- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- You Won't Believe in Christianity After Seeing This
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| You Won't Believe in Christianity After Seeing This | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 9 2016, 06:18 AM (4,192 Views) | |
|
|
Dec 14 2016, 02:26 PM Post #61 |
|
I just wanted to throw in a few quick points.
The example you use here is not a good one. WW2 was not a religious war, but it was also not an "atheist" war. I think the main problem you seem to have with this discussion is that you aren't understanding what the argument actually is. In the context of this debate, atheism is defined as "non-belief" meaning a belief in no deity. That's it. Lazuli is right in saying that there have been no atrocities committed in the name of non-belief. No murders are committed because of a person's lack of belief in a deity. Christianity, however, is the belief that the Christian god did in fact exist, and several atrocities have been committed due to that belief, i.e. during the time of the Protestant Reformation, in which (mainly) Catholics were killing Protestants because their interpretation of the Bible was considered incorrect. There has never been a comparable struggle chocked up to atheism, not even the Holocaust. Hitler may have been an "anti-theist" as you describe him, but he did not murder mass amounts of Jews because he disagreed with their interpretation of religion; he killed them because of his belief that Aryans were the superior race. Those atrocities were brought about by racism, not atheism. Give me an example of horrible atrocities committed by an atheist regime that were motivated purely by religion, and even then it would never compare to the copious amounts of deaths enacted in the name of religion. "Oh, you believe in a god? Ha! You're gonna have to die" is not something that has been said often in our history as human beings, but "Oh, you don't believe in *insert god name here*?" has been said very frequently as an instigator for violence. That is the source of our argument. Every example you've listed that I'm aware of as being an atheist-motivated violent act was caused by something else, not a lack of belief, which is the basic definition of atheism. |
 |
 
|
| lazerbem | Dec 16 2016, 02:30 PM Post #62 |
 
|
I never claimed WW2 to be caused by atheism. It had nothing to do with it. I was just saying that the largest world conflict wasn't created by religion, to further the point that religion isn't the primary cause of war throughout history. WW2 was not a religious one nor an atheist one. Atheist regimes have less kills due to being in a considerably smaller group that has held power for less time. The comparison is absurd because it ignores the fact that historically speaking, the ratio of atheists to those with religion has been low, especially when it comes to nation leaders. Hence you get more religious atrocities. This does not, however, mean its inherently worse. That's like saying that whites are inherently more evil than blacks because whites have caused more world strife; it ignores the political factors involved. You're splitting hairs with your definition of atheist and religious atrocities. Of course the atheists had other motivations, like thinking that religious people weaken the nation or blaming them for their problems. But if you can clean atheism with that brush, you can do the same with religion. No one kills because of religion in a vacuum, they kill because they believe that X group is offensive to the world for some reason. Both conflicts derive from disliking people who are different from you. Religion justifies atrocities, but it does not create them from nothing. Isis militants wouldn't just throw down their arms and bask in euphoria, they'd just keep on trying to make their rogue state. Probably still suicide bomb too, if the Tamil Tigers are any indication |
 Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2016, 02:37 PM Post #63 |
|
I don't think we were ever making the claim that religion is the primary cause of war throughout history. Why are you still adamantly defending religion here, though? It seems that we've all reached the conclusion that we set out to reach in the beginning--that religion can be harmful to society and has been harmful in the past, clearly more than atheism since you admitted just now that "you get more religious atrocities." You can't exactly argue against that, as it has a ton of evidence to back it up. Not to mention "religion can be harmful to society" is a vague statement to begin with. I guess I'm just not understanding what your point is anymore and why you're so hell-bent (lol religion joke) on defending religious extremism when it has caused so much damage, more so than atheist extremism. Regardless of how much younger atheism is, that's just a fact. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Dec 16 2016, 02:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 16 2016, 06:40 PM Post #64 |
|
I defend religion because the general implication behind the ideas that I was hearing was that the world would be much better off with atheism, and I disagree on that. Not only do I not think it's true, but it comes from an imperialist perspective of needing to civilize the savages with the light of atheism, imo. It's a dangerous way to go, as can be seen from the s***show the ventures into the Middle East for "freedom' have gone. I think any kind of espousing of a global ideology to be dangerous, and that's what I was hearing Edited by lazerbem, Dec 16 2016, 06:42 PM.
