Original Sin?

Quote: Evenbob

That's insane and we've been down that
road a hundred times. 150 people just
lost their lives because of that awful
god yahweh, that's what were dealing
with in 2015. He's still on the loose in
peoples minds and he's just as blood
thirsty as ever.

Actually the bloodiest century in terms of genocide and percentage of population is the one when Noah, when God destroyed all but 8 people and all animals except 2 of each.

Fundamentalist Islam has nothing to do with Yahweh but the maligned instructions of the prophet Mohammed and the interpretation of those disenfranchised bent on destroying all infidels.

Quote: boymimbo

Fundamentalist Islam has nothing to do with Yahweh but the maligned instructions of the prophet Mohammed.

Mohammed is yahweh's prophet.

Quote: Face

and said reason has not one iota to do with what particular fantasy you subscribe to. The actual cause is nothing more than probability. There are more people now than ever. There are more weapons now than ever. Said weapons are more deadly than ever. Our ability to transport is better than ever. That, not the lack of god(s), is the reason.
.

In the old days god was just an excuse
to go to war anyway. It was all about
getting new slaves, plundering resources,
and acquiring land. The Vatican loves
to point at the 20th century to take the
pressure off the Church for all the
bloodshed they caused in the past. That's
why FrG mentions it all the time, it's in
his official talking points.

Quote: Face

It's just numbers. Quote it if it makes you feel better, but it's not Truth. The only support it brings you are from those who already believe. Anyone who thinks for half a second is going to see the real deal, and likely be turned off by the manipulation.

It is not that simple. The point is that the type of violence that refuses to recognize the humanity of another is the fruit of atheistic materialism. To call someone an infidel or a heretic is to recognize them as a person with dangerous views that threaten the state back in the day. It also recognizes a conversion transforms them into a friend or an ally. If you are just straight up seeking power and wealth then you see other people as nothing more than meatbags to be eliminated. You can't turn them into anything other than jelly to make you happy. This is a level of evil not visited on the world in such a force than we saw in the 20th century in the Holocaust, Stalin's regime, Pol Pot, etc., etc.

Quote: boymimbo

Actually the bloodiest century in terms of genocide and percentage of population is the one when Noah, when God destroyed all but 8 people and all animals except 2 of each.

You can't hang that one on them unless you believe the story of the flood is literally the truth. I don't know what anyone else believes, but I don't think it is a true story, and there is a lack of phisical evidence to indicate that there ever was a global flood.

No, my point is that if you believe the bible literally, then God's decision to rid the world of all life except aquatic was a pretty huge genocide, bigger than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs and more by % of population than any world war or other recorded global catastrophe.

Quote: FrGamble

It is not that simple. The point is that the type of violence that refuses to recognize the humanity of another is the fruit of atheistic materialism. To call someone an infidel or a heretic is to recognize them as a person with dangerous views that threaten the state back in the day. It also recognizes a conversion transforms them into a friend or an ally. If you are just straight up seeking power and wealth then you see other people as nothing more than meatbags to be eliminated. You can't turn them into anything other than jelly to make you happy. This is a level of evil not visited on the world in such a force than we saw in the 20th century in the Holocaust, Stalin's regime, Pol Pot, etc., etc.

It is that kind of thinking that fuels the religious wars - catholics vs protestants, sunni vs shiite, hindu vs muslim, muslim vs christian, etc etc etc.

It seems like only athiests have the TOLERANCE to accept that others have different beliefs, and NOT have to feel the need to change them from heretic to believer.

You keep blaming athiests for all of the evils in the world but really need to take a look in the mirror. Things don't look all that different.

You seem to think that being religious gives you a moral compass. It does not - the organization still has to keep reminding people how to act.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/25/pope_urges_catholics_to_stop_being_so_materialistic_ap/

You want an exercise in materialism? Compare all of those priestly vestments, especially at the top levels of the church, with the Dali Lama.
Pope Francis caused quite a stir with his humility and simpler manner of dress.
Too bad it was such a shocking change, and not always that way.

History simply shows you wrong. Atheists in power are not tolerant to those who believe in God. Maybe those who believe make them feel uncomfortable with their lack of belief or maybe it is because some atheists put themselves in the place of God and therefore despise any competition they can't control. That brings me to an atheistic moral compass. What direction does it point? Is there any true north for an atheist or is it just simply whatever the subjective person decides is right for him or her. The reason the Pope has to keep reminding people how to act is because of sin and because everyone struggles to allow their true moral compass lead them. We often would much rather follow what they want to do or act on their fickle feelings.

In regards to priestly vestments, I have one or two the Churches really own the rest. The religious order priests own nothing but share everything including the vestments in common. I saw once the tiara that Paul VI put on his head once and then took it off and said that no Pope will wear this again until all the poor of the world are fed. If you want an exercise in humility and simplicity, look no further than Jesus Christ.

Quote: Dalex64

It is that kind of thinking that fuels the religious wars - catholics vs protestants, sunni vs shiite, hindu vs muslim, muslim vs christian, etc etc etc.
It seems like only athiests have the TOLERANCE to accept that others have different beliefs, and NOT have to feel the need to change them from heretic to believer.

Very well said indeed, I can't add a thing
to it.

Quote: Dalex64

It is that kind of thinking that fuels the religious wars - catholics vs protestants, sunni vs shiite, hindu vs muslim, muslim vs christian, etc etc etc.

It seems like only athiests have the TOLERANCE to accept that others have different beliefs, and NOT have to feel the need to change them from heretic to believer.

You keep blaming athiests for all of the evils in the world but really need to take a look in the mirror. Things don't look all that different.

You seem to think that being religious gives you a moral compass. It does not - the organization still has to keep reminding people how to act.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/25/pope_urges_catholics_to_stop_being_so_materialistic_ap/

You want an exercise in materialism? Compare all of those priestly vestments, especially at the top levels of the church, with the Dali Lama.
Pope Francis caused quite a stir with his humility and simpler manner of dress.
Too bad it was such a shocking change, and not always that way.

Balls. I accept everyone's different beliefs and I am Christian. My aunt, an atheist, cannot tolerate anyone else's beliefs besides her own. Tolerance is not really a function of religion except those who are extremist in nature. That goes to athiests as well. There are plenty of athiests who are intolerant to those with religious beliefs.

And the largest recent wars that killed the most people were not motivated by religion but by ideology and territory. Even the current war with ISIS is fundamental muslims vs everyone else (including moderate muslims, jews, Christians, and pretty much everyone else but them).