Atheism's biggest lie?

[123everton]

Thinking about a different thread I wondered if a point deserved a question of it's own.
It is often said that religion causes wars, so can anyone please name a truly religious war in the last 200 years? Or even beyond that?

[naomi24]

Keyplus, Ignorant ...................whatever, I don�t like swearing. The fact that English is not your first language is irrelevant. This is insulting in any language.

Everton Imagine if there were no Jews, no holocaust. Is it the fault of Jews that by being Jewish they fueled the Holocaust?

What a ridiculous thing to say. You are still completely missing the point. You asked me for examples of a world without religion, but you appear to be totally incapable of comprehending my answers. The fact is that if religion had never existed, then the holocaust wouldn�t have happened. How could it have happened? There would have been no Jews to persecute - and the same would apply to any religious group that has suffered persecution. Without religion, none of it would have happened.

Octavius, The same applies to you. The holocaust has, without doubt, the substance that you say is lacking in my argument. Incidentally, I asked you to consider a world without the �promised land�, the concept of which would also have the substance you seek, but that�s been ignored.

It seems you, Everton and Keyplus become so angry when anyone criticises religion, and you are so busy defending it that you are quite incapable of giving this hypothetical subject any thought at all. Anger makes for unpleasantness, which is why I feel enough is enough. It�s very difficult to conduct an intelligent discussion when those with whom one is debating refuse point blank to give the subject matter serious consideration. And you say I have my fingers in my ears! A sensible, considered, debate would have been nice, but as I said before, The Cambridge Union this is not - unfortunately!

Au revoir.

[firetracie]

For what it's worth, if anyone is event still watching this thread, I'd like to give my comments on a couple of opinions expressed here.

naomi stated that atheism isn't a belief - it's a lack of belief and religion is a fantasy. In that statement you proved your atheism to be a belief.

A belief is 'Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something'. Have you received personal proof that there is no God? (and by God please susbstitute, Allah, Jehovah, Supreme Being, Goddess - whatever fits easiest with the way you think). You may have seen no evidence of a God, been convinced by no argument for a Supreme Being and feel that any religious text is nothing but fantasy. However, you have no proof that God doesn't exist. You 'believe' that God doesn't exist - a judgement you have come to through sound, rational and intelligent thinking probably - but is still unproven and, therefore, a belief. Faith is defined as 'a set of principles or a belief' - ergo Atheism is in itself a 'faith' and your opinion that religion is a fantasy is a 'belief'.

By the same vein those who follow the teachings of a particular religion or church also have no proof that God does exist. They read religious texts and find it stirs more than cynicsm. They 'feel' somehow an affinity for the teachings and choose to live by their tenets. That is also a 'belief' and a 'faith'.

To state that those who believe in a particular church are fantasists and wrong is to make judgements of them about things which are beyond your knowing to make. That is going down the path of those religious fanatics who make use of their association through faith to justify conflict with an 'alien' community - hence the reason the question was posed here in the first place.

cont..

[firetracie]

I feel that anyone - atheist or religious - who denounces another person solely because of what they believe is insecure in their belief and would do well to question their need to challenge rather than accept. Would you argue against the choice of someone to live as a vegetarian?

You cite the Holocaust as an example of what religion does to the world. Hitler was an insane meglomaniac. If he'd been wronged or felt abused by those who had red hair then they would have been the ones in the concentration camps. His rise to power sprang from the economic hardship of Germany after WW1 and the times and opinions of the people were ripe for exploiting.

If there were no religion, there would still be land, water, minerals, labour for another to covet and desire sufficiently to cause conflict. Religion just makes it easier to find foot soldiers willing to die!

And, keyplus, you stated something to the effect that if a religion asks for the persecution of another just because they're a different religion then it's a 'man made' religion. In my opinion all religions are 'man made'. If God (see my caveat earlier please) has actually provided the information which forms the basis of religion directly to a human mind those words have been transcribed by a person living in a certain time, in a certain place and are subject to that interpretation. Original texts are lost, have been transcribed (again subject to the interpretation of the author), have been translated, edited, modernised and in all actuality are probably vastly different from the orignal message - if you accept it was received in the first place. That makes the current form and interpretation of all tenets subject to dilution, misinterpretation and in extreme cases corruption.

[firetracie]

Those who believe either atheism or religion are entitled to their belief. But no-one has the right to tell another that their belief is wrong. If an individual or group undertake actions which are disrespective of anothers freedoms or endanger anothers life then society may choose to take action to curtail them but persecution by association is wrong - whatever you believe.

[naomi24]

Firetracie, You presume far too much from my contribution to this debate - and that�s a foolhardy thing to do. I haven�t denounced anyone, but you clearly haven�t noticed that. It�s yet another presumption, because you too have simply failed to properly read my posts, and to comprehend the subject matter. We all have personal beliefs of one sort or another, but it seems it�s so difficult for some people to put them aside for a moment to debate a hypothetical situation in an enjoyable, sensible, and thought-provoking manner. I wonder how they ever managed at University - or even at school. Perhaps it�s just as well AB is not the Cambridge Union. Good grief!! This gathering would have been booted out long ago!!!

[keyplus90]

After all its only AB.

[flobadob]

Let's tear this place aparrrrrrrrrrrrrt!!!

[123everton]

Who's angry? My last post ended on quite humourous note, I thought.
It seems the whole world has a tendency to misread your musings, inspiring yet more hissy fits.
You asked me to imagine a world without religion and by definition that would mean no holocaust but I answered that in my posting I asked you to imagine a world without anti-semitism (which would amount to the same result) I further went on to demonstrate that religion was'nt the only VICTIM of Hitler, you clearly misread my post and find this impossible to understand.
But thanks (again) for quoting out of context, I don't quite know who you think you're decieving when you do it?
Toodles.

[123everton]

Oops!
Meant to say, very well put Tracie.
But be warned atheists can get a bit sniffy when their "truths" are described as beliefs, I've said pretty much the same thing here myself, although not as eloquently, what I said was "same meat, different gravy"....

[Octavius]

naomi, personal snipes again? I can't speak for everyone else, but I had an excellent time at school and university, and left the education system (perhaps for the time being) with the highest achievable honour I was aiming for at the time.

firetracie - a fine answer.

[StevenD]

Most religions seem to share the basic 'love thy neighbour, do as you would be done by' message. Unfortunately their leaders and followers have usually interpreted this to mean that it applies only to 'us' and not 'them'.