|
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2016, 07:17 PM Post #65 |
|
You don't think that the world might be better off without millions of people believing in something that we created as ancient peoples to help explain the workings of the world? There's no need for it to exist anymore. We can explain the world ourselves. Holding onto ancient beliefs is nothing but a step backwards for humanity, or at the very least a hindrance to progression. |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 16 2016, 09:16 PM Post #66 |
|
So you do think indoctrinating young children in to a religion, making them scared of irrational, non-existent threats from non-existent things, or an actual life-threat, for not agreeing or living as slavishly devoted and uncritical in thought as you and some imaginary beings insist they do—and that some religious parents have a right to mutilate the genitals of their children—and then them doing all that to their children under the ridiculous, ingrained belief that it's for their and their children's own good, is an acceptable thing? And don't even bother trying to suggest my position is "indoctrinating them in to atheism", when I've already pointed out it's just a question of other people not being allowed to indoctrinate children in to their nonsense any more than schools or parents are allowed to encourage racism or Nazism—do you even think that's a good thing!?—and that atheism isn't a belief. By rights, it shouldn't even have a name, like there isn't a term for not believing in Bigfoot, or people that don't believe in racist ideals. It is the default; the passive, while belief is active. People acquire irrational beliefs, and even those that later become atheist don't acquire it - they cease believing in the previously held beliefs they did acquire. Inherit. And, at the very least, what religious people do is as bad as forcing children to believe in Bigfoot, and that's still bad. So, do you think the belief that no women, regardless of culture or race, should be oppressed to be simply dangerous? What about the belief that no children of any race or religion should be raped or sacrificed? What about the belief that no one should own another person as a slave? You'd think it worse to hurt the feelings of people within a culture by trying to get them to stop these cruel behaviours, than trying to save the victims? Because that's what you're advocating when you espouse this cultural relativity nonsense. You place higher concern on the feelings of those that cause suffering than those that are made to suffer by them. Not all beliefs are as bad as others, as you and a shameful amount of people believe, and unbelief itself causes no damage whatsoever. Be it Unicorns, Bigfeet, or Dis Pater. Yes, and you're still completely missing the point. You may as well say that there's no point in getting rid of slavery, because other things in life cause people to suffer. Yes, but at least people won't be suffering under slavery. It is in no way a negative. You may as well say that there's no point in giving women equal rights because there are other ways they might suffer. Yes, but at least they won't have the indignity of being second class citizens. Your point that religion is okay because it isn't the only thing causing or potentially causing harm is preposterous. It doesn't matter that other things cause war and suffering—war was also quite clearly the least of the problems with religion I was pointing out—but that a world without religion would have less suffering and cruelty, and with no discernible loss of goodness. Point to me one good thing that requires religion in order to do that good. You can't. Conversely, remove atheism and the potential for suffering and cruelty would increase, as everyone that didn't hold irrational, potentially dangerous or cruel beliefs regarding a supposed deity, now does. Atheism is unbelief in a deity, and any cruelties certain deities might condone or want from them. Unbelief itself does or motivates no wrong; though by now I figure you must be willfully ignoring this. You're still not getting it, and still trying to implicate atheism as in some inane way a potentially dangerous thing. That they were atheist had as much to do with their motivations for cruelty to others as their non-belief in unicorns. Long before you can blame non-belief in something, you'd have to first blame religion for existing to inspire hatred. Or, you can just blame their anti-religious sentiment, which is not the same as non-belief. Only in your head, it seems. Edited by Sandy Shore, Dec 16 2016, 09:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:40 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy