers the Wall Street Journal to the Bible (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/pat_robertson_finances.htm)°)?

Really, I don't see why that idea is so troubling. It would be nice if you could actually address that issue instead of just being rude.

How am i being mean spirited? You are entitled to hate whoever you like. Isn't it a little too late to play the victim?

How am i being mean spirited?

You're a disingenuous troll whose posts intend more to whine and spit than actually make a useful point.


You are entitled to hate whoever you like.

Your definition of hatred is meaningless right now. One way you could give it meaning is to answer the issue I've repeatedly put before you.

Except we're aware that, as a troll, you have no intention of answering that issue:


• I find it absolutely hilarious that you should be so upset that I consider the honest, compassionate, trustworthy people who happen to be Christians the better sort than the Christian voice of public discourse.

• ... are you really asserting that those who would wield the Bible as a weapon against their neighbors are unjustly maligned because I reject supremacist bigotry?

• I just don't see why you're so upset that I think Christians who side with Jesus over Paul or the Old Testament are the better representatives of the faith. I don't see why you're so upset that I consider Christians who show respect to their neighbors and demonstrate their faith through their daily behavior are the better representatives than evangelicals like Pam Stenzel, Ted Haggard, or Pat Robertson (who allegedly prefers the Wall Street Journal to the Bible)?


Isn't it a little too late to play the victim?

Who says it's about playing the victim? Oh, right. You do. Whatever.

Come on. Show us you're more than a bigoted troll. I mean, it's a simple question: Why are you upset that I consider the honest, compassionate, trustworthy people who happen to be Christians the better representatives of the faith?

If you didn't want this fight (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1685480&postcount=57), why did you pick it (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1684609&postcount=35)?

To be fair to Muslims I'd say the motivations of their antagonism are political, not religious.I'm getting a little tired of hearing this fashionable apologist argument. We've got a community with one thing in common: their religion. They attack people with one thing in common: they don't belong to that religion. Their screeds are couched in religious rhetoric with specific references to scripture: they call us "infidels," "Great Satan," etc. Their attacks focus on the differences in our culture that violate their religion such as immodesty, intoxication, equality of women and celebration of sexuality. Sure, there is obviously a political component to their antagonism, but the root of that politics is religion.
Bible belt Christians absolutely LOVE believing things like...'they hate us because we're Christian'.There are abundant citations, including a number of them right here on SciForums, of specific examples of Muslim fundies behaving more intolerantly of Christians and Christianity than of any other belief system, religion or community, including Jews and atheists.
Unless, like me, you happen to understand that human behaviors like lust/wrath/envy/animosity/etc are innate evolutionary developments that enhanced the survival of our species for almost all of our history and are probably some of the major reasons we made it this far at all. In modern society, these behaviors can be counterproductive, yes? The religious approach of simply condemning them and threatening people with damnation or bad karma or whatever is like advocating a good bleeding to get the bad spirits out of a sick person with the consumption. A nice idea if all you have is a backward understanding of the problem. I think we're beyond that. Don't you?To their credit, the religions at least recognize the problem as an instinctive behavior that was a survival trait in the early stone age when we lived in small clans, but works against us now that we've invented civilization and have to live in harmony with total strangers. To their discredit they don't recognize that they're part of the problem since religion itself is one of those atavistic instincts that needs to be overcome.

This is all part of the pack-social instinct that we've been struggling for ten thousand years to override with reasoned and learned behavior. We've come a long way toward converting to a herd-social species. People in small cities of ten or twenty thousand people feel a genuine sense of kinship, almost a three-orders-of-magnitude improvement over the hunter-gatherer packs of the Mesolithic Era. But the Abrahamic religions stall us at the tribal level so we cannot move forward and combine our tribes into larger harmonious, cooperative communities.

Their reliance on faith in the supernatural is largely to blame. You can't motivate people in a modern society by telling them they're going to go to hell, when only a minority of them still believe in hell. (Yes, most of them believe in heaven but nobody said cognitive dissonance was out of fashion.:)) You have to motivate them by teaching them that when everyone follows the rules of civilization everyone prospers. That's why our distant ancestors were willing to move into villages in the first place. Economy of scale and division of labor increase the quantity and diversity of production, so life became less harsh. Today the payoff of transcending tribalism will be the disappearance of large-scale violence, the fear and grief that comes with it, and the huge drain that the military sector takes out of the global economy. That just has to be more appealing to a 21st century human than a threat that he's going to hell.
Are you so cowardly and insecure that you need to start threads like this?
TrollCome on dude, you made the decision to participate in the Religion subforum. Most of the rules are waived here. People can say damn near anything they please. I think racism and personally insulting another member are about the only things you can say here that will get you in trouble. Trolling isn't even on the radar. After all, most religious arguments violate the scientific method (by insisting that the natural universe is not a closed system) and therefore by definition constitute trolling on a science website!
There are some Christian groups/sects that I would say are hate groups and there are Jewish sect and Islamic sects that I would classify as hate groups too...just to be fair! But not all Christian groups/sects are hate groups (e.g. Methodists and Unitarians).I think in America Unitarian has become essentially synonymous with Unitarian Universalist, which is not Christian.
Eliminating religion will not stop killing any more than eliminating guns would. If we just look at the atheist regimes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler, we have a body count that exceeds 100 million people.Duh? Hitler was raised as a Christian and continued to espouse (primarily Protestant) Christian beliefs throughout his life. I don't think you can find a respected biographer who will say that he was an atheist. His atrocities were the culmination of more than a thousand years of antisemitism in Europe's Christian community, and they were actively supported or at best knowingly excused by Christians, who constituted a huge majority of the German population. The Pope himself refused to condemn Hitler.
Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history. Even a second-rate atheist despot like Pol Pot killed more people in a month than the Inquisition managed to do in three centuries.You seem to be unaware of the fact that the obliteration of the Aztec and Inca Empires, with the slaughter of millions of "heathens," was effectively the extension of the Inquisition into the New World. To be sure, European Christians made war on other Christians, but they did not treat them like animals, burn their libraries, melt down their art objects, and attempt to stamp out their histories and cultures. This was with the blessing of Pope Urban.
It should also suffice to say that Stalin was to Communism what Torquemada was to Christianity. Communism sympathizes with religion.It has been argued--persuasively IMO--that communism is an artifact of Christian culture. It has spread to other communities, as has Christianity itself, but no other religious culture could have invented it. Can you imagine a Hindu or a Confucian coming up with the preposterous notion that civilization could survive if what a man takes from it need not be correlated with what he contributes to it?
One thing that religious people—e.g. Christian anticommunists—really seem to want to ignore is that the Communist motto ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their need") is derived from the Book of Acts. I keep making this point, but it seems to go largely ignored. I mean, it's fine with me if someone wants to disagree, or whatever. But, strangely, theists aiming to condemn atheism for inspiring Communism won't even acknowledge the point, much less address it. They keep reiterating the same old crap about atheism being responsible for Stalin, while most Christians would refuse the notion that Torquemada, or Kramer and Sprenger, (or David Koresh, the Medici popes, &c.) are representative of Christianity. Given that there is a stronger case for the relationship between Christianity and the behavior of such notorious religious figures than there is for a connection between atheism and Stalin, it seems insulting and demeaning atheists is more their style than actually putting up a useful, decent, rational argument. I mean, if they really want to have the argument, we'll have to figure out first what Stalin learned from Orthodox Christians.Thank you! You are not alone!
Are there theistic communist groups? I was under the impression that communists are atheistic by politics and practice. At least that is how it is in India.Christianity and especially Catholicism fairly flourished under the communist regimes of Poland and Czechoslovakia, as did Islam in Albania. At times it was officially repressed and attendance of religious services fell off, but the attrition rate of belief was very slow. The Bulgarians were so politically docile that I didn't observe much repression of any sort when I was there 35 years ago. Orthodox Churches and even synagogues were well attended, although having been occupied by the Ottomans for centuries they weren't very charitable toward Islam.

We've got a community with one thing in common: their religion. They attack people with one thing in common: they don't belong to that religion. Their screeds are couched in religious rhetoric with specific references to scripture: they call us "infidels," "Great Satan," etc.

Sure, there is obviously a political component to their antagonism, but the root of that politics is religion.
While I'm no apologist for Islam, Christianity, or any form of crime, whether it be from terrorist groups or the US government, I will point out that this form of hatred is politically based...not religious.

I live in a community where there are muslims everywhere you look. Ive worked with them, shopped in their stores, eaten in their restaurants, had numerous chats on all subjects, and I can say that Ive never heard a single comment against Christianity from any of them.

They dont even hate all americans...many of them want to live there as we all know. Nor do they even hate all US governments. Their favourite US politicians are Carter and Clinton.

What they do hate are Zionists and the US administrations who support Zionists...simple as that. Naturally there is also a keen hatred among some Saudis towards the US military presence in their country...why wouldnt there be?

There was even a pic in the newspaper a while back of Iran's president embracing the leader of 'Jews against Zionism'!

The muslim restaurant I dine in every week has Christmas decorations up at the moment, because Jesus happens to be one of the most revered figures in the Koran.

We cannot say the same for Mohammed's place in Christian literature.

=lightgigantic;
There are various types of religious methods for dealing with lust/wrath/etc -

You've got to be kidding me. Religous groups are notorious for molesting little boys, arranging marriges between 14 year old girls and 50 year old men. Religon preaches submsssion, and control, that's why there's a plethora of cases, where the priest told the victom, that having sex with them was the only way to salvation. Future generations will down upon us for believing in such rubbish. Just like we down on the people who worshiped Zues.

You've got to be kidding me. Religous groups are notorious for molesting little boys, arranging marriges between 14 year old girls and 50 year old men. Religon preaches submsssion, and control, that's why there's a plethora of incases, where the priest told the victom, that having sex with them was the only way to salvation. Future generations will down upon us for believing in such rubbish. Just like we down on the people who worshiped Zues.
since all those things you indicate as abominable can be established as inappropriate by scripture, its not clear how you are arguing strongly against my case

It has been argued--persuasively IMO--that communism is an artifact of Christian culture. It has spread to other communities, as has Christianity itself, but no other religious culture could have invented it. Can you imagine a Hindu or a Confucian coming up with the preposterous notion that civilization could survive if what a man takes from it need not be correlated with what he contributes to it?

Likewise, it has also been argued—and, again, persuasively—that capitalism as we know it is a product of Christian theology and philosophy (e.g., Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).

I think the only point I would quibble with is that "from each/to each" is not as preposterous as you might imagine. In the particular Mark Steel episode I referred to, he makes a point about how, when he was young, people talked about how we would all work only an hour a day, wear tinfoil suits, and fly around everywhere. I was born thirteen years after Steel, and I recall hearing the same sort of futuristic projections when I was a kid. It's an interesting contrast to prior conditions when technology could not support the kind of surplus we enjoy today. There are certain conditions under which I would agree the proposition is preposterous, but more capitalistic endeavors have presented questions about the sustainability of the capitalistic system. In either case, the realization of the full benefit of either system depends on the populace being educated enough that individuals understand their role within and relationship to society. It is well enough to point out the success of someone like Bill Gates, but his accomplishments have occurred within a socioeconomic structure akin to a pyramid scheme. Without a tremendous poverty class, American socioeconomic luxury would be impossible. This particular question may well come to a head in the relatively near future. While Americans are afraid of a declining standard of living, the question of how long the rest of the world will play along with our exploitative methods necessarily gains urgency.

A working, sustainable structure will reflect a greater number of Marxist components than most Americans, for instance, realize or are willing to admit. To wit, once upon a time it was argued that communism was bad because the government should not have so much say in your education, healthcare, and retirement. While the government, should the People choose to exercise their will, is bound by social contract to work toward the best interests of its citizens, corporations are not. Yet at present many are willing to let their corporate employers set the terms of their healthcare, retirement, and further education.

