Ed on religion

Crazy Breed wrote:

i know that!!!

my point was Hitler is always considered the biggest monster in history yet Stalin,a Jew,killed way more people than Hitler.

Bush is Luciferian not Christian.

Perhaps its because Stalins death toll had more to do with omitting to care for his people, ie starvation, extreme poverty; where as Hitler is associated with more affirmative conduct so heinous I can't bring myself to type it.
It is a natural inclination to perceive affirmative conduct as something distinct and in this case more frightening then even the grossest of calculated ommissions.
Also that is not to say that Stalin did not actively kill people, he did, many. But not as many, not a specific group of human beings singled out by unjustifiable hatred, and generally not in the same manner. One might be no better than the other, but you can understand why they aren't treated the same.

Big Man wrote:

We are not cells or plants, fish or monkey. We are human. We have a soul and we constitute meaning. We have it in us to wonder about our creator. .

Are we not made of the same cells? Do we have superhuman cells?

Big Man wrote:

Thats arrogant of you to say. How do you know how religion was created?Were you there?.

Just base this on the way its used to this day.....some getting watered down...thankfully.

Big Man wrote:

Take a good look at your history book. The 20century was the experiment with trying out societies without religion.

Think the 20th century was a resounding success.

Big Man wrote:

So he was not a communist then? Man I dont like people going smart on little details. Of course Stalin was a communist, whats up with you? Jews are born Jews, I know that, but Stalin was a Communist, a Nonbeliever and responsible for millions of deaths.

That was my point to tell people its false to think that only religion has blood on its hands. Hitchens and Dawkins are dodging this alot, and its so obvious. The first societies without religion messed up so bad, it was worse than a nightmare. Humanity's darkest our. That is no proof for God or anything, but I'm so tired of hearing that only religion is responsible for wars and hate. Most of the times its greed and the want for more power, i guess. Does anyone here actually think George Bush went to Iraq because of God?

I'm back...

No Bush didn't invade Iraq based purely on his beliefs, but he claims he talks to God and God didn't tell him not to go. That's almost irrelevant though. The fundamental issue here is that if it weren't for religion there wouldn't be such much hatred between Islam and the West. If Allah didn't inspire Muslims to loathe Western culture, e.g. women's ankles, then we wouldn't be facing such serious conflict. The "war" in Iraq stems from disputes over Holy land which dates back decades and decades, long before the actual invasion.

As for Stalin, Hitchens has never dodged this subject. Dawkins doesn't talk about it often because, unlike Hitchens, he's an evolutionary biologist and typically steers clear of discussing politics.

This is Hitchens response to the Stalin argument:

Until 1917, millions of Russians had been told for…hundreds of years that the czar is the head of the church – which he was, the Russian Orthodox Church. That the leader of the country should be something a little more than human. Not a god, but a little more. He’s not divine, but a holy father.

If you’re Josef Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you don’t know how to exploit an inheritance like that: millions of credulous, servile people.

And what does he do? Lysenko’s biology – miracles, we can have three harvests a year if we believe in Lysenko’s biology. Inquisition, heresy hunt, orthodoxy. Everything comes from the top and must be thanked for, and groveled for. A complete replication of the preceding theocracy.

For your argument to have…any force at all, you’d have to point to a society that adopted the teachings of Lucretius, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Albert Einstein…and then fell into famine, dictatorship, torture and genocide. And you won’t, I think, be able to point to such.


I love the last statement. Does any believer envision a society like this, run by those people, would be rife with conflict and bloodshed?

Cosmo wrote:

But, the way I see it... isn't God all loving? Tolerant of our imperfections? Accepting of our flaws? Forgiving of our sins? I just cannot believe He is just this grand narcissist that commands we love Him... because that is not love.

Any Christian with his/her head screwed on would agree with this entirely.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE VALID POINTS ON BOTH SIDES

2 cents