The Revolution, as such, has already begun. The "proper" Revolution, in the end, is merely a form of social evolution. Where communists have run afoul of their own aims in history has been when they attempted to force the Revolution. It's why the Russian Revolution failed. Hugo Chavez is failing today not only because he is trying to force the Revolution, but also because he is trying to force it from the top down.

I'm getting a little tired of hearing this fashionable apologist argument. We've got a community with one thing in common: their religion. They attack people with one thing in common: they don't belong to that religion.
Violence between Muslims is vastly more common - even if you just focus on political violence - then violence against non-Muslims. So the one thing in common argument above seems very weak to me.

Its becoming pointless to argue these sermons, one thing i would ask FR in relation to his diatribe would be:

Would those things have happened regardless of religious belief? The second thing i would point out is that the Church is insignificant when it comes to anything beyond superficial regarding governing regardless of the country, the assumptions made about WW2 are comical. But it is as true today also, unless you believe in Santa.

All religions exercise hate including the most violent religion Islam. We in the west have lived through and endured centuries of religious brainwashing and slavery, the last thing anyone needs is another one!

Another silly rationalism. Indeed they were! Let me put this as simply as possible:

* Religions put God before Man as the ultimate authority.
* Atheism puts Man as the ultimate authority

These regimes could not exist were they not atheist.

I see. So therefore we can blame every murder done by baseball bats on baseball as without baseball there would be no baseball bats.. The notion is silly.

I see. So therefore we can blame every murder done by baseball bats on baseball as without baseball there would be no baseball bats.. The notion is silly.

Lets pretend there is no religion, then everyone will be good little boys and girls. Is that what you are saying? You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Lets pretend there is no religion, then everyone will be good little boys and girls. Is that what you are saying?

No, that's not what is being said. Some theists try to argue that Stalin etc committed atrocities in the name of atheism - which is cearly ludicrous. It's like saying that I killed in the name of tennis when I slaughtered my wife for having an affair all because I happen to be a member of the local tennis club.

People will still kill each other etc without religion much like hamsters eat their own young without religion, but only a fool would try and claim that those murders were committed because of and in the name of atheism - which is what many theists try to argue.

scholarscorner.com is one such example which states: "What people do in the name of religion is no worse than what people do in the name of atheism."

The statement is nonsense and yet it is what revolvr among others have tried to argue here many times.

Well then you are contradicting yourself and so is everyone else here who said their piece and attempted to justify their bias.

We can even extrapolate the everyone who voted\votes YES is part of a hate group, only they done realize it.

Edit: Well maybe hate, for some but not all, is too strong of a word. Lets use the term bias.

I voted no. Even at their worst, Christians feel they are doing good. I think most Christians are sincere and not hateful. Part of the problem is in separating the world into good and evil, saved and unsaved. The world is too complex to have such a simplistic view, and problems naturally result.

Well then you are contradicting yourself and so is everyone else here who said their piece and attempted to justify their bias.

Apologies, but how? All I have done here is point out the problem with revolvr's erroneous satements. Where have I contradicted anything?

LOL LOL LOL LOL!

Hey, did you know that 95.7 percent of all statistics are made up right on the spot?

An atheist regime? Pulleeeese.

This is one of the silliest things I have heard of in a long time!

I don't have time to show just how silly, but just off the top of my head, Denmark, Norway and Finland are in the top ten atheist countries, and they are also in the top ten most crime ridden countries..


What are you smoking? Denmark and Finland, most crime ridden? Here are some statistics I didn't make up.

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/graphics/statistics30a.gif

Here are some statistics I didn't make up.



:D, that looks funny spidergoat. Well it is interesting that Italy is in there:shrug:. And so low too.

All religions exercise hate including the most violent religion Islam. We in the west have lived through and endured centuries of religious brainwashing and slavery, the last thing anyone needs is another one!
**enter secular industrialism**
:eek: